Re: DRN and TID Label Issues - Issue #7

"Brian F. G. Bidulock" <[email protected]> Wed, 11 Oct 2006 15:10:26 -0600

Newsgroups	gmane.ietf.sigtran
Organization	http://www.openss7.org/
Message-ID	<[email protected]>

Haresign,

Haresign Lincoln wrote:                                                                                                                                                    (Wed, 11 Oct 2006 17:07:16)
> Brian,
> 
> There are two options:
> 
> 1) One AS/ASP is specified to receive messages that don't fit the the
> existing routing criteria.  This is already discussed in the RFC.
> 
> 2) A new non-ACTIVE ASP becomes ACTIVE.
> 
> How you pick up traffic for failed ASPs is implementation dependent.  I
> can think of a number of solutions:
> 
> - dialog info saved in a redundant database
> - information exchanged between ASPs
> 
> This is outside the scope of this discussion, but the same problem
> exists in general for any solution whether using TID routing or not.

Not it does not.  In a loadshare AS, traffic is redistributed over
the remaining active ASP, automatically by specification.  This TID/DRN
label AS _is_ a loadshare AS, but traffic is not redistibuted under
failure.

The LOADSEL draft solves this problem by allowing the ASP to both register
and activate for multiple load selections.

--brian

-- 
Brian F. G. Bidulock
[email protected]
http://www.openss7.org/