RFC 4666 M3UA - Reg Request Message

"Bhandari, Jitin (Jitin)" <[email protected]>
Newsgroups gmane.ietf.sigtran
Message-ID <4F9DBE266768DC46A1F17E875D3716411AEBF0A7@ma8117exch002u.inse.lucent.com>
Hello,

We looked into the RFC-4666 and now we have serious concerns regarding the routing key parameter for Registration Request Message.

Can anyone please provide us an explanation/background as why did we drop "Circuit Range List" parameter from the Routing Key Parameter description for RFC-4666?

Please refer Section 3.6.1 (RFC-3332) where this parameter was present and Section 3.6.1 for RFC-4666 where this parameter is removed.

CIC Resources are allocated dynamically in SS7 networks and provisioning of CIC resources changes quite often. Dynamic Registration procedure at M3UA is facilitating this flow through provisioning changes between MGC & SG. 

With the omission of this parameter from the Routing Key Definition in RFC-4666, we have limited the scope of Dynamic registration procedure and rather made it un-usable. The current parameters for Routing Key at Registration Request message can very well be defined via Static routing methods (via LM). CIC Range was a key parameter to this message.

Please explain the thoughts behind getting rid of this key parameter from "Routing Key" definition. 

Also, we acknowledge that the Dynamic registration procedure for RFC-3332 had its own limitation but getting rid of CIC Range parameter is only going to make Dynamic registration procedure un-usable.

Please comment.

-Jitin
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.