RE: RFC 4666 M3UA - Reg Request Message

"Bhandari, Jitin (Jitin)" <[email protected]>
Newsgroups gmane.ietf.sigtran
Message-ID <4F9DBE266768DC46A1F17E875D3716411AEBF0A9@ma8117exch002u.inse.lucent.com>
Brian,

No where in the RFC-3332, I understand the interpretation of CIC ranges is limited to Load Distribution. 

When CIC ranges were a part of Routing Key, they can very well be used for routing and be defined as a part of Routing key. Since, OPC-DPC-CIC values uniquely identify a resource on the ASP and can very well be treated is unique routing key from RFC definition. 

I very well understand when you talk about CIC & TID being just an element from Load Sharing perspective but for the same analogy if CIC & TID are for Load distribution, OPC can also be viewed as Load distribution method so as to have multiple ASPs (behind SG) handling parts of SS7 network. It is up-to anyone as how one vision Routing key arbitration at SG for MGC. Limiting the Routing Key definition at RFC level is not fair especially when it was talked about in previous RFC.

My point here is that by getting rid of such parameters at RFC level, we would face many inter-op issues with various vendors in the real work if one has to pick Dynamic Registration Path. We will only end up with many drafts like this one modifying the Registration Request message for handling of SS7 traffic at SG. Inter-op in real world would be a serious issue with such procedures then.

Also, as I mentioned in my previous email, CIC resources being dynamic in nature at MGC, a flow through dynamic provisioning support (from MGC to SG) was provided by having such Keys in the dynamic registration procedure. 

By getting rid of such parameters at RFC level, we are just making Dynamic Registration procedure un-usable.

-Jitin


-----Original Message-----
From: Brian F. G. Bidulock [mailto:[email protected]] 
Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2006 3:11 PM
To: Bhandari, Jitin (Jitin)
Cc: '[email protected]'
Subject: Re: [Sigtran] RFC 4666 M3UA - Reg Request Message

Jitin,

CIC and TID were only applicable to load distribution and not
routing and were therefore removed from the "routing" key.

See

 http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-bidulock-sigtran-loadsel-04.txt

for a equivalent mechanism for controlling load distribution based
on CIC using a "load" key dynamically registered in the REG REQ.

--brian

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