Re: RFC 4666 M3UA - Reg Request Message

Lincoln,

This simplest approach, and that taken by LOADSEL, is that, if a message
does not correspond to a registered/configured load selection range, it
is load shared over the active ASPs for the AS using the normal
loadsharing mechanism (i.e, SLS, round-robin, dedicated default ASP).
Thus, the selected ASP can apply the appropriate unequipped CIC
treatment and the SG does not require knowledge of ISUP.

The same is true for SSN and TID for SUA.  If you recall our recent
discussion regarding TID and DRN labels, the same principles apply.
LOADSEL is a more workable replacement for the broken TID/DRN label
mechanism.

LOADGRP is even more sophisticated.  It is possible for the ASPs to
specify that a given Load Selection (CIC 1-3200) is Active/Standby
within a load group and the SG can fail this specific load selection
from one ASP to its alternate, again without knowledge of the upper
layer protocol (beyond syntactically extracting the load key from the
message).

--brian

Haresign Lincoln wrote:                       (Mon, 06 Nov 2006 15:07:17)
> Brian,
> 
> Let me see if I understand correctly.  You are saying that we can
> distribute load within an AS using LOADSEL.  Does this imply that all
> CICs are covered.
> 
> For example, if the SG is receiving messages from OPC1 for CICs 1-3200
> and OPC2 for CICs 1-3200, then there must be an AS that handles all of
> these incoming IAMs.  Or, are you saying the SG has no ISUP knowledge,
> and it is just looking at the CIC value and perhaps distributing load to
> the AS that is registered to receive traffic from OPC1 for example.
> 
> Regards,
> Lincoln
> 

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