Re: RFC 4666 M3UA - Reg Request Message

Lincoln,

the format of the TID/DRN labels is not prepared for dynamic handling.
An ASP cannot serve two TID/DRN labels. Moreover, it is not possible
to combine several labels in one.

Regards

/Ilie

On 11/7/06, Haresign Lincoln <[email protected]> wrote:
> Ilie,
>
> Why couldn't you use TID/DRN ranges dynamically?  If the ASPs within the
> AS have knowledge of each other, and each ASP receives a NOTIFY upon ASP
> inactive, another ASP could become ACTIVE.  Not sure what you mean by
> this.
>
> Regards,
> Lincoln
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ilie Glib [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Monday, November 06, 2006 7:00 PM
> To: [email protected]; Haresign Lincoln; [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [Sigtran] RFC 4666 M3UA - Reg Request Message
>
> Brian,
>
> I do not agree that TID and DRN is a broken loadsharing scheme.
> It works perfectly, although it cannot use TID and DRN ranges
> dynamically.
> Even that is possible with AS internal communication.
>
> /Ilie
>
> On 11/6/06, Brian F. G. Bidulock <[email protected]> wrote:
> > 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/
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Sigtran mailing list
> > [email protected]
> > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sigtran
> >
>
>
> --
> Ilie
>


-- 
Ilie