Re: RFC 4666 M3UA - Reg Request Message
"Ilie Glib" <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.sigtran |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Lincoln, instead of > An ASP cannot serve two TID/DRN labels. I wanted to say "An ASP cannot serve two TID/DRN labels PER AS". /Ilie On 11/7/06, Haresign Lincoln <[email protected]> wrote: > Ilie, > > You're right. The problem of TIDs/DRNs is different than CICs as loss > of an ASP will only result in loss of calls in progess. The SG will > reshuffle new BEGINs to the remaining ASPs. With CICs it's a little > more of a problem as CICs are being assigned by the network as it > initiates a call and not by the ASP. > > I'm unclear what the proposal is for CICs. Is it to be used as an RK > which implies routing decisions on an AS level, or is it more like the > TID which implies routing decisions on an ASP level. > > Regards, > Lincoln > > -----Original Message----- > From: Ilie Glib [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Tuesday, November 07, 2006 11:47 AM > To: Haresign Lincoln > Cc: [email protected]; [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Sigtran] 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 > -- Ilie