Re: RFC 4666 M3UA - Reg Request Message

Brian,

Please can you give an ISUP related example where LOADSEL draft does
better than RKs with CICs.

Thank you in advance

/Ilie


On 11/7/06, Brian F. G. Bidulock <[email protected]> wrote:
> Lincoln,
>
> The deficiency addressed by LOADSEL, as described in the Overview
> section 1.4., is that existing approaches are not amenable in the
> following situations:
>
>  a) Connection- or Transaction-Oriented traffic flows which group
>     the message corresponding to a connection or transaction.
>
>  b) Large scale ssytems that need to adapt to dynamic traffic
>     loading.
>
>  c) Systems that need dynamic reconfiguration under ASP control
>     for maintenance or fail-over purposes.
>
>  d) Systems that require ASP control over load-sharing (such as
>     those that attempt to minimize state sharing while maximizing
>     reliability).
>
> But that is contained in the overview of the draft...
>
> --brian
>
> Haresign Lincoln wrote:                 (Tue, 07 Nov 2006 13:41:13)
> > Ilie,
> >
> > Personally, I don't see how CICs can work in the old M3UA draft.
> >
> > And I'm still trying to determine what the actual requirements are.
> >
> > Do AS share the same PC as the SG when working with CICs or do we
> > require a different PC?
> >
> > I think the first issue is to define all the requirements.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Lincoln
> >
>
> --
> Brian F. G. Bidulock
> [email protected]
> http://www.openss7.org/
>


-- 
Ilie