RE: RFC 4666 M3UA - Reg Request Message

Brian,

See my responses below.

-Jitin

-----Original Message-----
From: Brian F. G. Bidulock [mailto:[email protected]] 
Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2006 1:52 AM
To: Bhandari, Jitin (Jitin)
Cc: 'Ilie Glib'; Haresign Lincoln; [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Sigtran] RFC 4666 M3UA - Reg Request Message

Jitin,

I don't see how you can possibly need to split CIC ranges across ASPs,
and why you could possibly need to register them dynamically even if you
did.
>>>>>> See network topologies of MGs and you would realize the through put and capacity requirements for MGC. 

It think that you are expecting M3UA to solve internal MGC design issues
that it was never intended to solve.
>>>>>>> No. We are just trying to standardize an issue which is present out there in the network and we see everyday. My discussions are purely from the nature of inter-ops between MGC & SG. If only Point code based routing is only the scope and requirement for SIGTRAN, then we do not need any further modification to RFC 4666.

Why do you need to do this at all?
>>>>>>>>> MGs handle resources are all deployed geographically everywhere. MGs do have large capacity upto 80K CIC resources and beyond. You would need that much processing power (distributed of-course) to handle each one such MG which could further be 100s in number.  Also, it is not necessary that each MG will be handled by all ASPs on the MGC. It is also not necessary that we always perform Load sharing model between ASPs supporting One MG. The specs should provide full flexibility. 

Why do you not just place two ASPs in front of your MGC and distribute
by CIC within the MGC architecture to your heart's content?
>>>>>>>> Thanks for the suggestion. One could easily implement this model and have arbitration logic for CICs at centralized ASP on the MGC. On the same lines, then, why do we need LOADSEL? One could implement such LOADSEL model at MGC on the ASP in the same fashion. Also, see my above network topology which is a very valid one in real world, where through put and arbitration would be a serious issue with single point of processing and obviously single point of failure (which is in-acceptable for any telecom network). 

Why do you expect the SG (which is obviously distant from the MGC) to
perform this distribution for you?.
>>>>> Because that's what RFC 3332 talked about with introduction of CIC ranges. RFC-4666 is still open about Static Routing key definition on this via LM. It's only ETSI which specifies PC level routing. Either we clearly close the option of Routing key beyond PC or define it in a better way for both Static & Dynamic. Also, Routing key definition should be same for both procedures.

--brian

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