Re: RFC 4666 M3UA - Reg Request Message

Jitin,

Bhandari, Jitin (Jitin) wrote:                   (Wed, 08 Nov 2006 16:52:59)
> Brian,
> 
> I think you would agree to the fact with 100s of MGs handled hence by 100s
> of ASPs (within one MGC) with each ASP may be handling 100,000 CICs is a
> real network. CIC resources are large (80K or more per MG) and MGC call
> handling (ISUP, Call Control etc) is distributed in nature.

I think your example is for the wrong protocol.  MGs are controlled by an
MGC-MG control protocol such as the IETF standardized GCP.

If you are meaning to say that you would like to lump all 100,000 CICs into
a single SSP connected to the SS7 network you will even need more than one
point code.  There is nothing stopping you from assigning 10 point codes to
your MGC complex.  The SS7 network (and the SG) however, does not care how
you distribute messages related to a given CIC within your MGC complex.

If you have multiple MGCs, each is a separate entity from the viewpoint of
the SS7 network, and each gets a point code.

> 
> And if you agree to that then every MGC provider would have to worry about
> arbitration logic built in within some centralized ASP because the fact is
> that there are multiple ASPs (100s) handling traffic with each MGC.  As from
> my previous email, either we have centralized ASPs (even two to avoid SPOF)
> to arbitrate traffic between all ASPs (assuming handling ISUP & Call
> Control) or have such problems being solved by M3UA.

The SG cannot distribute traffic within your MGC complex for you.  However,
you could use M3UA _within_ your complex in whatever proprietary fashion you
choose.

> 
> I thought SIGTRAN RFC-3332 just tried to solve that issue and that's what
> the discussion was all about.

Well no, RFC 4666 (RFC 3332 is obsolete) is a proposed standard that provides
transparent transport of MTP-User messages between an SG and an MGC: not for
distributing message within an MGC.  See the architecture document, RFC 2719.

> 
> It's fine with me if SIGTRAN and specially M3UA want to stay in the domain
> of Point Code based routing for MGC (usually distributed ASP model) and move
> the problem into MGC domain. Then in that case we don't even need LOADSEL
> like algorithms as the issue is MGC centric.

I agree.  The issue is MGC centric and no change to the RFC is necessary.

If, however, some body would like to standardize distribution within the MGC
complex, LOADSEL/LOADGRP provide an good basis.  We should clean them up with
that clearly stated and publish them as INFORMATIONAL RFCs to provide
organizations such as SCOPE or CP-TA with a basis for further standardization.

--brian

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