Re: CIC as a RK

Ilie,

I do not think that interoperability between single-vendor processes
within the MGC complex is an issue.  Distributing CIC is not something
that an SG need do, as SS7 cannot do it and the aim of M3UA is simply
to tranparently transport MTP-User messages with some degree of
reliabilty (approaching that afforded by the SS7 network).

--brian


Ilie Glib wrote:                            (Thu, 09 Nov 2006 19:17:46)
> Brian,
> 
> still interoperability between SG and ASPs is an issue here, otherwise
> there is no reason to do anything related to CICs.
> 
> Regards
> 
> /Ilie
> 
> On 11/9/06, Ilie Glib <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Brian,
> >
> > I do agree with your statement below.
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > /Ilie
> >
> > On 11/9/06, Brian F. G. Bidulock <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > Lyndon,
> > >
> > > I believe that at least Jitin an I agree that distribution of messages
> > > on CIC range is a matter to be dealt with within the MGC complex and
> > > not by the SG (not even SS7 is capable of distributing CIC ranges
> > > across signalling points).  As the MGC is largely a single vendor
> > > environment, I do not believe that interoperability is at issue and
> > > the matter should not be dealt with by the main RFC.
> > >
> > > --brian
> > >
> > > Lyndon Ong wrote:                        (Thu, 09 Nov 2006 12:20:11)
> > > > Hi Guys,
> > > >
> > > > I've been watching the discussion with interest, but am not sure if
> > > > a consensus is developing (a problem with this group for a while).
> > > > Can people state what they think is the best approach?
> > > >
> > > > e.g, work within the current (updated) M3UA, define some extension
> > > > to the M3UA, work on Brian's LOADSEL proposal?
> > > >
> > > > Lyndon
> > > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Brian F. G. Bidulock
> > > [email protected]
> > > http://www.openss7.org/
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Ilie
> >
> 
> 
> -- 
> Ilie

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