Re: IUA / Layer Management boundary

Ken, thank you for the reply.

Is it M-ASP_STATUS indication in RFC4233 that is passed to inform the local management (at SG side) of the change in status of an ASP (e.g. after ASP Up is received)?
And in this scenario (ASP Up is received by an SGP) M-ASP_UP indication (RFC3868, RFC4666) serves the same purpose, right?



Regards,
Sergey.

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Ken Morneault (kmorneau) 
  To: Sergey Mikhailov ; SIGTRAN 
  Sent: Friday, December 15, 2006 9:26 AM
  Subject: RE: [Sigtran] IUA / Layer Management boundary




  Sergey,

  Yes, RFC4233 should be consistent with the other RFCs.

  Regards,

  Ken



------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  From: Sergey Mikhailov [mailto:[email protected]] 
  Sent: Monday, December 11, 2006 9:43 AM
  To: SIGTRAN
  Subject: [Sigtran] IUA / Layer Management boundary


  Hi,

  section 4.3.3.2 of RFC 4233 mentions M-ASP_Down indication primitive, which is not explicitly defined in Section 1.6.4 (Definition of IUA/Layer-Management Boundary).
  I think such indications are quite reasonable to be employed at SG.

  So it seems 1.6.4 lacks for not only M-ASP_Down indication, but M-ASP_ACTIVE, M-ASP_INACTIVE, M-AS_ACTIVE and M-AS_INACTIVE indications as well, like those defined in RFC 4666 and RFC 3868.

  Any suggestions?


  Best regards,
  Sergey Mikhailov.

_______________________________________________
Sigtran mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sigtran