Re: RE: correct Error code
"Brian F. G. Bidulock" <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.sigtran |
|---|---|
| Organization | http://www.openss7.org/ |
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Dario, No not SGP-ASP, just SGP. RC, when statically configured, also should be coordinated across the SGP making up the same SG (as alluded to in RFC 4666 1.4.1) and should be coordinated across SG in a mated STP configuration (as also alluded to in RFC 4666 1.4.1). Yes, its an operational consideration, and that is why it is not required by the RFC, but it makes sense from a provisioning and monitoring standpoint. I think Tolga's example was hypothetical. --brian Dario wrote: (Mon, 02 Apr 2007 02:20:52) > > Hi, > Tolga, according to your examples, the RCs are unique per SGP-ASP > combination. > RFC 4666 Section 4.4.1. "Registration" states the following: > > "A unique Routing Context value assigned to the SGP Routing Key is > included. The method of Routing Context value assignment at the SGP > is implementation dependent but must be guaranteed to be unique for > each Application Server or Routing Key supported by the SGP." > > Can you clarify: is RC unique on SGP or per SGP-ASP combination? > thanks! > Best regards, Dario > > -- > View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/correct-Error-code-tf3485042.html#a9787369 > Sent from the IETF - Sigtran mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > > > _______________________________________________ > Sigtran mailing list > [email protected] > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sigtran -- Brian F. G. Bidulock [email protected] http://www.openss7.org/