Re: single/double exchange mode doubt

Ankit,

I think you are confusing RK provisioning with exchange model.  If you want
to define a new AS with a new routing key, either that routing key, RC value
and AS must be provisioned on both sides, or dynamic RK registration needs
to be done.

--brian

Ankit Kumar Sharma wrote:                      (Mon, 16 Jul 2007 10:12:10)
> 
>    Brian,
>       I think in some scenarios, mixing SE and DE becomes more practical.
>    Please look at following scenario:
>                                                                ----------
>               ------------
>                                                                     |IPSP
>    1|----------------------|IPSP A |
>                                                                ----------
>               -----------
>    1)  IPSP1  is  serving AS-1(PC 111) and IPSP A is serving AS-A(PC 999)
>    with rc=x. They are running happily in single exchange mode.
>    2)  Now,  I want to add an additional AS at IPSP1 ex: AS2(PC 222). For
>    AS2, I need to configure a new RC(rc=y).
>    3)  Corresponding  to  rc=y, I need to send ASP-Active towards IPSP-A.
>    Since  there  is no local AS with rc=y at IPSP-A, it would return with
>    error  code  "invalid RC", unless there is some way to instruct IPSP-A
>    to  behave as a double-exchange IPSP for rc=y. Although I could do the
>    workaround  by adding a dummy AS with rc=y at IPSP-A but that solution
>    is irrational and not so clean.
>    Regards,
>    Ankit
> 
>    On 7/16/07, Brian F. G. Bidulock <[1][email protected]> wrote:
> 
>      Tolga,
>      I  don't see the need for DE in the first place, far less mixing it
>      with SE
>      on the same IPSP.
>      --brian
>      Asveren,  Tolga  wrote:                                (Sun, 15 Jul
>      2007 16:16:48)
>      >  I  was  wondering  whether such a restriction is necessary, i.e.
>      that IPSP
>      > needs to use the same mode for all AS. The state machines are per
>      >  IPSP/AS,  so I would think that it should be possible to operate
>      them
>      > independently.
>      >
>      >  Brian,  is there any specific problem scenario you have in mind,
>      if this
>      > is allowed?
>      >
>      >    Thanks,
>      >    Tolga
>      >
>      --
>      Brian F. G. Bidulock
>      [2][email protected]
>      [3]http://www.openss7.org/
> 
> References
> 
>    1. mailto:[email protected]
>    2. mailto:[email protected]
>    3. http://www.openss7.org/

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