RE: RE: RE: Re: SP Status double endpoint

Hi Jacky,

Sorry for not making my question clear. What I wanted to ask was:
Why do you think we need procedures similar to MTP3 changeover/changeback procedures (or something providing similar functionality)? The M3UA way of achieving NIF/network redundancy is SCTP multihoming; and for the cases where a host itself is down, MTP3 changeover/changeback doesnt help either.

We had a few times discussions about whether SCTP multihoming is enough for NIF/network redundancy (and my impression is neither side could convince the other one) so we still have the original assumption I stated above.

  Thanks,
  Tolga

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2007 3:14 AM
> To: Asveren, Tolga
> Cc: [email protected]
> Subject: RE: RE: [Sigtran] RE: Re: SP Status double endpoint
> 
> 
> 
> >
> > ------->(jacky chen) it is so complex,i think RFC4666 MAY use change
> and
> > changeback procedure like MTP3, maybe it will be easy,
> > just add news messages and procedure like MTP3 does.
> I was wondering when this will come up again :-) . I did not follow this
> thread in full but could you summarize shortly why you believe that this
> is needed?
> 
> ----------------------------------------------
> Jacky chen
> the changeback procedure of MTP3 is mature and easy to be realized,but the
> draft using the CorrectionId
> is not simple .
> 
> and,how do you think about adding parameter into HEATBEAT to check the
> ASP'S  Status In AS of each endpoint ,like STLM/STLA.