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

If you can send an example message flow, that would be really helpful to understand the scenario you are mentioning in detail.

   Thanks,
   Tolga

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2007 10:39 PM
> To: Asveren, Tolga
> Cc: [email protected]
> Subject: RE: RE: RE: [Sigtran] 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 doesn’t 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
> 
> --------------------------------->
> 
> jackey chen:
>    SCTP multihoming just for the reliant SCTP Association,but SP(server
> Process)'S Status contains FAILURE,
> And to an endpoint,more than one SP(server Process)'S are used for
> traffic,so changeover/changeback of SP(server Process) is very
> important for the traffic(no data be discarded).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>                    扑
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> ====================================================
> 南京市雨花台区紫荆花路68号中兴通讯大厦中心研究院3G平台软件二部
> 电话：(86)25－52877532,#02587532 ***(NEW)***
> 电邮：[email protected]
> MSN: [email protected]
> 邮编：210012
> ====================================================