Re: DRST message handling

Kirill,

They are the same.  Neither send to restricted routes as an alternate.

--brian

Shmelev, Kirill wrote:                         (Wed, 31 Oct 2007 09:31:25)
> 
>    Hi,
> 
> 
>    I  have  doubts  about the DRST message. Judging from RFC4666, one can
>    say, that DRST is somewhat similar to the TFR message.
> 
>    The extract from Q.704 (ch. 13.4.3) says:
> 
> 
>    "When  a  signalling point receives a transfer-restricted message from
>    signalling transfer point Y and has an alternative equal priority link
>    set  available  and  not  restricted to destination X, it performs the
>    actions in 8.2."
> 
> 
>    While RFC4666 (ch. 3.4.6) believes:
> 
>    "The M3UA layer at the ASP is expected to send traffic to the affected
>    destination  via  an  alternate SG with a route of equal priority, but
>    only if such an alternate route exists and is available"
> 
> 
>    The difference is in the state of an alternative route, Q.704 proposes
>    to  take into account restricted routes in addition to available ones,
>    while  RFC4666  denies usage of restricted routes. Am I right? If yes,
>    then, why the restricted routes are removed?
> 
> 
>    It  is  quite important for us, in spite of the seeming insignificance
>    of the matter.
> 
> 
>    Looking forward to see an answer
> 
> 
>    Thank in advance,
> 
>    Shmelev Kirill, 

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


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