Re: ????: Re: FW: LS on Clarification of M3UA usage in3GPP networks

I guess, it is crucial to understand that different
people/networks/equipment have different needs. For me, feedback from an
operator is valuable (definitely more than just rhetoric [routers,
directory servers etc... ;-) ] ).

People needed to invent/implement proxying in IPSPs exactly for the same
reasons already mentioned in the latest posts: security, ease of
management, ease of migration etc...)

BTW, yes, I stand by my opinion that M2PA is too heavyweight. People
seem to be happy enough with redundancy provided by SCTP. 

Thanks,
Tolga



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brian F. G. Bidulock [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2008 4:09 PM
> To: Asveren, Tolga
> Cc: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [Sigtran] ????: Re: FW: LS on Clarification of M3UA usage
> in3GPP networks
> 
> Asveren,,
> 
> Asveren, Tolga wrote:                 (Wed, 27 Feb 2008 15:48:52)
> > Could the reason be that some people want to replace traditional
STPs
> with
> > their SIGTRAN equivalents?
> 
> The SIGTRAN equivalent of an STP is an STP.
> 
> The IP equivalent of an STP at MTP is a router, and at SCCP is a
> router and a directory.
> 
> > And they don't want to use M2PA because they think it is
> > heavyweight for their purposes? (Some people do have faith in
> > SCTP ;-) )
> 
> Let me see, you mean that M2PA is to heavyweight but an STP nodal
> function is not?  Strange, it is M2PA that keeps one from having to
> change to much in the STP.  If you don't already have an STP, you
> don't need one (just a router and a directory server).
> 
> >
> > So, I guess, there is the practical, operational side of the coin
> > as well as the purely theoretical/technical one.
> 
> If by practical, you mean legacy, then minimal changes to STP nodal
> functions is paramount: that is best accomplished with existing
> C-links (not even M2PA) and M3UA in pure backhaul model (can be run
> outside the SS7 stack at the STP).
> 
> >
> > I am also aware of cases, where people needed to build IPSPs
> > proxying remote PCs to overcome this problem.
> 
> Why would one ever need to do that?  The only reason for that that
> I can think of is VASP or CAT mediation and that is a whole
> different ball of wax: it is near impossible to apply to the SS7
> network far less one intended to work seamlessly with one.
> 
> --brian
> 
> --
> Brian F. G. Bidulock
> [email protected]
> http://www.openss7.org/