Re: Sigtran Digest, Vol 46, Issue 5

Hello, Tolga

I quotes your sentence is to say we should forward, shall move on. 

Technology should contribute to the productivity of society. Specification 
is the one we all give respect to, because it represents evolution,open,agreement. 
That's why we go here IETF forum.
  
You couldn't image the hard of management of a large network in China as you cann't image 
the density of people here, street, station...  I have no any hostility to say this.

The view is different from operator's angles. Security, easy of GT management, effective Monitoring,
smooth evolution is very important to them.

Because you would like to hear operator's opinion, I don't say more.  But as I know, alcatel-lucent has 
large capacity IPSTP/SG product. Other vendors also have, including US vendor.

       
Best Regards
Li Xinyan
-----Original Message-----
From: Asveren, Tolga [mailto:[email protected]] 
Sent: 2008年2月27日 2:48
To: LI Xinyan; [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: RE: [Sigtran] Sigtran Digest, Vol 46, Issue 5

Bryan, Li,

Just summarizing my personal thoughts on this issue:

1) I think using SNMM messages as described, e.g. sending DUPU from ASP to SG, is conceptually against the philosophy of M3UA protocol (It is not an oversight).

2) IMHO, STP type nodes make sense even in IP domain for reasons like security, ease of management etc... I would be interested to hear what operators think about this as they are the ones which actually deploy and use the systems.

3) I am not sure the difficulty arising from configuring sub-PC RKs is significant. Again, would like to hear operator's opinion.

4) It makes sense to me to base something like M3UA SG-SG/M3PA on SSNM (AFAIR -it really has been a long time-, last version was using SSNM).

Thanks,
Tolga



> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On 
> Behalf Of LI Xinyan
> Sent: Monday, February 25, 2008 9:29 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [Sigtran] Sigtran Digest, Vol 46, Issue 5
> 
> Hello, Brain
> 
> I don't agree with you.
> 
> brain wrote:                              (2008年2月25日 16:30)
> >Be very clear: when you are using the ASP/SG configuration, the SG is 
> >simply backhauling its local MTP/MTP-User interface to the ASP.
> 
> [lxy]
> You are the author of M2UA? M2UA is a complete backhauling protocol.
> But M3UA has more wide use than M2UA, it can apply to backhauling 
> scenario, and also STP like scenario.
> That is why M3UA is recommended in 3GPP not M2UA, We wish we can 
> extend M3UA in order to apply SIGTRAN more widely in Mobile Network.
> Not say"SG-SG", even for "SG-ASP", current M3UA has shortcoming in 
> SSNM handling.
> M2UA can inherit the management of SS7, but M3UA cann't. So this part 
> of M3UA should be strengthened.
> 
> I totoally agree with Tolga's opinion.
> "
> >BTW, it is a pitty/shame we couldn't evaluate M3UA SG-SG/M3PA ideas
> properly in this WG,
> >as this seems to me exactly what people out there are looking for 
> >(and
> possibly would allow them
> >to use a single protocol throughout their networks, rather than a
> M3UA/M2PA hybrid).
> 
> >Thanks,
> >Tolga
> "
> 
> What's more, M3UA with flexible RK is an advantage. Operator can 
> select different granularity RK in various scenarios.
> But you cann't suppose all use RK with SI, to split PC based RK out.
> 
> 
> Regards
> Li Xinyan
_______________________________________________
Sigtran mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sigtran