Re: Regarding hostname/ip address based routing in SUA
"Rabindra Nath Tiwari" <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.sigtran |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <2690213D5CBF0C479454EE80957DA8BD257AD9@in-exchange> |
Hi Brian, As you have mentioned that hostname/IP address based routing in SUA is underspecified, can we expect any further version of SUA RFC which would address these open points? Please note that I am asking for this information because due to the existence of these open points in RFC, from the implementer point of view it becomes taking an implementation specific approach to address these open points. Thanks and Regards, Rabindra Nath Tiwari -----Original Message----- From: Brian F. G. Bidulock [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, December 29, 2008 7:39 PM To: Ashish Gupta Cc: [email protected]; Rabindra Nath Tiwari Subject: Re: [Sigtran] Regarding hostname/ip address based routing in SUA Ashish, Hostname/IP address in SUA is broken and underspecified. Further it attempts to extend SCCP which is outside the scope of the RFC. I fully expect it to fall out of use. --brian Ashish Gupta wrote: (Mon, 29 Dec 2008 18:55:35) > > Hi, > > > > I have two questions regarding the hostname/ip address based routing > in SUA, about which the RFC doesn't talk about. > > > Q 1) I believe that hostname/ip address based routing will be of use > in the All-IP network, i.e. IPSP-IPSP mode of communication. Hence, > the SSNM messages generated by SUA layer in this scenario will be the > result of the invocation of the N-STATE primitive only (having > affected hostname/ip address and SSN). Unlike, the SG-ASP mode of > communication where the SSNM messages will also be generated as a > result of invocation of the N-PCSTATE primitives. Please clarify if my > understanding is correct. > > > Q2)Inline with the previous question, since hostname/ip address based > routing will be used by SUA-USER in only ALL IP domain, so what, if at > all, would be the usage of network appearance in this scenario. As > network appearance parameter has the primary importance of identifying > the point code format in the SS7 interworking domain. I believe that > SUA can refrain from using network appearance parameter in this > scenario. Please clarify if my understand is correct. > > > > > Thanks, > > Ashish > _______________________________________________ > Sigtran mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sigtran -- Brian F. G. Bidulock [email protected] http://www.openss7.org/