Re: M3UA Notification and Routing Context

Amir,

Sure, I suggest you submit an ERRATA.

--brian

[email protected] wrote:              (Fri, 05 Mar 2010 13:27:28)
> 
> Brian,
> 
> 
> Than I guess RFC should clearly state this, rather than saying it just
> "optional". Can we treat this as a update in M3UA RFC.
> 
> 
> Thanks
> aamir
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brian F. G. Bidulock [mailto:[email protected]] 
> Sent: Friday, March 05, 2010 1:38 AM
> To: Khan, Amir [NETPWR/INDIA/HYDE]
> Cc: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [Sigtran] M3UA Notification and Routing Context
> 
> Amir,
> 
> RC should likely be marked "conditional" instead of "optional".
> 
> --brian
> 
> [email protected] wrote:              (Thu, 04 Mar 2010 21:42:20)
> > 
> >    Hi All,
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >    Does it become mandatory for SG to send Notify message ("Alternate
> ASP
> >    Active") with Routing Context, when the concerned ASP is a part of
> >    multiple AS. So that the concerned ASP can use this RC to become
> >    INACTIVE for the related AS.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >    E.g. If  ASP1 is Actively processing traffic for both AS1(Override)
> >    and AS2(Loadshare) and another ASP2 of AS1 becomes ACTIVE, Do SG
> then
> >    needs to send Notify message ("Alternate ASP Active") with AS1
> Routing
> >    Context, which ASP1 will use to become INACTIVE for AS1.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >    Please comment.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >    Thanks
> > 
> >    aamir
> 
> > _______________________________________________
> > Sigtran mailing list
> > [email protected]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sigtran
> 
> 
> --
> Brian F. G. Bidulock
> [email protected]
> http://www.openss7.org/
> _______________________________________________
> Sigtran mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sigtran

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