Re: M3UA Notification and Routing Context
Chris Benson <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.sigtran |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Brian, I thought Network Appearance "conditionally" mandated in circumstances such as described early in RFC 4666 ... An example scenario is where an SG appears as an element in multiple separate nationl SS7 networks and the same Signalling Point Code may be reused in different networks. Also there's the issue of Network Appearance being used to distinguish between different semantics of Message Priority, Point Code range etc. Can all of this be done satisfactorily (in the presence of multiple separately administered networks) without Network Appearance? This is not an idle question, as I am currently working as an M3UA implementation provider, to assist a customer combining NA and different RC value to distinguish between different SGs and SGPs, all from the same 1 ASP in 1 AS. With thanks for your speedy resposne, from Chris Benson. On Fri, 5 Mar 2010, Brian F. G. Bidulock wrote: >> Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2010 12:54:00 -0700 >> From: Brian F. G. Bidulock <[email protected]> >> To: Chris Benson <[email protected]> >> Cc: <[email protected]>, <[email protected]> >> Subject: Re: [Sigtran] M3UA Notification and Routing Context >> >> Chris, >> >> How so? I think that NA really is "optional". >> >> --brian >> >> Chris Benson wrote: (Fri, 05 Mar 2010 11:50:43) >> > Amir and Brian, >> > >> > In similar vein to CONDITIONAL Routing Context in NOTIFY, isn't >> > the presence of Network Appearance also CONDITIONAL rather than >> > OPTIONAL in many of the M3UA message formats? >> > >> > With thanks from Chris Benson. >> > >> >> -- >> Brian F. G. Bidulock >> [email protected] >> http://www.openss7.org/ >>