Re: A question about M3UA association setup between 1 ASP and 2 SGP

David,

Please ignore my question regarding NOTIFY and SHOULD.
I was accidentally viewing a file named rfc3332_bis
- an early draft of RFC 4666 instead of the real 3332.
(Thanks Andrew B.).

However, this difference provides me with the information
that probably led to your "rfc3332 doesn't work".

Thanks from Chris Benson.

On Thu, 14 Apr 2011, Chris Benson wrote:

>>  Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2011 10:34:38 -0700 (PDT)
>>  From: Chris Benson <[email protected]>
>>  To: David Laight <[email protected]>
>>  Cc:  <[email protected]>,
>>      mosbah abdelkader <[email protected]>,  <[email protected]>
>>  Subject: Re: [Sigtran] A question about M3UA association setup between 1 ASP
>>       and 2 SGP
>>  
>>  David,
>>  
>>  >>  rfc3332 doesn't work!
>>  >>  A second loadsharing ASP isn't told the state.
>>  
>>  Do you mean, even if the SG/SGP fully implements all NOTIFY 
>>  aspects of RFC 3332 Section 4.3.4.5?  Or do you mean "it" 
>>  doesn't work if the SHOULD of Paragraph 2 is taken to mean 
>>  "DON'T BOTHER"?
>>  
>>  With thanks, from Chris Benson.
>>  
>>  On Thu, 14 Apr 2011, David Laight wrote:
>>  
>>  >>  Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2011 17:19:41 +0100
>>  >>  From: David Laight <[email protected]>
>>  >>  To: mosbah abdelkader <[email protected]>,
>>  >>      <[email protected]>,  <[email protected]>
>>  >>  Subject: Re: [Sigtran] A question about M3UA association setup between 1 ASP
>>  >>       and 2 SGP
>>  >>  
>>  >>  > It is not a question of interoperability especially
>>  >>  > if the 2 ends are using rfc3332.
>>  >>  
>>  >>  rfc3332 doesn't work!
>>  >>  A second loadsharing ASP isn't told the state.
>>  >>  
>>  >>  
>>  >>  _______________________________________________
>>  >>  Sigtran mailing list
>>  >>  [email protected]
>>  >>  https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sigtran
>>  >>  
>>  _______________________________________________
>>  Sigtran mailing list
>>  [email protected]
>>  https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sigtran
>>