Subject: Re: MG to MGC database coordination using SNMP

From: Tom-PT Taylor <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2000 14:59:32 -0500

Basically the agreement is to accept redundancy in the means of providing
this information.  We are developing the capabilities both in the Megaco
protocol and in MIBs.  There are a couple of reasons for this -- timeliness
of information flow to the MGC, and the possibility that the network is
configured so that the MGC does not have direct access to SNMP.  I haven't
been able to put my finger on the thread of discussion related to this issue
-- maybe someone else can remember.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Arik Klein [SMTP:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2000 9:57 AM
> To:   [email-masked]
> Subject:      MG to MGC database coordination using SNMP
>
> As I understand so far, H.248 intends to provide whatever is necessary for
> the MGC to learn the MG's terminations structure and properties (using
> AuditCapabilities).
> Now, assuming that we are talking about a heavy MG, where we have an
> hierarchical tree of terminations, wouldn't it be better to use SNMP just
> for the database learning by the MGC ?
> Is this a new idea or was it raised on the list and rejected for some
> reason
> ?
>
> Thanks,
> Arik

---

From: David Cromwell <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2000 16:45:18 -0500

If you use SNMP to convey this information, call processing, which must
typically be highly available, becomes dependent on the SNMP system which
may not meet the same standards of availability.  Even if it does have the
same availability, you now have two things to break instead of one so you
still wind up with reduced call processing availability.

If this information is carried in the protocol then call processing will be
able to function even if the SNMP system is down.  Since a majority of
audits to discover MG capabilities will be likely be done at MG
initialization, auditing a "heavy MG" shouldn't present a problem because it
is a one time operation that occurs before any calls are routed to the MG.

David
--
[email-masked]                                          Nortel
Networks
ESN:            351-8870
35 Davis Dr
Public:    919-991-8870
RTP, NC 27709

> From: Taylor, Tom-PT [CAR:B904:EXCH]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2000 3:00 PM
> Subject:      Re: MG to MGC database coordination using SNMP
>
> protocol and in MIBs.  There are a couple of reasons for this --
> timeliness of information flow to the MGC, and the possibility that the
> network is configured so that the MGC does not have direct access to SNMP.
> I haven't been able to put my finger on the thread of discussion related
> to this issue -- maybe someone else can remember.
>

---

From: "Rosen, Brian" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2000 18:47:14 -0500

I can

In MANY networks, it is unacceptable to give the MGC manager access to SNMP.
It can be an agent,
not a manager.  It is one of our requirements that this be true.

Brian

        -----Original Message-----
From:   Arik Klein [SMTP:[email-masked]]
Sent:   Wednesday, January 26, 2000 9:57 AM
To:     [email-masked]
Subject:        MG to MGC database coordination using SNMP

        As I understand so far, H.248 intends to provide whatever is
necessary for
the MGC to learn the MG's terminations structure and properties (using
AuditCapabilities).
Now, assuming that we are talking about a heavy MG, where we have an
hierarchical tree of terminations, wouldn't it be better to use SNMP just
for the database learning by the MGC ?
Is this a new idea or was it raised on the list and rejected for some reason

?

        Thanks,
Arik