Subject: RE: [Megaco] Failure of MGC

From: "Kaul, Bharat" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2001 16:52:53 -0700

My comments are given below

-----Original Message-----
From: Terry L Anderson [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2001 3:49 PM
To: Madhu Babu Brahmanapally
Cc: [email-masked]

Let's discuss this before I write specific language.  I propose
Graceful:  MG->MGC only

[Bharat]  Alright with me

Forced: MG->MGC & MGC->MG
Restart: MG->MGC & MGC->MG

[Bharat] What would be the difference between two methods when direction is
MGC->MG ?

Disconnected: MG->MGC only

Handoff: MG->MGC & MGC->MG (as currently specified)

[Bharat] Handoff from MG->MGC ? What does this mean ? So far I think
specifications define handoff from MGC->MG only wherein MGC wants an MG to
contact another MGC for further communication.

Failover: MG->MGC only (only direction currently specified)
[Bharat] This is ok.

_______________________________________________
Megaco mailing list
[email-masked]
http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/megaco

---

From: Terry L Anderson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2001 09:36:11 -0400

> [Bharat] What would be the difference between two methods when direction is

Well I assume that the most common is MG->MGC.  MG signals that it wants (local
GUI cmd or fault detected on TDM line, ...) to take one or more terminations
down.  It sends Forced or Graceful and then Restart when it wants them back
up.  MGC responds by Subtracting the terminations from any non-NULL Context and
not Adding them.

I assume that some may want MGC to be able to also take lines out-of-service
(due to central mainenance decision, SS7 signaling, ...).  For most purposes it
need not even inform MG, it simply Subtracts the terminations from any non-NULL
contexts and avoids any Adds, but it may be useful to send Forced to the MG to
make it aware that the lines are out of service.  This would be especially
useful for analog lines so the MG would not accept inbound calls (of course
turning off all events should accomplish this).  In any case there is little
the MG might do other than setting the state and replying with it to any
Audits.  But I see no reason to restrict it.

> contact another MGC for further communication.

The current version H.248 states in the definition (I am not suggesting a
change):
    "Sent from the MG to the MGC, this indicates that the MG is attempting to
establish a new association in accordance with a Handoff received from the MGC
with which it was previously associated."

--
Waiting for the other shoe to drop but hoping its a one legged man.
------------------------------------------------------------
Terry L Anderson              mailto:[email-masked]
Tel:908.582.7013   Fax:908.582.6729
Lucent Technologies/INS/Voice Over IP Access Networks
Rm 2B-121, 600 Mountain Av, Murray Hill, NJ 07974
http://its.lucent.com/~tla (Lucent internal) http://www.gti.net/tla

---

From: "Madhu Babu Brahmanapally" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2001 10:04:15 -0400

Hi Terry,
This is perfectly fine. If possible, text can be added related to the
Restart Method on ROOT termination from MGC(from the "ServiceChange Method
Usage" thread), if MGC specifies a ServiceChange Address, further requests
from the MG (Ex for Registration) will be sent to the newly specified
ServiceChange Address(If present). (I'm not sure if people have different
opinions, as the control association is broken, whether the MG should still
act on the (earlier controlling)MGC specified parameters).

Regards
Madhubabu

-----Original Message-----
From: Terry L Anderson [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Friday, July 27, 2001 9:36 AM
To: Kaul, Bharat
Cc: Madhu Babu Brahmanapally; [email-masked]'
Subject: Re: [Megaco] Failure of MGC

> [Bharat] What would be the difference between two methods when direction
is

Well I assume that the most common is MG->MGC.  MG signals that it wants
(local
GUI cmd or fault detected on TDM line, ...) to take one or more terminations
down.  It sends Forced or Graceful and then Restart when it wants them back
up.  MGC responds by Subtracting the terminations from any non-NULL Context
and
not Adding them.

I assume that some may want MGC to be able to also take lines out-of-service
(due to central mainenance decision, SS7 signaling, ...).  For most purposes
it
need not even inform MG, it simply Subtracts the terminations from any
non-NULL
contexts and avoids any Adds, but it may be useful to send Forced to the MG
to
make it aware that the lines are out of service.  This would be especially
useful for analog lines so the MG would not accept inbound calls (of course
turning off all events should accomplish this).  In any case there is little
the MG might do other than setting the state and replying with it to any
Audits.  But I see no reason to restrict it.

The current version H.248 states in the definition (I am not suggesting a
change):
    "Sent from the MG to the MGC, this indicates that the MG is attempting
to
establish a new association in accordance with a Handoff received from the
MGC
with which it was previously associated."