Subject: RE: Megaco response/notify routing

From: "Tom-PT Taylor" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 10:00:37 -0400

I don't think you ever really got an answer to this one.  The basic
principle is that the addressing of requests to a specific peer is
independent of the addressing of responses to that same peer.  Responses
always go back to the addresss/port from which the command originated.
Requests go to the address/port specified by the ServiceChange.  As a
particular example, since you mention them, Notify requests go to the
ServiceChange address.

-----Original Message-----
From: Sayer, Trevor [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Friday, June 15, 2001 4:34 PM
To: [email-masked]'
Subject: Megaco response/notify routing

	Gentlemen

	I believe  the answer is 'No', but  is  the behavior of Megaco the
same as MGCP with respect to routing of responses and notifies in
particular:-

	Should  an MG route responses back to the command source IP
address/port,  even if this is different from the IP/Port negotiated by the
ServiceChange,  when the MG first established communication with the MGC.
Or  should the MG reject commands from sources different from the
ServiceChange negotiation.

	Megaco does not have a  notifyEntity parameter,  but should a MG
send notifies to the source  IP address/port of the last command received
for a given endpoint or should notifies always be sent to the IP/Port
negotiated with the ServiceChange.

	In summary,  does a Megaco  MGC have to appear to the MG as a single
IP/Port from which all commands are received and all responses/notifies are
sent or can endpoints be controlled  from MGC IP address/ports   which are
different from the IP/Port negotiated by the ServiceChange.

	Differences between the two protocols in this area has a large
impact on the MGC design with respect to performance  scalability and fault
tolerance.

	Any comments/opinions would be greatly appreciate.

	Trevor Sayer
	Siemens Carrier Networks
	Lake Mary, FL

	Tel 407-942-4176