Subject: [Megaco] Use of 'failover' and 'disconnected'

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2001 11:43:12 +0530

Hi Dan

 We have tried to capture this and other such scenario in the draft on Control
Association which we floated a couple of days ago.
For the answer to your question, please refer to  Section 9.1 (4) of this draft,
which defines the 'Association Switchover phase'  of a Control association life
cycle.

Regards
Shiv

---------------------- Forwarded by Shiv Kumar/HSS on 08/29/2001 11:25 AM
          ---------------------------

Dan Elbert <[email-masked]> on 08/29/2001 03:00:43 AM

To:   "'megaco'" <[email-masked]>
cc:    (bcc: Shiv Kumar/HSS)

Subject:  [Megaco] Use of 'failover' and 'disconnected'

Hi
In the Implementors' Guide it say that the "failover" method with "MGC
Impending Failure" reason is to be use by the MG to connect to an alternate
MGC if the current MGC fails. In the spec the "disconnected" method is
defined as to be used when connecting again to an MGC when the connection
was lost. I believe that the implication in this case is that the MG wasn't
connected meanwhile to some other MGC. Is that right ?
In some cases it may not be clear what method to use, for example if we have
2 MGCs in the list, are currently connected to MGC1, loose the connection,
don't succeed to connect to MGC2 and finally reconnecting to MGC1, should we
use "disconnected" or "failover" ? And if did succeed in connecting to MGC2
and lost the connection, when reconnecting to MGC1 should we use "failover"
?

Thanks
Dan Elbert
RADVISION

_______________________________________________
Megaco mailing list
[email-masked]
http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/megaco