Subject: [Megaco] mapping TerminationNames to PhoneNumbers

From: Fhuval Hittay <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 13:56:10 +0300 (MSK)

Can anyone say, how MGC could know, which phone number belongs to which MG's 
termination?

And one more question:
  Is there any existing standard of communication between MGC's?

Thanks, Fhuval.
----
  http://www.rambler.ru

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

---

From: Christer Holmberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 16:01:49 +0200

Hi,

> Can anyone say, how MGC could know, which phone number belongs to which MG's

I am really not sure what you mean, but if you need that kind of information it is
internal mapping which the MGC has to do itself, since Terminations have nothing
to do with phone numbers.

>   Is there any existing standard of communication between MGC's?

There is no standard saying "this is the protocol that must be used between
MGC's", but there are a numbers which people use: SIP, H.323, BICC, etc etc...

Regards,

Christer Holmberg
Ericsson Finland

---

From: Christer Holmberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 16:01:49 +0200

Hi,

Regards,

Christer Holmberg
Ericsson Finland

---

From: "Balasubramanian Pitchandi" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 09:18:31 -0500

Just to emphasize on Christer's point, there can be a mutual agreement
between the MG and the MGC on how to identify the physical terminations
on the MG, and map it to the Phone numbers. One suggested design is to
have the "TerminationID" to reflect their physical location (Board/Port
in case of RGW or TrunkGroup/TrunkNo in case of TGW). Refer to Section
6.2.2 in RFC3015 for more information.

But remember that it is not necessary for every termination to have an
unique phone number. Multiple terminations can be represented by one
phone number.

Hope this helps.

Thanks
Bala

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
Christer Holmberg
Sent: Friday, March 22, 2002 9:02 AM
To: Fhuval Hittay
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Megaco] mapping TerminationNames to PhoneNumbers

Hi,

> Can anyone say, how MGC could know, which phone number belongs to 
> which MG's termination?

I am really not sure what you mean, but if you need that kind of
information it is internal mapping which the MGC has to do itself, since
Terminations have nothing to do with phone numbers.

>   Is there any existing standard of communication between MGC's?

There is no standard saying "this is the protocol that must be used
between MGC's", but there are a numbers which people use: SIP, H.323,
BICC, etc etc...

Regards,

Christer Holmberg
Ericsson Finland

---

From: "Balasubramanian Pitchandi" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 09:18:31 -0500

Hope this helps.

Thanks
Bala

-----Original Message-----

Hi,

Regards,

Christer Holmberg
Ericsson Finland

---

From: Al Varney <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 08:56:20 -0600

>6.2.2 in RFC3015 for more information.

    Agreed.  Mutual agreement between MG and MGC is needed on termination 
naming (physical and ephemeral).  The "map it to Phone numbers", however, 
is not a mutual agreement.  Phone number assignment/mapping happens only in 
the MGC or by a handshake/authorization defined in some other protocol (not 
H.248).  The MG has no reason to "know" anything about telephone numbers or 
even the concept of "a call".

    Even a TGW might be more flexible if provisioned using 
physical/virtual-port naming, since the TrunkGroup concept in an MGC can 
support trunks in multiple groups (in vs. out) and there may be a need to 
manage/test pre-service trunks that are not part of any group.  (But that's 
just an opinion -- H.248 supports either approach).  In general, the less 
"call knowledge" in the MG the better.

>unique phone number. Multiple terminations can be represented by one

    And multiple phone numbers can be assigned to one termination.  Or a 
termination may have no phone number at all.  Messy stuff best left to the MGC.

Al Varney

---

From: Al Varney <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 08:56:20 -0600

Al Varney

---

From: "Balasubramanian Pitchandi" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 11:17:41 -0500

Oops.. Tht was my mistake!

You are right, the Phone numbers assignment is totally a MGC function
and MG does not have to know anything about it.

-- Bala

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
Al Varney
Sent: Friday, March 22, 2002 9:56 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [Megaco] mapping TerminationNames to PhoneNumbers

>6.2.2 in RFC3015 for more information.

    Agreed.  Mutual agreement between MG and MGC is needed on
termination 
naming (physical and ephemeral).  The "map it to Phone numbers",
however, 
is not a mutual agreement.  Phone number assignment/mapping happens only
in 
the MGC or by a handshake/authorization defined in some other protocol
(not 
H.248).  The MG has no reason to "know" anything about telephone numbers
or 
even the concept of "a call".

support trunks in multiple groups (in vs. out) and there may be a need
to 
manage/test pre-service trunks that are not part of any group.  (But
that's 
just an opinion -- H.248 supports either approach).  In general, the
less 
"call knowledge" in the MG the better.

termination may have no phone number at all.  Messy stuff best left to
the MGC.

Al Varney

---

From: "Balasubramanian Pitchandi" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 11:17:41 -0500

-- Bala

-----Original Message-----

Al Varney