Subject: RE: [Megaco] Only one Primary MGC, why?

From: "Tom-PT Taylor" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2002 23:54:31 -0400

I've just spent a long evening reading the Megaco E-mail from Dec 1998 to
March 1999, and I can't say how it happened.  In December we took some pokes
at the question of the control model, but nothing was resolved.  Christian
Huitema pointed out that MGCP was built on the assumption of a separate MGC
(in theory) for every "endpoint" (i.e. physical termination).  The idea of
MG-level control associations was natural for those of us from telephony
backgrounds.  I skipped over some discussion threads, so maybe that is how I
missed it, but I did not spot the point at which we committed ourselves
firmly to the MG-level model.  I have a vague memory of an E-mail that might
have settled the issue, but I didn't find it.  As I say, the relevant
discussion took place mostly in December 1998.

-----Original Message-----
From: Aleksandr Ryabin [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Tuesday, August 06, 2002 11:01 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [Megaco] Only one Primary MGC, why?

Hi folks,

	I feel like I can be punched to death for bringing up this topic :)
I'm not trying to change anything, but rather get some clarifications.

Knowing the fact that MEGACO came from MGCP, it seems that the
restriction to have only one Primary MGC per MG (that is only one
control association) was explicitly put into MEGACO for some reason,
most likely to solve some problem.

Can someone clarify for me, or point me to some source where I can
get an answer on what are these reason(s) and problems solved?

Thank you very much in advance.
	Aleks

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

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

---

From: Terry L Anderson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 07 Aug 2002 10:02:43 -0400

I will argue that H.248 actually has the same MGC per endpoint or group 
of endpoints capability in its current definition.  We have Virtual MGs. 
 Each VMG can be controlled by a distinct MGC.  A MG must statically 
partition its physical terminations among the VMGs, but a VMG could be 
as small as one physical termination or as big as the entire MG.  It 
seems to me that this is the same functionality as MCGP but decribed 
differently.  What it does NOT allow is an ambiguity about which MGC 
controls a given physical termination.  This restriction is necessary to 
avoid the termination "serving two masters".

-- 

------------------------------------------------------------
Terry L Anderson              mailto:[email-masked]
Tel:732.949.5628   Fax:732.949.7016
Lucent Technologies/INS/Voice Over IP Access Networks
Rm 2G-219A, 101 Crawfords Corner Rd, Holmdel, NJ 07733-3030
http://its.lucent.com/~tla (Lucent internal) http://www.gti.net/tla

---

From: Terry L Anderson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 07 Aug 2002 10:02:43 -0400

--