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

From: Aleksandr Ryabin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 06 Aug 2002 11:01:13 -0400

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

---

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,