Subject: Re: [Sigtran] Re: M3UA Notify message

From: "TOLGA ASVEREN" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 14:20:39 +0200

Brian,

TOLGA,

TOLGA ASVEREN wrote:
(Wed, 26 Feb 2003 12:23:56)
>
> Brian,
>
>
>
>
> TOLGA,
>
> I agree with John Schantz' original objection to this proposal.  The
Notify
> message is advisory only and that requiring a response from the ASP to a
> Notify message is too drastic a change to the protocol.
> [TOLGA]I agree that it is not a minor change, especially just before the
> text was fozen it was not a good option. That is the reason, why the
> sentence saying that ASPs SHOULD coordinate among each other number of
> ACTIVE ASPs is included at the last minute. If people still don't want to
> change advisory meaning of NTFY, then for starting traffic, both ASP and
> SGP SHOULD wait till n ASPs are ACTIVE. So, MAY for SG should be changed
to
> SHOULD. This change is already done in IG.

You cannot place a "SHOULD" on the SG's interaction with the SS7 network
(directing traffic).  That is why it says "MAY" and must remain as "MAY".
[TOLGA]The sentence is, "An SGP or IPSP, upon reception of an ASP Active
message for the first
   ASP in a Loadshare AS, MAY choose not to direct traffic to a newly
active ASP until it determines that there are sufficient resources to
handle the expected load (e.g., until there are "n" ASPs in state
ASP-ACTIVE in the AS)." (In IG MAY is changed to SHOULD) It is not about
directing traffic to SS7 network but to ASPs. Why is this considered as an
interaction of SG with SS7 network? Or how is this different than saying
that for non n+k case SGP should not direct traffic unless there is one
ACTIVE ASP? And as I said, opening the path unidirectionally is not the
best choice in my opinion and should be avoided.

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

---

From: "Brian F. G. Bidulock" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 06:40:41 -0700

TOLGA,

TOLGA ASVEREN wrote:                                                                 (Wed, 26 Feb 2003 14:20:39)
> interaction of SG with SS7 network? Or how is this different than saying

See example from previous note.  The SG needs to interact with SS7 to direct
traffic to an ASP when an AS first becomes active.  Where else is it to get
the traffic that was previously suppressed?

Also, the SG could take immediate action to direct traffic that will not
appear for some time depending on the RK the AS is configured for.  For
example, ISUP will only test remote user part availability periodically.
The SG could direct traffic immediately and the traffic could show up several
minutes later.

It is even impossible to talk about the traffic that the SG is "directing"
without giving consideration to SS7 users involved.  The only way the SG
can "direct" any SS7 traffic in this situation is by taking actions within
the scope of SS7 and outside the scope of M3UA.

You cannot say SHOULD.

Leave the RFC as it stands.

> best choice in my opinion and should be avoided.

I already explained to you: there is no "unidirectional path".  This
is not a switch that you turn on an the current flows.

--brian

-- 
Brian F. G. Bidulock
[email-masked]
http://www.openss7.org/