Subject: Re: [Sigtran] M3UA - ASP database equalization -- allow inactive ASP to audit?

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2003 09:18:05 -0500

Hello All,

I agree that the SG must not be *required* to send *unsolicited* SSNMs to
inactive ASPs.

An idea not considered in the thread so far, however, is *allowing*
(optional) inactive ASPs
to audit and *requiring* an SG to respond to audits from inactive ASPs.

In the case of the override traffic mode example where one has one active
ASP and
possibly many inactive ASPs, perhaps it would make fail-over more
efficient, if the
inactive ASPs were able to audit. With this mechanism they could keep their
(NA) network
status fairly current and not have to depend on a blast of audits upon
going active. This
idea, however, does not improve 'efficiency', if efficiency is defined to
be 'less messages
communicated', nor does it address the issue of RC, which could not be used
in this
case, since the ASPs are inactive.

Regards,

Jeff

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

---

From: "Brian F. G. Bidulock" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2003 08:00:04 -0700

jeffrey.craig,

[email-masked] wrote:                                             (Thu, 06 Feb 2003 09:18:05)
> (optional) inactive ASPs to audit and *requiring* an SG to respond to audits
> from inactive ASPs.

An SG is never "required" to respond to audits.  An SG is permitted
to respond with "Error - Destination Status Unavailable", or, for
that matter: "Error - Unexpected Message".

Besides, what is the difference of an audit performed one microsecond
before going active and one performed one microsecond after going active?

Sending SSNM to inactive ASPs serves no purpose.

> ASP and possibly many inactive ASPs, perhaps it would make fail-over more
> efficient, if the inactive ASPs were able to audit.

How do you think it would make fail-over "more efficient"?

> With this mechanism they could keep their (NA) network status fairly current
> and not have to depend on a blast of audits upon going active.

What blast of audits?

> This idea, however, does not improve 'efficiency', if efficiency is defined
> to be 'less messages communicated', nor does it address the issue of RC,
> which could not be used in this case, since the ASPs are inactive.
> 

BTW, what has the newly active ASP in an override AS done about circuit
(or transaction) state?  The failover can hardly be smooth if the
new ASP has no circuit or transaction state from the previously
active ASP.  If the ASPs share circuit or transaction state, they can
easily share destination status.

--brian

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