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

From: "TOLGA ASVEREN" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 07:40:37 +0200

Brian,

Briefly what I think is(not to convince you, just the story from my side):
I don't see a problem with interpreting n as mandatory on SGP side while
starting traffic, IMO functionally it is not different from non n+k case
(or from the case where n=1). I would think SGP will decide to expose AS
available to SS7 network (and I need to add SG will provide the unique view
to the SS7 network, but this is again no different than from n=1 case) when
the path between ASP and SGP is to be opened in both directions. So that
SGP SHOULD wait for n ACTIVE ASPs makes sense for me as it stands in IG.
And I don't think to have an unidirectional open path between ASP and SGP
is nice (even while writing this I am scared :-) ). This interface is
MTP3/MTP3 User interface and IMO should be open in both directions or not
at all. Otherwise you let other nodes in SS7 network send messages to you,
accept their messages and then don't let your user part reply to them.

If we wanted SGP decide dynamically for the number of ACTIVE ASPs to
declare AS as available, IMO the only solution was to use NTFY at ASP side
to start traffic, because as far as I see this is the only way to make both
ASP and SGP see the path between them open at the same time. But seems to
interprete n dynamically is not desired(?).

It seems the real concern was more about transition from ACTIVE to PENDING.
My opinion is rather than saying "the last ASP goes INACTIVE/DOWN", it is
better to let SGP decide by itself based on the number of ACTIVE ASPs.
Probably we need also to think more about other transitions(?).

(And one small answer below, just to clarify)

    Tolga

>
> Saying the "SG" "SHOULD" wait would place an undue requirement on the
> SGP to make its decision based upon their peer SGP's (possibly incorrect
> or untimely) view all ASPs state for the AS.
> [TOLGA]As you pointed out at the beginning it should be SGP.

Huh? Did you mean SG?
[TOLGA]No.

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

---

From: "Brian F. G. Bidulock" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 00:27:25 -0700

TOLGA,

TOLGA ASVEREN wrote:                                                                 (Thu, 27 Feb 2003 07:40:37)
> is nice (even while writing this I am scared :-) ).

What bad thing do you think will happpen?

> This interface is MTP3/MTP3 User interface and IMO should be open in both
> directions or not at all. Otherwise you let other nodes in SS7 network send
> messages to you, accept their messages and then don't let your user part
> reply to them.

Discard them if you wish.

> interprete n dynamically is not desired(?).

Your ASP is welcome to discard any messages received from the SG while
waiting for N to become active.

> Probably we need also to think more about other transitions(?).

The SGP can move the AS to the INACTIVE or DOWN state whever it wants.
It needs to perform ASPIA Ack or ASPDN Ack procedures to do so, or drop
the association.

> > [TOLGA]As you pointed out at the beginning it should be SGP.

Then I couldn't diagree more.

--brian

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