Subject: [Sigtran] M3UA n+1 ASP Active

From: ksrinivas <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 14:31:56 +0530

Brian,

Suppose n-1 ASP are ACTIVE and SGP has sent Notify message saying
insufficient resources. Now lest us assume that 2 ASPs have sent ASP
ACTIVE messages causing number of ACTIVE ASPs to n+1. Can you please
suggest what the SGP should do in this case.

Should the SGP send an ASP Inactive Ack message to the last ASP that
sent ASP Active message?.

or

Is it upto the ASPs to coordinate among themselves for not to send ASP
Active messages causing number of ACTIVE ASPs > n

--Srini

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

---

From: "Brian F. G. Bidulock" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 02:26:52 -0600

ksrinivas,

There is nothing the matter with having the number of active ASPs > n.
In fact, that would be the normal case.

--brian

ksrinivas wrote:                                                                 (Wed, 23 Apr 2003 14:31:56)

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

---

From: "Samuel Dur D. Jeyaseelan" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 04:35:34 -0500 (CDT)

Brian,

My understanding is , for an AS there are n+k ASPs.Here 'n' ASPs are
active and 'k' ASPs are inactive and they(backup) are used as backup
resources whenever one of the active ASPs goes down.

An SGP requires 'n' active ASPs to handle the maximum engineered load 'T'
pertaining to a particular RC.

When n+1 ASPs are active, SGP is not going to handle the traffic T+1
because 'T' is the maximum engineered load and the probability where
traffic reaches 'T' may not be the normal case means it is a rare
case. All the active ASPs are utilised effectively only when traffic
reaches 'T' otherwise few ASPs are unutilised(normal case).

So when n+1 ASPs active, IMO  resources are wasted.

When SGP acts as a server , it can send ASPIA ACK to 'n+1'th active ASP.

Eventhough this is implementation dependent i just conveyed my view.

--Samuel

  Alcatel USA, Inc.                  Internet: <userid>@ssd.usa.alcatel.com
  1000 Coit Road, Plano, Texas 75075
  ******* The opinions expressed are not those of Alcatel USA, Inc. *******

---

From: ksrinivas <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 15:41:10 +0530

Samuel,

RFC says "n" is the minimum no of ASPs. You have not used the term "minimum" in you explanation. Why?.

I feel what Brian Says is proper.

--Srini

---

From: "Brian F. G. Bidulock" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 12:35:29 -0600

Samuel,

Redundancy in carrier class systems are just that: redundant -- the
purpose of course being increased reliability.

--brian

Samuel Dur D. Jeyaseelan wrote:                                                     (Thu, 24 Apr 2003 04:35:34)