Subject: [Sigtran] # of Signalling Processes

From: "Ilie Glib" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 May 2007 12:45:44 +0200

Hello Folks,

SIGTRAN protocols provide support for systems redundancy and scalability by
implementing the concept of signalling processes (SGP, ASP, IPSP) and TMT.

Could you please share your view on the minimum number of signalling
processes per logical entity (AS or SG) that the SIGTRAN signalling
processes MUST support.

I am after answers to very simple questions like

1. How many SGPs shall a standard ASP support per SG?
2. How many SGs shall a standard ASP support per SS7 destination?
3. How many ASPs shall an SGP/SG support per AS?
4. How many remote signaling processes per logical entity (SG/AS) have to be
supported to comply with SIGTRAN RFCs?

I would expect that SIGTRAN RFCs provide answers to the questions above.
However, to my knowledge, none of the RFCs puts any limit on the number of
redundant signalling processes. In my view this may result in
interoperability problems and traffic disturbances.

5. What are the corresponding capabilities of products from main market
players?

These questions make sense almost for all user adaptation layers and traffic
mode types.

Thank you in advance for your help

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

---

From: "Lee Dryburgh" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 May 2007 11:59:04 +0100

Quick questions - have you read about n+k redundancy in the specs? Are
you familiar with processes (in the UNIX sense, child processes,
daemon Etc.)? I have no idea why you think the RFCs should be stating
limits on the number of software processes that you spawn.

Regards

Lee

On 09/05/07, Ilie Glib <[email-masked]> wrote:
> Hello Folks,
>
> SIGTRAN protocols provide support for systems redundancy and scalability by implementing the concept of signalling processes (SGP, ASP, IPSP) and TMT.
>
> Could you please share your view on the minimum number of signalling processes per logical entity (AS or SG) that the SIGTRAN signalling processes MUST support.
>
> 4. How many remote signaling processes per logical entity (SG/AS) have to be supported to comply with SIGTRAN RFCs?
>
> I would expect that SIGTRAN RFCs provide answers to the questions above. However, to my knowledge, none of the RFCs puts any limit on the number of redundant signalling processes. In my view this may result in interoperability problems and traffic disturbances.
>
> 5. What are the corresponding capabilities of products from main market players?
>
> These questions make sense almost for all user adaptation layers and traffic mode types.
>
>

---

From: "Ilie Glib" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 May 2007 13:12:48 +0200

Hello Lee,

quick question in response:  what of the SIGTRAN RFCs mentions that
Signalling Process in SIGTRAN means an OS process?

Signalling Process is a SIGTRAN concept, and different implementers can map
it in their own way to their platforms and architectures.

In my view the number of active processes especially in loadsharing and
broadcast TMTs is very important and can either improve or degrade your
system performance.

Simple question: How many signalling processes your system can talk to at
the same time for the same RK? Will they receive the same amount of traffic
in loadshare TMT?

Will you use SLS values to distribute M3UA traffic? How about the size of
the SLS?

Regards

/Ilie

On 5/9/07, Lee Dryburgh <[email-masked]> wrote:
> > SIGTRAN protocols provide support for systems redundancy and scalability
> by implementing the concept of signalling processes (SGP, ASP, IPSP) and
> TMT.
> >
> > 4. How many remote signaling processes per logical entity (SG/AS) have
> to be supported to comply with SIGTRAN RFCs?
> >

---

From: "Brian F. G. Bidulock" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 May 2007 06:12:12 -0600

Ilie,

Ilie Glib wrote:                                                      (Wed, 09 May 2007 12:45:44)
> 
>    Hello Folks,
>    SIGTRAN   protocols   provide   support  for  systems  redundancy  and
>    scalability  by implementing the concept of signalling processes (SGP,
>    ASP, IPSP) and TMT.

     At least one.

>    2. How many SGs shall a standard ASP support per SS7 destination?

     At least one.

>    3. How many ASPs shall an SGP/SG support per AS?

     At least one.

>    to be supported to comply with SIGTRAN RFCs?

     At least one.

>    I  would  expect  that  SIGTRAN  RFCs provide answers to the questions
>    above.  However,  to  my knowledge, none of the RFCs puts any limit on
>    the  number  of  redundant  signalling  processes. In my view this may
>    result in interoperability problems and traffic disturbances.

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

---

From: "Ilie Glib" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 May 2007 14:21:46 +0200

Hello Brian

I think you are joking. Who would by such a product. See bellow for more.

/Ilie

On 5/9/07, Brian F. G. Bidulock <[email-masked]> wrote:
> Ilie Glib
> wrote:                                                      (Wed, 09 May
> 2007 12:45:44)

/ilie: you are joking.

>    3. How many ASPs shall an SGP/SG support per AS?

 /ilie: you are joking.

> >    to be supported to comply with SIGTRAN RFCs?

 /ilie: ...

> >    5.  What  are  the  corresponding  capabilities  of products from
> main
> >    market players?
> >    These  questions  make sense almost for all user adaptation layers
> and
> >    traffic mode types.

---

From: "Brian F. G. Bidulock" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 May 2007 06:26:48 -0600

Ilie,

Ilie Glib wrote:                                 (Wed, 09 May 2007 14:21:46)
>    I  think  you  are joking. Who would by such a product. See bellow for

I was not joking: you asked for the "minimum number", not the maximum number,
nor the typical number.

--brian

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

---

From: "Ilie Glib" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 May 2007 14:30:33 +0200

Brian,

I have asked for the minimal number that provides for interoperability. That
is different than the minimal number.
Obviously override cannot work then at all, can it?

Regards

/ilie

On 5/9/07, Brian F. G. Bidulock <[email-masked]> wrote:
> >    I  think  you  are joking. Who would by such a product. See bellow
> for
> >    more.
>

---

From: "Brian F. G. Bidulock" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 May 2007 06:52:37 -0600

Ilie,

Ilie Glib wrote:                                                      (Wed, 09 May 2007 14:30:33)
> 
>    I   have   asked   for   the   minimal   number   that   provides  for
>    interoperability. That is different than the minimal number.

> >    processes  per  logical  entity (AS or SG) that the SIGTRAN signalling

which is something different.  The minimum numbers that MUST be provided are
one.

--brian

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

---

From: "Ilie Glib" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 May 2007 15:38:09 +0200

Brian,

It's my fault. I am sorry about it.
I was after the minimal number of remote signalling processes per remote
logical entity (AS or SG) that  provides  for interoperability according to
SIGTRAN.

I know of at least several SIGTRAN implementations that have rather strict
limits in that respect. Thus, a clarification from the WG in an official doc
like implementors guide or deployment guide will definetly help the
community.

Regards

/Ilie

On 5/9/07, Brian F. G. Bidulock <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 2007 14:30:33)