Subject: RE: Use of ServiceChange from MGC to MG

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 22:25:23 +0530

Hello Madhu,
     In the second point you have mentioned about the methods for taking the MG
down as "forced" and restart".  If the MG itself wants to indicate about its
going down, then it can either send "graceful" or "forced", but if the MGC wants
to bring down its association with the MG then it needs to send service change
on ROOT with "forced". "Restart" from MGC on ROOT termination is not valid.  In
this case the MG needs to itself send service change to any secondary MGC or to
the same primary MGC (if secondary MGC are configured) after restart avalance
timer.

                                         Regards,
                                         R. Ezhirpavai

"Madhu Babu Brahmanapally" <[email-masked]> on 05/18/2001 09:05:16 PM

To:   "'Dan Elbert'" <[email-masked]>, [email-masked]
cc:    (bcc: R Ezhirpavai/HSS)

Subject:  RE: Use of ServiceChange from MGC to MG

HI Dan,
Comments below [Madhu]

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked]
[mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Dan Elbert
Sent: Friday, May 18, 2001 11:06 AM
To: [email-masked]'
Subject: Use of ServiceChange from MGC to MG

Hi

The Media Gateway Controller may indicate that Termination(s) shall be taken
out of or returned to service.

1. What is the meaning of the MGC taking down a termination ? Does it means
that the termination is substracted from any active context and all signal
are stopped and no events are detected ?
[Madhu] IMO its similar to the situation where MG generates such
servicechange.
The signals to be stopped and no event detection.
Will be useful in
1) Residential Gateway - Where the user profile is not encouraging and the
MGC doesn't
want to entertain any messages generated from the MG for that endpoint.
2) Trunking gateway - Remove some of the trunks from the initial provisioned
trunks.

2. What methods are used for taking the MG down and up ? I'd say Graceful
and Restart. Is this OK ?
[Madhu] I think Graceful is a mean by which MG can say to MGC that this
particular termination
shouldn't be used for further calls. Graceful has no meaning when MGC
generates this. I think the
methods should be "forced" and "restart".

3. Is this applicable also to the root termination ? I would say no because
if the root termination "goes down" then logically the MG may not be able to
receive any more MGC commands.
[Madhu] Yes. Your argument is correct.

Thanks,

Dan Elbert
RADVISION

---

From: "Madhu Babu Brahmanapally" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 13:52:25 -0400

HI Pavai,
I think second point address non-ROOT terminations. I don't think the MGC
can send ServiceChange on ROOT to either bring it down or up. (Of course
there is no restriction from the protocol that MGC cannot send ServiceChange
on ROOT...I think we may need some consensus on this from everyone).

Regards
Madhubabu

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Friday, May 18, 2001 12:55 PM
To: Madhu Babu Brahmanapally
Cc: 'Dan Elbert'; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: Use of ServiceChange from MGC to MG

Hello Madhu,
     In the second point you have mentioned about the methods for taking the
MG
down as "forced" and restart".  If the MG itself wants to indicate about its
going down, then it can either send "graceful" or "forced", but if the MGC
wants
to bring down its association with the MG then it needs to send service
change
on ROOT with "forced". "Restart" from MGC on ROOT termination is not valid.
In
this case the MG needs to itself send service change to any secondary MGC or
to
the same primary MGC (if secondary MGC are configured) after restart
avalance
timer.

                                         Regards,
                                         R. Ezhirpavai

HI Dan,
Comments below [Madhu]

-----Original Message-----

Hi

Thanks,

Dan Elbert
RADVISION