Subject: RE: RE: [Megaco] DOUBT

From: Carl Rutter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 08:03:32 -0500

I don't believe MG redundancy is required.
However since many of the systems designed
with MEGACO are for the Telco space and
must high reliability
the redundancy issues are covered.

Carl 

-----Original Message-----
From: vidya g [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2002 12:21 AM
To: Madhu Babu Brahmanapally
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: RE: [Megaco] DOUBT

hi

   Does it means that we need to maintain a 'hotstandby' for all MGs ( VMGs
).. ? ofcourse it depends on the application logic and the robustness we
wish to have in our application, but what is the necessity that RFC says
such a thing .. ? If this is how every one develops tha MG application,
please let me know that

regs
vdy

On Mon, 28 Jan 2002 Madhu Babu Brahmanapally wrote :
> HI Vidya,
> Primary MG IMO is the MG that was in communication with 
> the MGC before
> failure. A secondary(Redundant) MG is going to takeover 
> the primary(failed)
> MGs terminations.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]
> g]On Behalf Of
> vidya g
> Sent: Monday, January 28, 2002 6:04 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: [Megaco] DOUBT
> 
> 
> 
> hi
> 
>    In RFC section 7.2.8 service change reason 
> explanation for failover is
> given as below
> 
>  6) Failover - sent from MG to MGC to indicate the 
> primary MG is out
>       of service and a secondary MG is taking over.
> 
>   What is this primary MG here.. ?
> 
> vdy
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Megaco mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/megaco
> 

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

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