Subject: RE: [Megaco] MG 'deadly' failure

From: "Tom-PT Taylor"<[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 12:33:15 -0500

This is in the realm of implementation, not protocol specification.  So no
changes to the RFC are needed.

-----Original Message-----
From: Balasubramanian Pitchandi [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2002 9:26 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [Megaco] MG 'deadly' failure

Hi All,

Section 11.4, in RFC3015 talks about failure of a MG as follows:

"  If a MG fails, but is capable of sending a message to the MGC, it
   sends a ServiceChange with an appropriate method (graceful or forced)
   and specifies the Root TerminationID.  When it returns to service, it
   sends a ServiceChange with a "Restart" method."

But it does not talk about the scenario, where MG has a deadly failure,
where it cannot send any message to the MGC. What happens then? Does the
MGC instruct other MGs to take over? 

Lets assume that it does instruct another MG to take over. Does that
mean all the same physical terminations should be connected to both the
MGs at the same time, in order for the user to have the services back
(assuming it's a Residential Gateway)?

From a implementation point of view, do the physical terminations
(actual residential POTS ports) need to be connected to "two" MGs at the
same time in order to have failover when there is a 'deadly' MG crash?

Is there a RFC correction to cover this aspect?

Thanks in advance.

Cheers,
Bala

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

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

---

From: "Tom-PT Taylor"<[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 12:33:15 -0500

-----Original Message-----
From: Balasubramanian Pitchandi [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2002 9:26 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [Megaco] MG 'deadly' failure

Hi All,

Thanks in advance.

Cheers,
Bala