Subject: [Megaco] (no subject)

From: Pellegrino Jose Luis <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2004 13:12:21 -0300

Hi, I have some questions about NGN (trunking) architecture using H.248 and
the interworking with ISUP.

Suppose two MGCs which controlate N MGs in a trunking network. Each MG is
conected to a tradicional TDM switch and the ISUP messages sent by the
switches are received by the signalling gateway via STP. There's no class
five services.

RFC 3525, point 11.5 "failure of an MGC" describe the procedures for the MG
in order to switch to another MGC in case of failure of the primary MGC.
This is in  my opinion one of the facilities that make MEGACO better than
MGCP.

-In my understanding, the mechanism described above is possible only if the
MGC's are working in the "Hot/Stand by" modality. ¿Am I right?
-The Signalling Gateways have an unique DPC (destination point code).
Having different DPC is not possible ¿Is this correct?.

Now, Suppose that you have the same  two MGCs, but  working in the "Sharing
load" modality, each of them controlling a group of MG's.

-In this architecture each MGC have a DPC different from the other.¿Is this
correct?
-In this case, switching to another MGC is not possible because the vocals
trunks (wich are asociated with the fisical terminations), are related to
ONE DPC. ¿Is this correct?

However, in a sharing load scenario, it's possible to use Virtual MGs in
order give redundance to NGN - TDM conection (point 11.1 "Multiple Virtual
MGs").

So, making a summary, if I'm not wrong, depending on the Architecture,
"Hot/Stand by" or in the other hand "Sharing load", you can take advantage
of using switching mechanism or virtual MGs.

I will appreciate all the comments, 

Thanks in advance,

José Luis

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