Subject: Re: [SUA issue 17] IPSP cases.

From: "Brian F. G. Bidulock" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 05:50:16 -0500

John,

John Loughney wrote:                                  (Thu, 30 Aug 2001 13:27:51)
> Brian,
> 
> > > Just as SCCP extends the routing facilities of MTP by the
> > > ability to route on GT, SUA could just as easily extend
> > > the IP routing capabilities by using GTs, hostnames, etc.
> > > I'd make no statements about it's necessity if I were you.
> > 
> > IP already has the ability to route on hostnames and IP
> > addresses.  IP has already been extended to use GTTs (ENUM
> > and others).  IP does not need either SCCP or SUA to extend
> > it.
> 
> As I understood it, Gery meant mor that SUA could take
> advantages of the the above ...

SUA already takes advantage of IP.  I think what you mean is
that some heretofore undefined SUA-User might be able to take
some advantage from specifying GTs in an nowherelsedefined
URL GT format.  When I ask what this "enhanced" SUA-User is,
I'm told it is "implemetnation dependent" and that someone
or some group might want to use it sometime in the future.

Well, I believe it should not be in the draft until this
future proves itself because it is clearly outside the
scope of SIGTRAN to define new signalling protocols (and
that includes TTs, NAIs, ESs and URLs.)

> > Gery, I am not advocating an asymetrical model.  All I'm
> > saying is that there is a lot missing in the draft for a
> > symetrical one.  If you want a symmetrical model, let's go
> > about specifying the stuff that needs to be in the draft to
> > support a separate IPSP mode (as distinct from the
> > asymmetrical backhaul model which currently exists whether
> > you or I like it or not).  If you want an asymmetrical IPSP
> > model just as the backhaul case, please, tell me how it is
> > supposed to work.
> 
> Greg, Ken & I have agreed to work on the IPSP cases for 
> M3UA and SUA in chapter 4.  We will try to add more 
> supporting text.

What will you put?  Gery and Klaus say that there should be no
distinction between the backhaul case and the peer case.  John
S. and Kurt say they prefer a symmetrical model with, it seems,
unidirectional traffic controls.  Others ask questions which
seem to get no answers.

--brian

-- 
Brian F. G. Bidulock
[email-masked]

---
You are currently subscribed to sigtran as: [email-masked]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [email-masked]