Subject: [SUA issue 16] AMF at ASP - Closed

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2001 15:29:51 +0300

Hi all,

Text as suggested has been added.

John

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ext [email-masked] 
> Sent: 14 August, 2001 09:38
> To: sigtran
> Subject: [SUA issue 16] AMF at ASP
> 
> 
> From: ext Brian F. G. Bidulock [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: 06 August, 2001 23:00
> To: Loughney John (NRC/Helsinki); Lyndon Ong
> Subject: Fwd: SUA 06: AMF at ASP
> 
> 
> Attached is an SUA Last Call issue:
> 
> SGP Management and routing of messages from ASP to SGP.
> 
> --brian
> 
> ------_=_NextPart_000_01C12489.2EB53C44
> From: [email-masked]
> Reply-To: [email-masked]
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: SUA 06: AMF at ASP
> Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2001 22:52:42 +0300
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2652.78)
> List-Unsubscribe: 
> <mailto:[email-masked]>
> Content-Type: text/plain
> 
> Section 1.5.2 says:
> 
>    There is, however, no SUA messaging to manage the status of an SGP.
>    Whenever an SCTP association to an SGP exists, it is assumed to be
>    available.  Also, every SGP of one SG communicating with one ASP
>    regarding one AS provides identical SS7 connectivity to this ASP.
> 
> This same issue came up with M3UA.  SGP cannot be treated as providing
> identical connectivity and the ASP must perform some algorithm in
> consideration of the attributes of SGP, it only to some such thing
> as load-share messages accross the SGP in an SG.  Because SGP are
> exactly that: independent SG processes, they can suffer partial
> failures and it is necessary for the ASP to take into consideration
> the partially functioning state of an SGP when sending 
> messages towards
> it.  A case in point would be when an SGP can route messages to all
> SLS under normal operation, but when partitioned from its SGP peers,
> it is only able to process several SLS and the other SGP 
> cannot process
> these SLS at all.  Failing the whole SG or allowing arbitrary messages
> to be discarded or returned is unworkable.
> 
> On approach without adding SGP management would be to insist that
> an ASP only routes messages to an SGP that it would receive from
> that SGP within the Routing Context/Routing Key under which it is
> currently active and receiving traffic.  The routing context itself,
> then, would be used by the ASP to select the SGP.
> 
> -- 
> Brian F. G. Bidulock
> [email-masked]
> http://www.openss7.org/
> 
> 
> ---
> You are currently subscribed to sigtran as: [email-masked]
> To unsubscribe send a blank email to
> [email-masked]
> 
> ------_=_NextPart_000_01C12489.2EB53C44--
> 
> 
> 
> ---
> You are currently subscribed to sigtran as: [email-masked]
> To unsubscribe send a blank email to 
> [email-masked]
> 

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