Subject: M3UA v9: Signalling Point Code Representation

From: "Brian F. G. Bidulock" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2001 16:19:51 -0500

Section 1.4.1 states:

  Where an SG contains more than one SGP, the MTP3 routeset, SPMC and 
  remote AS/ASP states of each SGP SHOULD be coordinated across all the 
  SGPs.  Rerouting of traffic between the SGPs SHOULD also be supported.

Rerouting of traffic between SGPs is no longer necessary (ASPIA ACK
management procedures).

Change "SHOULD" to "MAY".

--brian

-- 
Brian F. G. Bidulock    ¦ The reasonable man adapts himself to the ¦
[email-masked]    ¦ world; the unreasonable one persists in  ¦
http://www.openss7.org/ ¦ trying  to adapt the  world  to himself. ¦
                        ¦ Therefore  all  progress  depends on the ¦
                        ¦ unreasonable man. -- George Bernard Shaw ¦

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

---

From: "Asveren, Tolga" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2001 16:48:42 -0500

Hi Brian,

Why is rerouting of traffic between SGPs no longer necessary?

  Tolga

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brian F. G. Bidulock [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2001 5:20 PM
> To: sigtran
> Subject: M3UA v9: Signalling Point Code Representation
> 
> 
> 
> Section 1.4.1 states:
> 
> You are currently subscribed to sigtran as: [email-masked]
> To unsubscribe send a blank email to 
> [email-masked]
> 

---

---

From: "Brian F. G. Bidulock" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2001 17:27:49 -0500

Tolga,

For several reasons: Broadcast mode SGPs never need to reroute
traffic (they all receive a copy of each message).  Also even
for loadshare and override SGPs, the SGP can send ASPIA ACK when
it experiences partial failure (as was intended by the procedure)
and not have to send messages to other SGP.

It is clear that SGP need to "communicate" with each other, but
rerouting of DATA and SNMM traffic is not necessary in some
implementations.  In some implementations is would even be
counter-recommended.

Even worse, the draft does not deal with the mis-sequencing that
could result from an SGP accepting traffic both from an SGP peer
and the ASP.  There is no AS-PENDING procedures for an ASP and
there are no changeover procedures either.  One of the ways to
get around this defficiency in the draft is to never route traffic
between SGPs and always cause the ASP to reroute traffic (at the
source) instead.  This is the only way to minimize mis-sequencing
given the current procedures.

So, this "SHOULD" doesn't make sense from a lot of standpoints and
might be better illustrated in example as a "possible" configuration.

--brian

Asveren, Tolga wrote:                                    (Thu, 11 Oct 2001 16:48:42)
> You are currently subscribed to sigtran as: [email-masked]
> To unsubscribe send a blank email to [email-masked]

-- 
Brian F. G. Bidulock
[email-masked]
http://www.openss7.org/

---