Subject: [Fwd: Re: IPSP proposed text (1st approach)]

From: Dennis Niermann <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 17:46:17 -0600

resending...

Hi Brian,
I agree there is no problem with distributing SSNM messages.
The issue is if IPSP3 has data to send to AS100:3.
How does it know to send it to IPSP1 or IPSP2?
If they work in override mode, only one is actively 
handling traffic for AS100:3.
/Dennis

"Brian F. G. Bidulock" wrote:
> 
> Dennis,
> 
> There is still no need (or requirement) for RC in
> your illustration.  Each IPSP can activate for all
> the AS that it supports (ASPAC without RC).
> 
> Then, for example, if IPSP3 loses connection to
> AS201, it is ok to send DUNA(201) to IPSP1 and IPSP2.
> If you draw the same diagram with AS(PC201/SI3), then
> IPSP3 can send DUPU.
> 
> Can you come up with a configuration where RC is
> 'required' considering the point-to-point nature of
> IPSPs?  It is not required in this configuration.
> 
> --brian
> 
> Dennis Niermann wrote:                                     (Tue, 30 Oct 2001 14:24:54)
> > Hi Brian,
> > Thanks for the challenge!
> >
> > "Brian F. G. Bidulock" wrote:
> >   <snip>
> >
> > >
> > > It is going to be tough finding a case where RC is needed at
> > > all for point-to-point IPSP.
> > >
> >
> > I believe that the following is legal since an ASP can service
> > more than one AS and an AS can be serviced by more than one ASP:
> >
> >
> >
> >  Figure 4:  IPSP - IPSP, multiple AS's
> >
> >
> >      +------+                                  +------+
> >      |      |                                  |      |
> >      | AS   |                                  | AS   |
> >      | 100:4|                                  | 201  |
> >      |      | \                              / |      |
> >      +------+   \  +-----+   IP   +-----+  /   +------+
> >                   /       \------/       \
> >      +------+     | IPSP1 |      | IPSP3 |     +------+
> >      |      +- - -\       /-+   /\       /- - -+      |
> >      | AS   |      +-----+   \ /  +-----+      | AS   |
> >      | 100:3|                 \                | 200  |
> >      |      |      +-----+   / \  +-----+      |      |
> >      |      +- - -/       \-+   \/       \- - -+      |
> >      +------+     | IPSP2 |      | IPSP4 |     +------+
> >                   \       /------\       /
> >      +------+   /  +---- +        +-----+  \   +------+
> >      |      | /                              \ |      |
> >      | AS   |                                  | AS   |
> >      | 100:5|                                  | 202  |
> >      |      |                                  |      |
> >      +------+                                  +------+
> >
> >
> > Is it supported for an IPSP to handle AS's with different point codes?
> > Anyway, let's assume that the AS100:3, AS100:4, and AS100:5 all
> > use the same point code but have different service indicators.
> > Doesn't this require IPSP1 and IPSP2 to communicate what traffic
> > they are handling.  E.g. by IPSP1 activating the RCs for AS100:4 and
> > AS100:3 and IPSP2 activating the RC for AS100:5. Otherwise, how will
> > IPSP3 and IPSP4 know where to send traffic?
> >
> > Regards,  Dennis
> >
> >
> > ---
> > 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/
> 
> ---
> You are currently subscribed to sigtran as: [email-masked]
> To unsubscribe send a blank email to [email-masked]

-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------
 Dennis Niermann              [email-masked]
 Ericsson Network Systems   
 Richardson, Tx 75081

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