Subject: Repost: Why separate Signaling Gateway from MGC?

From: Patrick Lam <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2001 11:06:45 -0800

Someone asks me to repost this one in text mode (it's actually a bit
strange, because I thought the original one was already in text mode
....).  Here it goes ....

-----------------------------------

Patrick,

Please post it again in text mode.

best regards,

Javier

--------------------------------

Hi:

I hope this will be the right group to ask this question.  I was pointed
to here from another group ..... :)

I have done some researches on SS7 Signaling Gateways and MGCs.  I found
an interesting similarities among most vendors:  the SG and
MGC are usually separated into physically differen boxes.  While I
understand that the scalability of the MGC might be the reason that the
SS7
has to be separated from it, but I really want to know why the vendors
can't combine the functionalities of SG and MGC together into one box?

Why not have the SG decode all the ISUP and do MGCP and H.323 all in one
box?  What's the advantage of having a SG to convert SS7 to
Sigtran, and then having MGC convert Sigtran to H.323 and do MGCP?

To me, combining them into one box provides cost-performance advantage
(less transportation of the signaling, less encoding-decoding, less
possibility of errors, and cheaper to manufacture, etc.).

Am I missing something?
Thanks very much in advance,

Patrick.

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