Subject: Resent: Why separate Signaling Gateway from MGC?

From: Patrick Lam <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2001 14:13:32 -0800

I think i have sent the same post to a wrong address.  please ignore this one if you got it twice ...... 

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

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]

---

From: Jacques Rajchgod <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2001 09:06:15 -0600

Many vendors offer Integrated SG-MGC products, where both the SG and the MGC
reside inside one box. My experience is that most current vendors do so at
this stage of SG/MGC developments, for some of the reasons you mentioned.

Jacques Rajchgod
MCI Worldcom
Next Generation System Evaluation
Tel: [972] 729-7180
E-mail: [email-masked]

  -----Original Message-----
  From: Patrick Lam [mailto:[email-masked]]
  Sent: Monday, December 10, 2001 4:14 PM
  To: sigtran
  Subject: Resent: Why separate Signaling Gateway from MGC?

  I think i have sent the same post to a wrong address.  please ignore this
one if you got it twice ......

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

  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?

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

---

---

From: Javier Kim <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2001 09:40:29 -0800 (PST)

Patrick,

Please post it again in text mode.

best regards,

Javier

On Mon, 10 Dec 2001, Patrick Lam wrote:

> I think i have sent the same post to a wrong address.  please ignore =
> this one if you got it twice ......=20
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------=
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Hi:
> 
> I hope this will be the right group to ask this question.  I was pointed =
> 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 =
> To me, combining them into one box provides cost-performance advantage =
> (less transportation of the signaling, less encoding-decoding, less =
> You are currently subscribed to sigtran as: [email-masked]

---