Subject: [Megaco] [Megaco]Resending - Primary MGC Failure And Contacting Secondar y MGC

From: "Kaul, Bharat" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002 14:20:51 -0700

Resending to solicit comments :)

-----Original Message-----
From: Kaul, Bharat [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Friday, July 19, 2002 10:50 AM
To: [email-masked]'
Subject: [Megaco] Primary MGC Failure And Contacting Secondary MGC

Assume following scenario

*	Primary MGC knows it is going down and wants to inform MGs it
controls that it is going down
*	Primary MGC has no knowledge of other MGCs in the network
*	MGs in the network may be configured with secondary MGCs

How does primary MGC inform MGs about impending failure ?  I think MGC
should send method as "handoff" with reason as "MGC Impending Failure" and
not specify ServiceChangeMgcId.

Is that correct ?

- Thanks
   Bharat

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------
Bharat Kaul,                            Trillium Digital Systems Inc.,
Engineering Project Manager,   An Intel Division,
Phone: 310 481 5515,              12100 Wilshire Blvd, #1800,
<http://www.trillium.com>         Los Angeles, CA - 90025
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------

_______________________________________________
Megaco mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/megaco

_______________________________________________
Megaco mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/megaco

---

From: Terry L Anderson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002 17:44:52 -0400

Sounds reasonable to me.  Do folks think that this needs to be a 
correction for the IG or is it obvious enough?  I don't this violates 
any current statement.

-- 

------------------------------------------------------------
Terry L Anderson              mailto:[email-masked]
Tel:732.949.5628   Fax:732.949.7016
Lucent Technologies/INS/Voice Over IP Access Networks
Rm 2G-219A, 101 Crawfords Corner Rd, Holmdel, NJ 07733-3030
http://its.lucent.com/~tla (Lucent internal) http://www.gti.net/tla

---

From: Terry L Anderson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002 17:44:52 -0400

--

---

From: Christian Groves <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 13:50:28 +1000

G'Day Terry,

I agree it doesn't violate any current statements but isn't this already covered
by 11.5 Failure of an MGC ???

Christian

---

From: Christian Groves <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 13:50:28 +1000

G'Day Terry,

Christian

---

From: Terry L Anderson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 11:02:03 -0400

I think that 11.5 comes close in the second paragraph but doesn't quite 
address the case where the MGC cannot specify the replacement.  The 
procedures for MG to use the provisioned alternate list is there but 
only specified after it cannot use MGC specified in ServiceChangeMgcId. 
 The case where MGC might omit this parameter is not stated.

I suggest we modify the paragraph as follows:

In partial failure, or for manual maintenance reasone, an MGC may wish 
to direct its controlled MGs to use a different MGC. To do so, it sends 
a ServiceChange method to the MG with a "Handoff" [note I've corrected 
the spelling, the text token is spelled "HandOff" but the method is not] 
method, and OPTIONALLY a designated replacement in ServiceChangeMgcId. 
 If "Handoff" is supported AND SERVICECHANGEMGCID IS PRESENT, the MG 
shall send a ServiceChange message with a "Handoff" method and a "MGC 
directed change" reason to the designated MGC. OTHERWISE, OR if it fails 
to get a reply from the desingated MGC, the MG shall behave as if its 
MGC failed, and start contacting secondary MGCs as specified in the 
previous paragraph...

[uppercase to show addition, it would not be added that way.]

--

---

From: Terry L Anderson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 11:02:03 -0400

--

---

From: Christian Groves <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 16:48:11 +1000

G'Day Terry,

OK I missed the distinction of optional MGCID. The proposed text looks OK.

Regards, Christian

---

From: Christian Groves <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 16:48:11 +1000

G'Day Terry,

Regards, Christian