Subject: [Megaco] Trunking Gateway Profile

From: "milton" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 May 2003 19:47:49 +0530

Dear All,
We are working on a Trunking Gatway product-line. Not surprisingly we have
chosen Megaco as the only stable controlling protocol. In the process we had
some issues with respect to the provisioning in this network architecture. I
can share a few observations with you

> Presently in this network Network Mangement mechanism is largely
undefined. We need to have a fixed line of demarkation between provisioning
and control.
> More dependent you are on provisioning less robust you become.
> Local gateway hardware need not be reflected on the softswitch.
                                          -Please comment on these
observations.

In a multi-vendor network architecture The last point seemed important and
one way to achieve this with megaco is by standardizing the naming
convention for a particular line of products. As we know, to do that we have
to come out with a proper profile for the same. Although defining profiles
is not a work-item under the base protocol definition process - I think we
have to start this parallel effort of defining profiles. In this regard we
have to understand that we need profiles To Make It Happen.
 We have come out with such a profile for trunking gateway which is quite
different from the MSF defined profile. Can we push our trunking gateway
profile with IETF? If yes can anybody suggest how to move with that effort?

- Milton

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