Subject: [Sigtran] SG-SG, IPSP-IPSP, SE vs. DE ...

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2002 17:45:33 +0300

Hi all,  

I have had a lot of other things to take care of, but have recently started wading
through this stuff.  I think we just need to stop.  I would be very happy
to see someone produce a problem statement about why SG-to-SG signaling
is needed.  Maybe some text why the current drafts are not sufficient. 
Additionally, the same should be done for IPSP-to-IPSP.  Without any
sort of problem statement, how can we get anywork done?  I do think that
from these problem statements, we can generalize somethings from it and
then do some productive work.   However, I'd suggest that we are far down
a rathole right now with little chance of getting out.

Lyndon, I'd suggest that we don't promote any work to WG item until we sort
this out.  My feeling is that there are different goals in some of this
work and we need to know what is the problem we are trying to solve.

thanks,
John

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

---

From: "Tolga Asveren" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2002 11:12:32 -0400

My view on this:

The problem: Applications in IP domain should be able to communicate to each
other.

IPSP: Provides symmetric/direct communication between two M3UA entities. Can
be used also for sub-PC granularity.

SG-SG (or IP-STP) : Provides relaying (in my opinion needed to have
concentration nodes for a reasonable configuration in case of RKs with CIC
ranges), and direct communication for PC granularity. In addition, it
provides also relaying between SS7 nodes over IP (it can be thougth as M3PA)

What IPSP and SG/SG can do is overlapping for PC granularity. It is not
exactly one v.s. another.

   Tolga

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of
> [email-masked]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2002 10:46 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: [Sigtran] SG-SG, IPSP-IPSP, SE vs. DE ...
>
>
> Hi all,
>