Subject: Re: [Sigtran] M3UA(rfc 3332) DUPU from ASP

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 14:54:33 +0530

Hi Brian,

DPC only Routing Key type is allowed in M3UA specifications and I am aware of
the same being used in some of the SIGTRAN based products.
So, it does look reasonable to me for M3UA specifications to allow (if not
recommend) implementations to send DUPU from ASP to SG side also.

Best Regards,
-Sandeep

"Brian F. G. Bidulock" <[email-masked]> on 10/26/2002 01:44:19 PM

Please respond to [email-masked]

To:   Kamesh Kaul/HSS@HSS
cc:   [email-masked] (bcc: Sandeep Mahajan/HSS)

Subject:  Re: [Sigtran] M3UA(rfc 3332) DUPU from ASP

Kamesh,

Well, I suppose it was a quandry where to put it in SS7 too.  ISUP, for
example has its own UPT/UPA mechanism for restoring unavailable ISUP
peers.  At one time a general UPT/UPA mechanism was part of the MTP
(but didn't receive much/any support in the field).

While in the now distant past there may have been some degree of freedom
between MTP and MTP-Users (i.e, implemented on completely separate
processor subsystems), normally MTP and its users are distributed-
embedded or on monolithic redundant (fault tolerant) systems.  So it
is quite atypical for an MTP-User to fail independent of MTP.

For coordinated turndown/turnup of MTP-Users, there are other mechanisms.
SCCP has the mated pair configurations and the SCCP protocol supports
replicated subssytems directly within the protocol.  For ISUP, coordinated
turndown/turnup is accomplished through circuit blocking/unblocking and
reset procedures.  I think you will find that IUSP response to MTP-STATUS
indicating an unavailable ISUP at a peer will be of little use to ISUP.
What is more important is the state of circuits between the swithes and
the correct recovery procedures involve normal ISUP circuit reset and
blocking procedures.

I do not subscribe to "whole point code" routing keys (they are not
mandatory).  Perhaps a proponent of DPC only routing keys, such as John
Schantz can better answer your queries in that regard.

--brian

[email-masked] wrote:
(Sat, 26 Oct 2002 11:44:30)
>
>
> Hi
>      Brian this is  true for SS7 node in SS7 domain too.but why does
>                 SS7 node generate UPU message when it is unable to notify MSU
>                 to intended user.
> Regards
> Kamesh
>

--
Brian F. G. Bidulock
[email-masked]
http://www.openss7.org/
_______________________________________________
Sigtran mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sigtran

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

---

From: "Brian F. G. Bidulock" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 03:09:14 -0700

Sandeep,

Why not just send UPU in a DATA message?

--brian

[email-masked] wrote:                        (Mon, 28 Oct 2002 14:54:33)