Subject: [Sigtran] DRST message handling

From: "Shmelev, Kirill" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 09:31:25 +0300

Hi, 

I have doubts about the DRST message. Judging from RFC4666, one can say,
that DRST is somewhat similar to the TFR message. 

The extract from Q.704 (ch. 13.4.3) says:

"When a signalling point receives a transfer-restricted message from
signalling transfer point Y and has an alternative equal priority link
set available and not restricted to destination X, it performs the
actions in 8.2."

While RFC4666 (ch. 3.4.6) believes:

"The M3UA layer at the ASP is expected to send traffic to the affected
destination via an alternate SG with a route of equal priority, but only
if such an alternate route exists and is available"

The difference is in the state of an alternative route, Q.704 proposes
to take into account restricted routes in addition to available ones,
while RFC4666 denies usage of restricted routes. Am I right? If yes,
then, why the restricted routes are removed?

It is quite important for us, in spite of the seeming insignificance of
the matter. 

Looking forward to see an answer

Thank in advance,

Shmelev Kirill, 

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

---

From: "Brian F. G. Bidulock" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2007 04:54:03 -0700

Kirill,

They are the same.  Neither send to restricted routes as an alternate.

--brian

Shmelev, Kirill wrote:                         (Wed, 31 Oct 2007 09:31:25)
> 
>    Hi,
> 
> 
>    I  have  doubts  about the DRST message. Judging from RFC4666, one can
>    say, that DRST is somewhat similar to the TFR message.
> 
>    destination  via  an  alternate SG with a route of equal priority, but
>    only if such an alternate route exists and is available"
> 
> 
>    It  is  quite important for us, in spite of the seeming insignificance
>    of the matter.
> 
> 

-- 
Brian F. G. Bidulock
[email-masked]
http://www.openss7.org/