Subject: Differences between MEGACO and GSMP?

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 09:23:09 +0530

Hi,
     Can some one point me to some resources that explain the differecne between
these two protocols.  After a cursory look at both the standards It made me
think that both the protocols are meant to achieve the same purpose of
cummunication between the contorl plane and the switching plane in the MSF
Architecture.  If that is so then why do we need these two seperate standards?
Am I missing something?

Please understand that I am relatively new to this area!

Thanks,
Sasidhar

---

From: ad <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 17:26:00 -0500 (EST)

Hi,

At a very abstract level, you are correct. Both are instances
of solutions to communications between controllers and switches in a
decomposed architecture.  However, they have different areas of
specialization.

In the case of Megaco, and I am not an expert in this protocol, it
is geared toward solving the problem of how a media gateway and its
controller communicate.  The semantics of the commands are very specific
to the needs to a media gateway and deal largely with the translations
necessary for moving data from telephone links to IP data links.

On the other hand, GSMP is geared toward label switches, where the
semantics pertain to the resources of a partitioned switch and deal more
with setting up connection state then with line state translations.
Its service model is specialized for dealing with connection state
and port resources for switch to switch links.

While each of GSMP or Megaco could conceivably be forced to work in
the other's environment, this would involve adding extra complexity
to the protocols.   Also it would involve changing the focus of the
work in the respective areas.

This points to one of the issues we are, and will be, discussing in
the relationship between GSMP and the Forces problem:  does GSMP
provide an appropriate protocol base  for satisfying Forces
requirements (or part of these requirements), or is yet another
protocol required.   The question, for me, boils down to whether
the forwarding element in a decomposed router can be defined using
label switch semantics.

And I guess I am putting my opinion on the side of those who say that
for Forces, the first item of business is to figure out the
requirements and functional model for this particular decomposition.
Only then can we decide which protocol(s) will serve as a solution,
GSMP, COPS & PIBS, a combination of GMSP/COPS, or something
altogether new.

Regards,
a.

-- 

Avri Doria
+1 401 663 5024