Subject: Re: EECID

From: Michael Brown <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 4 Nov 1999 14:13:36 -0500

Annette,

   One reason that the contextid won't work is related to the idea that we
may (as suggested in the BICC requirements document) want to allow a
mechanism for caching the network bearer path for later use. For high
capacity gateways this would save considerable time in setup of calls. The
EECID could be retained as a mechanism to allow one gateway to inform the
other that an existing bearer path is to be used for a call attempt rather
than setting up a new one. If the bearer path is in the cache it would not
be in a context and would not have a contextid.

As far as where this identifier would be carried, this is currently being
discussed in the working groups for BICC in the ATM Forum and T1S1 and
really is outside the scope of the proposal.

Michael

Annette Roder wrote:

> Michael,
> as it did not work with the mailing list, I try to send you the e-mail
> directly (hopefully with more success):
> I do not see any necessity of an EECID. I think the contextID is enough
> for the megaco protocol. The EECID seems to me similar to the callID of
> MGCP but I think it would be sufficient if this ID is only transported
> between MGCs, i.e. in the CIC field of the BICC.
> What do you mean?
>
> Annette

---

From: Sophia Scoggins <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 4 Nov 1999 16:02:17 -0500

Further more, the contextId is created and managed by each MG. So, for
each call there will be one contextId at each MG. The MGC cannot pass a
contextID created by one MG to be used by another MG.

Regards, Sophia