Subject: RE: [Megaco] Re: notify and service change

From: "Tom-PT Taylor"<[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 09:58:12 -0500

There are two typoes of signalling involved here.  It makes sense for the MG
to relay the H.245 signalling at the H.248 level, but PRI or other call
signalling should use a Sigtran interface.

-----Original Message-----
From: YH [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Monday, February 04, 2002 1:36 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Megaco] Re: notify and service change

Thanks Tom, it's been great helps.

Is it legal for an MG issues a notify or serviceChange first before a
termination is added by an add command from the MGC?

I am thinking about a scenario where an  h324 mux may only be physically
located in the MG,  no mux facility in the MGC. Then, the MG has to relay
the
signaling into the MGC (if it is also a signaling MG) before the signaling
can
be processed. It'll be nice to see that the Megaco has such capabilities,
then
there is only one Megaco interface needed, no other signaling paths
required.

Thank you.

_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

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

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

---

From: YH <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2002 11:21:55 +1100

Thanks Tom. My major concern is the signaling flow between an H.248 terminal and
the MG & MGC. So, I interpret your message is yes, that the Megaco is capable to
carry relayed signaling originated from the H.248 terminal. Please correct me if
I misunderstand your message.

Thank you.

Yude

---

From: YH <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2002 11:21:55 +1100

Thank you.

Yude