Subject: [Megaco] MG capacity must be small?

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 09:07:09 +0800

Hi all,
   H.248 entity indicate it's transport address in ServiceChange command.
Give an TCP transport example, the transport is an IP+PORT pair. So there
only exist one TCP transport connection for a MG+MGC pair. Here now the CPU
processor is limited, so we can conclude the MG+MGC transaction capacity
cann't exeed the TCP transport capacity, so the MG capacity couldn't be
very high.

   I want to see whether H.248 could support huge MG. Could there exist
more than one transport connection between one MG+MGC pair? Maybe the
transport on TCP/SCTP/MTP3B/etc. is not different.

   Regards,

   Zichun

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

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 14:08:44 +0800

Hi Christer,
  I agree split MG is possible. I want to know whether we could solve the
problem without split the MGW. Could we let a MG-MGC pair's H.248
transported on several TCP connections? The MEGACO didn't mention it.

  In fact, splited logical MGW are small. When the MGWs need connect each
other, wasting occurs. Give an example, In 3GPP WCDMA systems  big MGW
connect several RNCs, split MGW maybe RTP transport resources when
inter-RNCs change-over begins.

  Spliting make the equipment difficult to config data, also difficult to
maintain.

  Regards,

  Zichun

spamcontrol

---

From: "Christer Holmberg (JO/LMF)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 07:32:08 +0200

Hi,

>Give an TCP transport example, the transport is an IP+PORT 
>pair. So there only exist one TCP transport connection for a MG+MGC pair. 
>Here now the CPU processor is limited, so we can conclude the MG+MGC 
>transaction capacity cann't exeed the TCP transport capacity, so the MG capacity 
>couldn't be very high.
> 
>I want to see whether H.248 could support huge MG. Could 
>there exist more than one transport connection between one MG+MGC pair? Maybe the

[CHH] One option is to split your physical MG into multiple virtual MGs. Then you can establish separate TCP connections for each of those.

Regards,

Christer Holmberg
Ericsson Finland

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 14:08:44 +0800

Hi Christer,

  Regards,

  Zichun

spamcontrol

---

From: "Kevin Boyle" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 10:34:17 -0400

I disagree.  Partitioning MGs into several VMGs makes them easier to
configure and maintain, as long as the partitioning is made to apportion the
available resources.

Remember that VMGs may share the same resources and provisioning -- it is
only to the MGC that the VMGs appear to be different entities.  So, the
various VMGs don't have to be wasteful when interconnecting, because they
are, behind the scenes, the same MG.  A MG could, for example, figure out
that a particular bearer is running from one of its VMGs to another, and
keep the bearer local instead of looping it over the network.

Kevin

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Monday, June 30, 2003 2:09 AM
To: Christer Holmberg (JO/LMF)
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: RE:RE: [Megaco] MG capacity must be small?

Hi Christer,

  Regards,

  Zichun

spamcontrol

---

From: "Kevin Boyle" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 10:34:17 -0400

Kevin

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Monday, June 30, 2003 2:09 AM
To: Christer Holmberg (JO/LMF)
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: RE:RE: [Megaco] MG capacity must be small?

Hi Christer,

  Regards,

  Zichun

spamcontrol

---

From: "Christer Holmberg (JO/LMF)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 07:32:08 +0200

Hi,

Regards,

Christer Holmberg
Ericsson Finland