Subject: RE: [Megaco] Are Megaco subscribers immobile??

From: Madhubabu Brahmanapally <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2004 12:15:22 -0800

Hi Tom,
Thanks for the reply.

If the protocol doesn't provide any mechanism...everything boils down to
provisioning which defeats the purpose of mobility...Of course the protocol
is not addressing the mobility issue..

But, If new terminations/cards are added...apart from pre-provisioning
shouldn't there be a way so that the GW can scale using the protocol
interface. rather than through proprietary means...

Even now when the serviceChange when generated with "restart", it is assumed
that the terminations are pre-provisioned at the MGC. Then, How does the MGs
scale dynamically. Of course scaling down is not a problem...as the group of
terminations are already known to both entities.

Regards
Madhubabu

-----Original Message-----
From: Tom Taylor [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Monday, February 23, 2004 10:50 AM
To: Madhubabu Brahmanapally
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Megaco] Are Megaco subscribers immobile??

I would think this contrary to the spirit of Megaco, in that the awareness
of 
services resides in the MGC alone and is not reflected in the protocol.

Madhubabu Brahmanapally wrote:

> Hi All,
> The present Protocol spec doesn't address the issue of mobility of users 
> connected to the residential gateways. Are there any proposals for 
> registration of endpoints when they change their physical location (Yet 
> retaining their domain name,etc).  Similar to the REGISTER message in SIP.
>  
> Regards
> Madhubabu

---

From: Tom Taylor <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2004 15:34:57 -0500

The key point is that only the MGC is aware of the telephone number associated 
with a particular termination.  The telephone number and what it implies in terms 
of services are outside the scope of Megaco, which deals only with media 
processing, events, and signals.  You can indicate through ServiceChange that 
physical terminations have been added to the MG, but you need some other protocol 
(e.g. SNMP) to indicate (either directly from the telephone set or on behalf of 
the set) information not related to media.

Madhubabu Brahmanapally wrote:

> provisioning which defeats the purpose of mobility...Of course the 
> protocol is not addressing the mobility issue..
> 
> Even now when the serviceChange when generated with "restart", it is 
> assumed that the terminations are pre-provisioned at the MGC. Then, How 
> does the MGs scale dynamically. Of course scaling down is not a 
> problem...as the group of terminations are already known to both entities.
> 
> 
> Regards
> Madhubabu
> 
> I would think this contrary to the spirit of Megaco, in that the 
> awareness of

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

---

From: Tom Taylor <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2004 15:34:57 -0500