Subject: RE: [Megaco] MGC Failure

From: "Kevin Boyle" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 01:42:34 -0500

RFC3015 is tremendously out of date.  You should be using H.248.1.
Also, H.248.14 is not an Annex.  It is a full Recommendation in the
H.248 subseries.
 
I don't know what you mean by "master MGC" here.  Detection of link
status is effectively a detection of MGC failure -- if the MGC fails to
reply, the MG can assume it has failed and start procedures to failover
to a secondary MGC.  This is explicitly stated in H.248.14.
 
Kevin

________________________________

	From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
On Behalf Of Leandro Nobre
	Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2006 9:49 PM
	To: [email-masked]
	Subject: [Megaco] MGC Failure

	I would like some clarification on the MGC failure procedure.

	According to usual understanding of RFC3015 and its annex 14,
there are two ways to detect failure in the link:

	1)       MGC sending auditvalue to MG

	2)       MG sending notify it/ito in a predefined interval to
check link status

	My point of view is that this "notify" should also be used to
detect failure in the master MGC, when the notify reply is not received
in MG side.

	I have heard opinions that notify it/ito should be used only for
inactivity testing, not to detect MGC failure. 
	Which one is correct?

	Thanks for the support!

	Leandro Nobre

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

---

From: Leandro Nobre <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 08:59:32 -0300

I mean "master MGC" as the active at that moment. 

Do you mean that, as h.248.14 is a full recommendation, it should be used
with Auditvalue or it can be used alone? 

Leandro

  _____  

From: Kevin Boyle [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2006 3:43 AM
To: Leandro Nobre; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [Megaco] MGC Failure

RFC3015 is tremendously out of date.  You should be using H.248.1.  Also,
H.248.14 is not an Annex.  It is a full Recommendation in the H.248
subseries.

I don't know what you mean by "master MGC" here.  Detection of link status
is effectively a detection of MGC failure -- if the MGC fails to reply, the
MG can assume it has failed and start procedures to failover to a secondary
MGC.  This is explicitly stated in H.248.14.

Kevin

  _____  

From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
Leandro Nobre
Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2006 9:49 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [Megaco] MGC Failure

According to usual understanding of RFC3015 and its annex 14, there are two
ways to detect failure in the link:

2)       MG sending notify it/ito in a predefined interval to check link
status

My point of view is that this "notify" should also be used to detect failure
in the master MGC, when the notify reply is not received in MG side.

I have heard opinions that notify it/ito should be used only for inactivity
testing, not to detect MGC failure. 
Which one is correct?

Thanks for the support!

Leandro Nobre