Subject: RE: [SUA issue 17] IPSP cases.

From: Verwimp Gery <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 11:06:18 +0200

Hello Brian,

SUA is not transporting SCCP messages, in the sense that there is no
tunneling (if that would be the case, we'd have an SCCP message according to
Q.713 with an SUA-header in front of it and that'd be it).

In my view, the SUA is a protocol in it's own right, which should contain
enough information elements to either :

- enable the SG to support every possible SCCP variant, and convert the
various SCCP information elements to the appropriate SUA information
elements, with possibly the help of SS7 configuration data on the SG
(ANSI-ITU-TTC networks).

- enable IPSP to communicate with those same information elements. On the
IPSP, the "classic" SCCP-users continue to use the SCCP functionality as
provided by SUA, without necessarily having to bother about whether there is
SS7 interworking or not (use of GT and PC can be maintained).

Therefor, my filosophy is to make the SUA as "generic" as possible, i.e.
untie it from any SCCP variant and put in information elements which have a
general use, not tied to any SS7 SCCP variant.

The inclusion of address parameters in the SSNM and RK definition would
allow, based on the wide definition of "address parameter" itself, to use
them both in an SS7 interworking as in a IPSP environment.

In this respect, SUA-AMF can provide routing/screening/accounting facilities
based on the topology of SCTP associations, rather than the IP
infrastructure below it. The SCTP association itself is a path towards a
remote SUA-peer (SG or IPSP), no different than a remote SCCP entity is now
tied to an MTP route set in the Q.751.2 object model. It is the RK/RCs
negotiated over the SCTP associations which determine the character of the
traffic between the 2 comm.partners.

Regards,

____________________________

Gery Verwimp
> SIEMENS ATEA
> ICN D CS D5
> Tel. : +32 14 25 3424
Fax : +32 14 25 3212
mailto:[email-masked]
____________________________________

-----Original Message-----
From: Brian F. G. Bidulock [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: dinsdag 4 september 2001 9:01
To: sigtran
Subject: Re: [SUA issue 17] IPSP cases.
Importance: High

Can anyone answer these two simple questions?  I would really like
to know the answer.

--brian

On Tue, 04 Sep 2001, John Loughney wrote:

> Brian,
> 
> > These diagrams do not answer my questions.  Is SUA transporting the
> > SCCP-User protocol in the IPSP case?  In the IPSP case is it true
> > that SUA is not transporting the SCCP peer-to-peer protocol?
> 
> I think we are having communication difficulties.  SUA, in the 
> IPSP<->IPSP case should be quite similar to the ASP<->SGP case,
> however we need to explicity state any extra handling.
> 
> John
> 
> 
> ---
> You are currently subscribed to sigtran as: [email-masked]
> To unsubscribe send a blank email to
[email-masked]

-- 
Brian F. G. Bidulock
[email-masked]
http://www.openss7.org/

---
You are currently subscribed to sigtran as: [email-masked]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to
[email-masked]

---
You are currently subscribed to sigtran as: [email-masked]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [email-masked]