Subject: M3UA/SUA IPSP

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2001 13:26:24 +0300

Brian,

> But again are not providing MTP or SCCP services directly within the
> M3UA or SUA layers?  This goes back again to my original question:
> Do M3UA IPSPs need to implement MTP state machines?  Do SUA IPSPs need
> to implement SCCP state machines?  Do SUA messages exchanged between
> IPSPs correspond to SCCP-User primitives?  Or do they correspond
> to SCCP peer-to-peer messages (PDUs)?

In my opinion, M3UA & SUA IPSPs transfer messages which
correspond to their user's primitives.  ASPs do not require
that MTP3 / SCCP state machines are implemented at the ASP /
IPSP.

John

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

---

From: "Brian F. G. Bidulock" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2001 05:37:06 -0500

John,

John Loughney wrote:                        (Thu, 20 Sep 2001 13:26:24)
> that MTP3 / SCCP state machines are implemented at the ASP /
That's what I was hoping too.  However, there are a few problems
in trying to achieve that.  What generates DUNA?  (MTP/SCCP-Users
never send MTP-PAUSE/N-PCSTATE/STATUS to their providers).  For
this to be accomplished MTP-PAUSE/N-PCSTATE must be derived from
ASPTM/SM messages, which brings us back to the question of whether
ASPTM/SM should be used instead of SNMM in the ASP/SG case.

--brian

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

---

---

From: "Schantz, John" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2001 07:49:28 -0700

I disagree with you guys in stating that "M3UA does not provide the
services of the MTP".  I think it can and a good implementation will
have the M3UA provide the service of the MTP.  I don't think the
statement is true even in the backhaul case.  And I think it is
incorrect to state that it doesn't in the documents.  This might also
explain your question of "who" generates the DUNA, DAVA, etc.

What are the services of the MTP?  The two main ones are 1) the routing
of messages and 2) Network Management.  Clearly, you can't argue that
routing is not provided.  You can't argue that Network Management is not
provided also.  Network Management means that nodes must maintain the
status of remote nodes and routes.  M3UA has the messages needed for
this (the SNMM) and there are statements that imply or explicitly state
that if more than one route exists, then the status of the routes must
be managed.

Changeover/changeback is not a main service and it only exists between
two adjacent nodes.  Signalling link test is not needed since the
concerns are more than met with SCTP and M3UA layer management for an
association.

So just because the documents state that they "do not provide the
service" doesn't mean that it is true.  May implementation WILL provide
the service.  And I think these statements MUST be deleted from at least
the M3UA spec. and possible the SUA spec.

John

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brian F. G. Bidulock [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2001 5:37 AM
> To: sigtran
> Subject: Re: M3UA/SUA IPSP
> 
> 
> John,
> 
> You are currently subscribed to sigtran as: [email-masked]
> To unsubscribe send a blank email to 
> [email-masked]
> 

---

---

From: "Asveren, Tolga" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2001 10:11:38 -0500

Hi John,

Please see comments below.

  Tolga

> From: Schantz, John [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2001 10:49 AM
> To: sigtran
> Subject: RE: M3UA/SUA IPSP
> 
> 
[TOLGA] In fact, one has to differentiate the cases where SG is working in
SEP mode or in STP mode for SG-ASP case. When SG is working in SEP mode, I
disagree with you that M3UA provides any service of MTP3. The transfer
functionality in this case is the same functionality between MTP3 and SS7
User part layers of a regular SS7 stack, which is not the transfer
functionality of MTP3. The same applies to network management. The services
provided by M3UA, when SG is working in SEP mode, are services, which one
needs, if one wants to distribute his SS7 user parts.A similar logic would
be necessary, if one wanted to distribute his user parts in SS7 domain.
Again this is different than the network management services provided by
MTP3. In fact, for SG-SEP case there isn't much problem, it is obvious where
MTP3 of SS7 user parts (which are on ASP) is, on SG. 
> You are currently subscribed to sigtran as: [email-masked]

---

---

From: "Schantz, John" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2001 08:27:36 -0700

See comments below.

> From: Asveren, Tolga [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2001 10:12 AM
> To: sigtran

[JLS] You are talking about the backhaul case.  BUT can not an AS in the
backhaul case connect to more than one SG?  If it can not (SG-to-AS[P]
is 1-to-1), then route management may not be needed at the AS.
BUT are you also saying that the AS's M3UA will ignore remote node
status in determining whether it can send messages to specific
destinations?  If this is not true then you are talking about the MTP
services of routing and route management.  Or are you "passing the buck"
on to SCCP and the applications to maintain all status and hence do
these services for the AS's M3UA?

---

---

From: "Asveren, Tolga" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2001 10:44:04 -0500

please see comments below.

   Tolga

> Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2001 11:28 AM
> To: sigtran
[TOLGA] Th ecase I am talking about is not only backhaul case. Also the SG is working in SEP mode. Of course, you can connect AS to more than one SG working in SEP mode but this will correspond to distributing your MTP3 functionality. Again the relationship between AS(s) and SG(s) stay the same, the realtionship between SS7 User Parts and MTP3 in a SS7 node. This functionality is for sure different than the routing and network management functionality of MTP3 itself.

---

---

From: "Schantz, John" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2001 08:50:57 -0700

I think you are only fooling yourself.  But if you can make your
implementation work, go for it.

John

> Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2001 10:44 AM
> To: sigtran
> [TOLGA] Th ecase I am talking about is not only backhaul 
> case. Also the SG is working in SEP mode. Of course, you can 
> connect AS to more than one SG working in SEP mode but this 
> will correspond to distributing your MTP3 functionality. 
> Again the relationship between AS(s) and SG(s) stay the same, 
> the realtionship between SS7 User Parts and MTP3 in a SS7 
> node. This functionality is for sure different than the 
> routing and network management functionality of MTP3 itself.
> > 

---

---

From: "Asveren, Tolga" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2001 12:35:18 -0500

John,

the point where we are disagreeing is not something related with implementation. I believe what we are implementing is the same, because we are following the same draft. The discussion is about, whether the implemented functionality is functionality of MTP3 or not. You say it is and I say in SG-ASP case where SG is working in SEP mode, it isn't.

   Tolga

> Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2001 11:51 AM
> To: sigtran
> > > > > > John Loughney wrote:                        (Thu, 
> 20 Sep 2001 
> > > > > > 13:26:24)
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > But again are not providing MTP or SCCP 
> services directly 
> > > > > > within the

---

---

From: Verwimp Gery <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2001 09:14:58 +0200

I agree with John S. on this topic. For SUA the same applies !!

____________________________

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

-----Original Message-----
From: Schantz, John [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: donderdag 20 september 2001 17:51
To: sigtran
Subject: RE: M3UA/SUA IPSP

John

> [email-masked]

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

---