Subject: RE: [SUA & M3UA issue] IPSP cases.

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 3 Sep 2001 14:49:25 +0300

Hi Amish,

> Your text below states that either of the IPSPs may start the 
> operations but 
> the text in 1.4.8 of M3UAv8 states "In the case of IPSP to IPSP 
> communication, the peer endpoints using M3UA SHOULD be 
> configured so that 
> one always takes on the role of client and the other the role 
> of server for initiating SCTP associations."

Since this is a configuation issue, I think that the above SHOULD
actually is a should (lowercase).  This is a recommendation.

> The above text seems to imply that one end SHOULD always be 
> the client, in which case one endpoint will always initiate 
> operations while the text below allows for more flexibility. 
> Maybe the text in 1.4.8 should be re-worded.

Would this be OK:

	In the case of peer-to-peer IPSPs, either of the IPSPs (IPSP_A) may
	start operations by sending an ASP Up message to the remote peer
	(IPSP_B).   It is recommended that one IPSP is conigured to be
	the client, and it initiates the signaling.

> Just a thought, maybe this issue has been covered previously: 
> The draft addresses RK registration from the SGP perspective. In 
> the IPSP case is a REG REQ required in both directions or is some 
> type of negotiation necessary?

I would suggest that this depends on the nature of the IPSP. From
3.6.1

  The REG REQ message is sent by an ASP to indicate to a remote M3UA peer
  that it wishes to register one or more given Routing Keys with the 
  remote peer.  

So, if both IPSPs wish to register Routing Keys, then they both MUST
send REG REQ messages to each other.

best regards,
John

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