Subject: Re: [SUA issue 17 & M3UA issue #11] IPSP cases.

From: Amish Chana <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 06 Sep 2001 14:24:45 +0100

This thread does not seem to be going anywhere. Since the basic discussion 
is on whether a SCTP association can terminate on multiple hosts then may I 
suggest moving the discussion to the Transport Area Working Group.

Alf, just to add my 2 cents worth to your proposal........

There are numerous implementations where each SS7 links to the same point 
code terminate on different hosts or processors.

To implement your proposal, the hosts would have to coordinate the 
Verification Tag, TSNs, SSNs, Heartbeats and other information in real-time. 
Furthermore, in the event of failure of the primary path the secondary host 
would have to forward the data chunks to the primary host to achieve 
sequenced delivery. What if the primary host fails?

I wouldn't say its an impossible implementation but it would be a very 
heavy-weight and complex implementation - without its own problems.

Amish

> > Brian
> >
> > Can you point where it is explicit in MTP that you provide redundancy
> > between host in MTP .
>
>Yes.  Changeover support for Local and Remote Processor Outage procedures.
>
> > You can use the functions in MTP to do it and twist little with your
> > implemntation,.
>
>SS7 was always intended to run with independent link processors.  No
>twisting is required.
>
> > you can do the same thing with SCTP. SCTP does not disallow to do what I
> > propose.
>
>I doesn't provide for it either.  How many SCTP implementations support
>a single association over multiple hosts?
>
>M3UA does not even provide for this.  M3UA has separate associations to
>separate hosts.  This is clear from the definition of SGP and ASP as
>having a close relationship with an SCTP endpoint.
>
> >
> > In my undesrstanding the performance requirement on MTP is a value when 
>you
> > can utilise all MTP functions. SCTP do the same values, without any 
>extra in
> > M3UA. These type of extra thing you want can be moved to a new RFC thaar
> > supports the redundancy handling for multiple associations.
>
>What is your point here?
>

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

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