Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: IPSP proposed text (1st approach)]]

From: "Brian F. G. Bidulock" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 4 Nov 2001 14:36:08 -0600

Javier,

But Javier, then we have

  IPSP1 uses RC1 for traffic from AS1 to AS3.
  IPSP1 uses RC2 for traffic from AS2 to AS3.

  IPSP2 uses RC3 for traffic from AS3 to AS1.
  IPSP2 uses RC4 for traffic from AS3 to AS2.

This is not what was being described as the RC is associated
with the AS.  AS3 has two RC values (RC3 and RC4) in that
case for the same assocation and the same pair of IPSPs.
I thought you (or others) said that double-ended didn't
require this?  I though you (or others) said that this is
what made double-ended "like" the AS/SG case: that one
RC identified an AS.  But here you have two RCs for AS3.
If AS3 has similar RKs to 400 other AS, then AS3 will
require 402 RC values?  Gee, one for each traffic flow?

This is not double-ended at all.  It just has one set
of redundant RC values for the reverse direction.  With
400 more AS, this would require 804 RC values.

In the single-ended case we have:

  IPSP1                       IPSP2

       REG REQ (RK2, RK1)
    -------------------------->
  
       REG RESP (RC1, RC2)
    <--------------------------
  
And,

  IPSP1 uses RC1 for traffic from AS1 to AS3;
  IPSP1 uses RC2 for traffic from AS2 to AS3;

  IPSP2 uses RC1 for traffic from AS3 to AS1;
  IPSP2 uses RC2 for traffic from AS3 to AS2;

Configuration need only be assigned at one end
instead of both as in the double-ended case.
There are half the messages, half the RC values
and there is no case of activations that are
stuck in half-duplex mode.

With 400 more AS, this would required only 402 RC
values.

Where is the value in the double-ended approach in
this case?

--brian

Javier Pastor-Balbas wrote:                                (Sun, 04 Nov 2001 12:20:32)
> Brian, 
> 
> IPSP1 won't return the same value for RK3 and RK4 in double-ended. It
> will never happen...
> 
> 
> 
> IPSP1                       IPSP2
> 
>      REG REQ (RK2, RK1)
>   -------------------------->
> 
>      REG RESP (RC1, RC2)
>   <--------------------------
> 
> 
>      REG REQ (RK3, RK4)
>   <--------------------------
>  
>      REG RESP (RC3, RC4)
>   -------------------------->
> 
> 
> No violation here... 4AS:4RK:4RC
> 
> 
> Examples of DATA msgs
> 
>        DATA (RC4)
>   -------------------------->
>        DATA (RC3)
>   -------------------------->
>        DATA (RC2)
>   <--------------------------
>        DATA (RC1)
>   <--------------------------
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cheers  // Javier.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --- "Brian F. G. Bidulock" <[email-masked]> wrote:
> > Javier,
> > 
> > > > > >   The routing table at IPSP1 is:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 	RC3 RK3
> > > > > > 	RC3 RK4
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Now, there is a problem.  This routing table at IPSP1 is
> > > > > > not valid: there is the same RC value (index) for two RK
> > > > > > entries.  How can this happen?  How will IPSP1 know to
> > > > > > return the same RC value when RK1 and RK2 are registered?
> > > > > > This would also violate the key relationship that there
> > > > > > is a 1:1:1 relationship between RC, RK, and AS.
> > 
> > How can this happen?
> > 
> > --brian
> > 
> > -- 
> > Brian F. G. Bidulock
> > [email-masked]
> > http://www.openss7.org/
> 
> 
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Find a job, post your resume.
> http://careers.yahoo.com
> 
> 
> ---
> 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]