Subject: Re: SG as STP

From: "Brian F. G. Bidulock" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2001 16:12:56 -0600

Dennis,

Dennis Niermann wrote:                                     (Wed, 07 Nov 2001 15:56:35)
> Brian,
> If an AS is always considered a local user of a SG MTP3,
> and if the AS is reachable via two SGs,
> is that AS considered a local user of both SG MTP3s?

Yes.  That is what caused some difficulties when providing
support for multiple SG as STPs.

> /Dennis
> 
> "Brian F. G. Bidulock" wrote:
> > 
> > Dennis,
> > 
> > Dennis Niermann wrote:   (Wed, 07 Nov 2001 14:03:59)
> > >
> > > I would like to describe what I think is a major influence
> > > on the different expectations concerning IPSP-IPSP.
> > > It is based on how you view M3UA for the SG-ASP case.
> > >
> > > M3UA view 1:
> > > M3UA is to MTP3 as M2UA is to MTP2.
> > > I.e., M3UA provides a way to present the
> > > upper interface of MTP3 (really in the SG)
> > > to a User Part in a remote IP node.
> > > With this view you could think of the AS's
> > > in the M3UA IP node as the "local users" of
> > > MTP3 in the SG.
> > >
> > > M3UA view 2:
> > > M3UA view 1 is a very good way to conceptualize the
> > > role of M3UA for the case of a SPMC, i.e. when the
> > > SG acts a signalling end point in the SS7 network.
> > > But, M3UA also supports SGs as STPs. And in the case
> > > of SG as an STP, M3UA view 1 does not apply.
> > > For the STP case, the SG is its own point code and
> > > various other point codes are used by the ASs.
> > > Thus, the ASs can not be viewed as local users
> > > of the SG MTP3 stack.
> > 
> > In fact the AS are always viewed as local uses of the
> > SG MTP3 stack.  See the overview for M3UA.
> > 
> > >
> > > Acceptance of the fact that the STP mode for a
> > > SG is allowed and is needed has a very significant
> > > impact on one's perception and viewpoint on the IPSP-IPSP
> > > case.
> > 
> > Yes.  If an IPSP has transfer capabilities, it will even
> > more clearly necessary to use SNMM and even more clearly
> > pointless to use ASPTM.  Or did you want the IPSP with
> > transfer capability to proxy register all of the AS on all
> > of the IPSPs with all of the IPSPs that it is connected to?
> > 
> > If you consider that an IPSP could also communicate with
> > the SS7 network, it would be impossible to do proxy-
> > registration of AS.
> > 
> > When you consider transfer/relay, approach (A) is even more
> > clearly unworkable.  Approach (B) however, already supports
> > this:  AS can communicate today via SG/STPs.
> > 
> > --brian
> > 
> > --
> > 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]
> 
> -- 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>  Dennis Niermann              [email-masked]
>  Ericsson Network Systems   
>  Richardson, Tx 75081
> 
> 
> ---
> 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]