Subject: RE: [Sigtran] M3UA for SG-SG

From: Kevin McCandless <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 May 2002 09:12:27 -0700

Tolga:
 
Now we are going to have our STPs act as proxies?  Why would one implement
that scenario?  What architecture problem does it solve?  I have looked at
the the SG-SG draft three times now and do not see a real world application
that I would use this in an SS7 network.  
 
As for M3UA v12, the last time I checked does support routing keys.
 
I am trying to understand where you guys are headed and what advantages
there might be for my network.  
 
Thanks,
 
Kevin..........

-----Original Message-----
From: Tolga Asveren [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2002 9:35 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [Sigtran] M3UA for SG-SG

Kevin,
 
The purpose is to bring relaying functionality to M3UA SGs, in my opinion
this shouldn't be considered as an error in M3UA. M3PA will allow M3UA SGs
to act as proxies. For example, if you look to Figure1 and Figure2 in the
SG-SG draft, you can see two of the possible configurations.
M2PA and M3UA can't perform the same function, they serve different
purposes. The same applies for SUA and M3UA. If one want to have RKs based
on SSN, I think SUA is a better choice.
 
In fact it all depends on the needs, which protocol one wants to use.
 
    Tolga

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of
Kevin McCandless
Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2002 10:13 AM
To: [email-masked]'
Subject: [Sigtran] M3UA for SG-SG

After reading the discussions for the past week or so on developing an M3PA
protocol for SG-SG I still can not see a valid argument for the creation of
another Sigtran protocol.  We developed M3UA which can handle A,B,C,D etc
links.  For some reason we have M2PA but M3UA can perform the same function.
We also have SUA but with no need for it since M3UA can handle TCAP
functionality, too.  So my question is why are we trying to build another
protocol?  Is there some great glaring error in M3UA that we are trying to
mask?  Does M3UA need a modification?  If not, then what problem are we
trying to solve with a M3PA protocol?  How will another protocol benefit my
SS7 over IP network?  
 
Sincerely,

Kevin McCandless 
Senior Network Planner 
Illuminet (A VeriSign Company)
913-814-6397 
[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>

---

From: "Tolga Asveren" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 May 2002 13:53:04 -0400

Kevin,

My personal opinions are:

1- For M3UA-SUA comparision: M3UA is not suitable for SSN based RKs, there
are problems with management messages, probably one can do some tricks but I
think SUA is a better choice in this case.

2- For M3UA SG-SG case: It brings relaying capability. If you use it for
relaying just between SS7 nodes, M2PA might be also used. But in my opinion
SG-SG communication is a better choice. Even with IPSP, I don't think the
whole network will be a fully connected mesh. If you think for RKs in fine
granularity, management of such a network is not very easy, at least in my
view. Also, please consider the case, where there are different operators in
play. If one wants only PC granularity, then SG-SG provides an alternative
to communciate between two IP nodes in point-to-point fashion.

In your original message, you wrote that M3UA and M2PA are doing the same
thing. This is not true. But with SG-SG M3UA will be capable of doing what
M2PA is doing.(again just my opinion)

Personally I see SG-SG communciation as an extension rather than a new
protocol.

    Tolga
  -----Original Message-----
  From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of
Kevin McCandless
  Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2002 12:12 PM
  To: [email-masked]
  Subject: RE: [Sigtran] M3UA for SG-SG

  Tolga:

  Thanks,

  Kevin..........
    -----Original Message-----
    From: Tolga Asveren [mailto:[email-masked]]
    Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2002 9:35 AM
    To: [email-masked]
    Subject: RE: [Sigtran] M3UA for SG-SG

    Kevin,

    The purpose is to bring relaying functionality to M3UA SGs, in my
opinion this shouldn't be considered as an error in M3UA. M3PA will allow
M3UA SGs to act as proxies. For example, if you look to Figure1 and Figure2
in the SG-SG draft, you can see two of the possible configurations.
    M2PA and M3UA can't perform the same function, they serve different
purposes. The same applies for SUA and M3UA. If one want to have RKs based
on SSN, I think SUA is a better choice.

        Tolga
      -----Original Message-----
      From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf
Of Kevin McCandless
      Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2002 10:13 AM
      To: [email-masked]'
      Subject: [Sigtran] M3UA for SG-SG

      After reading the discussions for the past week or so on developing an
M3PA protocol for SG-SG I still can not see a valid argument for the
creation of another Sigtran protocol.  We developed M3UA which can handle
A,B,C,D etc links.  For some reason we have M2PA but M3UA can perform the
same function.  We also have SUA but with no need for it since M3UA can
handle TCAP functionality, too.  So my question is why are we trying to
build another protocol?  Is there some great glaring error in M3UA that we
are trying to mask?  Does M3UA need a modification?  If not, then what
problem are we trying to solve with a M3PA protocol?  How will another
protocol benefit my SS7 over IP network?

      Sincerely,
      Kevin McCandless
      Senior Network Planner
      [email-masked]