Subject: RE: [Sigtran] MTP3b over M2UA?

From: "Brett Wallis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 10:41:23 -0500

Thank you.  As for the "technical arguments that lead to "M2UA cannot
support MTP3b"", I'm waiting for them. I have challenged them to be brought
forth, but have received none.  There is a meeting in China next week where
they might be brought forth, but I won't be there and I'm trying to provide
as much info as I can to my representative who will attend.

So I came here to hopefully get clarifications on a few key points:

1) That M2UA was clearly meant to apply to both MTP3 and MTP3b (as stated in
the expired internet-draft I quoted initially).

2) That despite the use of Q.2140 here (coming into the MG), this is the
exact role that M2UA was meant to play.  The alternate proposal is to use
M3UA here, which means the MG must terminate MTP3/MTP3b, own a point code,
play an STP role, etc.

Thanks...

Brett 

-----Original Message-----
From: Chirayu Patel [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2004 10:32 AM
To: [email-masked]'
Cc: Wallis, Brett [RICH2:UM59:EXCH]
Subject: Re: [Sigtran] MTP3b over M2UA?

Hi,

The main argument for M2UA to not support MTP3B can arise only if it
(M2UA) does not support some of the functionality of Q.2140. In my opinion
this is not the case. It would be helpful if you could articulate the actual
technical arguments that lead to "M2UA cannot support MTP3b" argument.

regards, 
CP

On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 09:32:08 -0500, "Brett Wallis"
<[email-masked]> said:

[Snip]

> There are some current arguments amongst UMTS vendors as to whether 
> M2UA was meant to support MTP3b.

[Snip]

> An argument used against us is that the primitives b/w MTP3b and 
> Q.2140 are different from the primitives between MTP3 and MTP2.  I'm 
> not even aware that MTP3-MTP2 interface primitives have been defined.  
> From what I can gather, the only real difference between these two 
> data link layers is that some of the optional procedures of MTP2 are 
> not supported by Q.2140.
>
> Can anybody please provide opinions here?  It seems this role is 
> exactly what M2UA was created for, and I fail to see how Q.2140 on one 
> side of the MGW would prevent M2UA from being used here.
>

---

From: "Tolga Asveren" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 13:02:37 -0400

RE: [Sigtran] MTP3b over M2UA?A feew comments below inline....

 Tolga
  -----Original Message-----
  From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of
Brett Wallis
  Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2004 11:41 AM
  To: ' [email-masked]''
  Subject: RE: [Sigtran] MTP3b over M2UA?

  1) That M2UA was clearly meant to apply to both MTP3 and MTP3b (as stated
in the expired internet-draft I quoted initially).

  [TOLGA] Key point is that there is a layer2 protocol and layer3 protocol
and there are certain primitives defined between them (names of the
primitives is not important but the functionality they provide/the
information they carry). If you can map all o those primitives to M2UA, then
you should be all set -so at least theoretically, you are even not limited
to MTP3/MTP3-B, the only constraint AFAICS is the above-. For that reason, I
don't see any problem on configuration you mentioned.

  [TOLGA]With M3UA, SG needs to terminate MTP3/MTP3b, but then you don't
need to have it in MGC. It will own a point code, but in your configuration,
MTP3/MTP3-b in MGC also owns a point code. For M3UA solution, MG does not
need to be a STP. I don't see any problem with M3UA solution.

  Thanks...

  Brett

  -----Original Message-----
  From: Chirayu Patel [mailto:[email-masked]]
  Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2004 10:32 AM
  To: [email-masked]'
  Cc: Wallis, Brett [RICH2:UM59:EXCH]
  Subject: Re: [Sigtran] MTP3b over M2UA?

  Hi,

  regards,
  CP

  [Snip]

  [Snip]

---

From: "Brian F. G. Bidulock" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 11:38:35 -0600

Brett,

M2UA was intended to not only support Q.703/Q.2140 based SS7 links but was
intended to support M2PA SS7 links as well.

In IETF RFCs, it is best to consider that which is not explicitly counter-
recommended as permitted.

A reference to MTP3b exists in Section 1.5.4.1 of the RFC, with regard to
stream selection an 24-bit SLS values in MTP3b.  If M2UA were not intended to
support MTP3b, in would hardly have been worth mentioning.

M2PA is not mentioned as it was not at RFC status at the time that M2UA was
advanced.

It was alway my intention as an author of the RFC (and I think that the other
authors and editor were of like intention) that M2UA support not only current
SS7 signalling link types, but as many future signalling link types as could
be forseen.

--brian

Brett Wallis wrote:                                                                  (Tue, 20 Apr 2004 10:41:23)
>    support  MTP3b"",  I'm  waiting for them. I have challenged them to be
>    brought  forth,  but  have received none.  There is a meeting in China
>    next  week where they might be brought forth, but I won't be there and
>    I'm  trying  to provide as much info as I can to my representative who
>    will attend.
> 
>    1)  That  M2UA  was  clearly meant to apply to both MTP3 and MTP3b (as
>    stated in the expired internet-draft I quoted initially).
> 
>    2)  That  despite the use of Q.2140 here (coming into the MG), this is
>    the exact role that M2UA was meant to play.  The alternate proposal is
>    to  use M3UA here, which means the MG must terminate MTP3/MTP3b, own a
>    point code, play an STP role, etc.
> 
>    Thanks...
> 
>    Brett
> 
>    From: Chirayu Patel [[1]mailto:[email-masked]]
>    (M2UA)  does  not  support  some of the functionality of Q.2140. In my
>    opinion  this  is  not  the  case.  It  would  be helpful if you could
>    articulate  the  actual  technical arguments that lead to "M2UA cannot
>    support MTP3b" argument.
> 
>    regards,
>    CP
> 
> References
>    1. mailto:[email-masked]

-- 
Brian F. G. Bidulock
[email-masked]
http://www.openss7.org/

_______________________________________________
Sigtran mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sigtran