Subject: RE: [Sigtran] Recommendation for SUA modifications

From: "Haresign Lincoln" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 09:37:06 -0400

Brian,

Perhaps you have a different version of Q.771 then I do.  I guess I
don't see anything in this document that requires the TC user to have
knowledge of a point code.  And we have deployed applications with TC
users that have no knowledge of point code.  

Regards,
Lincoln 

-----Original Message-----
From: Brian F. G. Bidulock [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2005 4:43 AM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: Haresign Lincoln; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Sigtran] Recommendation for SUA modifications

John,

It might be best then to leave the APC mandatory in the SCON,
particularly when one considers that not even a TC-user is spared the
use of a point code in these management primitives (Q.771/2.2.3).

I think we need, for the time being, to note in the I-G that Point Codes
are mandatory in all Addresses to or from an SG, to preclude the
interoperability difficulties of an SG or ASP underspecifying an
address.
If the additional work you mention ever materializes in the future,
placing point code in addresses could later be relaxed.

--brian

John Loughney wrote:                    (Thu, 13 Oct 2005 09:18:00)
> Hi all,
> 
> >I don't see why SUA should be any different.  I can't speak for the 
> >other authors, but when we wrote the SUA RFC, I never considered that

> >an ASP or SG would ever not include a point code in an address.
> >
> >Making the point codes mandatory in address fields for all SUA 
> >messages better promotes interoperability in all configurations, and 
> >the miniscule expense of causing an ASP to provision a single point 
> >code for an SG with only a single point code.
> 
> Just as background - there were some discussions that ASPs might not 
> have Point Codes, but some other work to really enable ASPs to funtion

> properly without Point Codes never really materialized.  I think some 
> additional work would be needed to make this usable.  SGs were always 
> considered to have Point Codes, in my opinion.
> 
> John

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

______________________________________________________________________
  This email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-Secure and has
been found clean.

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

---

From: "Brian F. G. Bidulock" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 11:47:46 -0600

Haresign,

Haresign Lincoln wrote:                                                           (Thu, 13 Oct 2005 09:37:06)
> users that have no knowledge of point code.  

Yes, and from what I understand, applications that ignore N-PCSTATE
indications contrary to SCCP and TCAP standards.

I find it interesting that you ignore on the one SCCP-User the very
N-PCSTATE indication that you are demanding that you generate without
providing a point code from the other SCCP-User.

On the one hand you say that you ignore the N-PCSTATE because it is
"meaningless" and you don't want to track the point codes it contains,
yet on the other end you want to generate one without specifying a
point code.

I have no doubt that you have deployed such ASPs without point codes.
And I'm sure you are exepriencing problems because of it.

Start by observing the SS7 standards, assign point codes (MTP-SAP) at
your SCCP and SCCP-Users, process received N-PCSTATE indications, and
your problems will go away.

SS7 SCCP does not save you the task of assigning point codes: do not
expect SUA to relieve you of what you indicate as such a great burden.

--brian

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