Subject: [Sigtran] Lift M3UA improvements into SUA

From: "Ilie Glib" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2006 19:36:00 +0100

Hello folks,

SUA RFC lacks a lot of details, especially if compared with M3UA RFC.
Many statements from M3UA RFC do apply to SUA as well. For instance,
explanations of n+k redundancy, SE and DE modes, and many more.

Is there any intention to lift those improvements made in M3UAbis into
the SUA spec?

As far as understand there is no standardization body except for IETF
that accepted SUA, is there?

Is that the actual reason that SUA does not evolve to an open protocol
that provide for interoperability?

Thank you in advance

-- 
Ilie

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

---

From: "Brian F. G. Bidulock" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2006 12:59:04 -0700

Ilie,

Ilie Glib wrote:                                                      (Thu, 09 Nov 2006 19:36:00)
> Is there any intention to lift those improvements made in M3UAbis into

I do not consider them improvements.  SUA is a different beast and has
a number of procedures and mechanism that differ from M3UA.  This first
set of common procedure changes where shoe-horned into SUA before it
went to WGLC and were removed because they caused unique problems for
SUA.  If you are interested, look (way) back at the discussions leading
up to WGLC for SUA.

> that accepted SUA, is there?

Yes, ETSI and 3GPP really dropped the ball, but there was not a whole lot
of funding at the time and M3UA was crammed out the door first.

Since then ITU-T has specified TI-SCCP (transport independent SCCP) which
runs directly over SCTP and is the formal standard replacement for SUA
outside of IETF.  3GPP uses White Book SCCP over M3UA as well as MAP directly
over GTP tunnels (over NS and IP or FR).

> that provide for interoperability?

I think that "real" SCCP over M3UA or TI-SCCP (basically "real" SCCP
directly over SCTP) are more workable that SUA in that they avoid SCCP
issues by reusing time-tested SCCP.

It's too bad because SUA goes way farther to address problems with ITU
point code exhaustion because of its ability to distribute messages between
SG and ASP based on global title and a richer IPSP model.

Just my 2 cents.

--brian

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

---

From: "Brian F. G. Bidulock" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2006 13:15:08 -0700

Ilie,

What I can't understand is why 3GPP did not adopt SCTP as a possible
sub-network convergence function provider on the Gb interface between
the BSC and the SGSN.  Perhaps it was the delay of the ADD-IP capability
necessary to replace the somewhat complicated IP network service layer.

--brian

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

---

From: "Brian F. G. Bidulock" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2006 13:23:24 -0700

Ilie,

Sorry to reply three times, but...

> that accepted SUA, is there?

There is ETSI TS 102 143 which endorses SUA, but as it is not one of the
signalling bearers mentioned in 9.202, it is likely only useful for GSM
within an administrative domain or by bilateral agreement.

--brian

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

---

From: "Haresign Lincoln" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2006 16:45:02 -0500

Ilie,

In limited cases, we are seeing customer demanding SUA as the interface
to their switches.  So there is industry interest in SUA.  In the one
case where we are actively involved, M3UA would clearly work in place of
SUA and it is not clear to us why the network customer demands SUA, but
there you have it.  Sometimes the customer is always right (or you loose
the contract).

Regards,
Lincoln 

-----Original Message-----
From: Brian F. G. Bidulock [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2006 3:23 PM
To: Ilie Glib
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Sigtran] Lift M3UA improvements into SUA

Ilie,

Ilie Glib wrote:
(Thu, 09 Nov 2006 19:36:00)

--brian

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

---

From: "Brian F. G. Bidulock" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2006 15:40:10 -0700

Lincoln,

They probably do not want to assign a point code every time they
hook up an application.

--brian

Haresign Lincoln wrote:                       (Thu, 09 Nov 2006 16:45:02)

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

---

From: "Haresign Lincoln" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2006 17:46:46 -0500

Brian,

Funny thing is that they are using point codes.  That's why I said they
could easily use M3UA.  They are using PC as the RK but are convinced
that they must use SUA.  Can't convince them otherwise.

Regards,
Lincoln 

-----Original Message-----
From: Brian F. G. Bidulock [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2006 5:40 PM
To: Haresign Lincoln
Cc: Ilie Glib; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Sigtran] Lift M3UA improvements into SUA

Lincoln,

They probably do not want to assign a point code every time they hook up
an application.

--brian

Haresign Lincoln wrote:                       (Thu, 09 Nov 2006
16:45:02)
> Ilie,
> 
> In limited cases, we are seeing customer demanding SUA as the 
> interface to their switches.  So there is industry interest in SUA.  
> In the one case where we are actively involved, M3UA would clearly 
> work in place of SUA and it is not clear to us why the network 
> customer demands SUA, but there you have it.  Sometimes the customer 
> is always right (or you loose the contract).
> 
> Regards,
> Lincoln
> 

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