Subject: [Sigtran] M3UA Notification and Routing Context

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2010 21:42:20 +0800

Hi All,
 
Does it become mandatory for SG to send Notify message ("Alternate ASP
Active") with Routing Context, when the concerned ASP is a part of
multiple AS. So that the concerned ASP can use this RC to become
INACTIVE for the related AS.
 
E.g. If  ASP1 is Actively processing traffic for both AS1(Override) and
AS2(Loadshare) and another ASP2 of AS1 becomes ACTIVE, Do SG then needs
to send Notify message ("Alternate ASP Active") with AS1 Routing
Context, which ASP1 will use to become INACTIVE for AS1.

Please comment.
 
Thanks
aamir

---

From: "Brian F. G. Bidulock" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2010 13:07:59 -0700

Amir,

RC should likely be marked "conditional" instead of "optional".

--brian

[email-masked] wrote:              (Thu, 04 Mar 2010 21:42:20)
>    E.g. If  ASP1 is Actively processing traffic for both AS1(Override)
>    and AS2(Loadshare) and another ASP2 of AS1 becomes ACTIVE, Do SG then
>    needs to send Notify message ("Alternate ASP Active") with AS1 Routing

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

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

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2010 13:27:28 +0800

Brian,

Than I guess RFC should clearly state this, rather than saying it just
"optional". Can we treat this as a update in M3UA RFC.

Thanks
aamir

-----Original Message-----
From: Brian F. G. Bidulock [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Friday, March 05, 2010 1:38 AM
To: Khan, Amir [NETPWR/INDIA/HYDE]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Sigtran] M3UA Notification and Routing Context

Amir,

--brian

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

---

From: "Brian F. G. Bidulock" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2010 22:54:47 -0700

Amir,

Sure, I suggest you submit an ERRATA.

--brian

[email-masked] wrote:              (Fri, 05 Mar 2010 13:27:28)

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

---

From: Chris Benson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2010 11:50:43 -0800 (PST)

Amir and Brian,

In similar vein to CONDITIONAL Routing Context in NOTIFY, isn't 
the presence of Network Appearance also CONDITIONAL rather than 
OPTIONAL in many of the M3UA message formats?

With thanks from Chris Benson.

On Thu, 4 Mar 2010, Brian F. G. Bidulock wrote:

>>  Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2010 22:54:47 -0700
>>  From: Brian F. G. Bidulock <[email-masked]>
>>  To:  <[email-masked]>
>>  Cc:  <[email-masked]>

---

From: "Brian F. G. Bidulock" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2010 12:54:00 -0700

Chris,

How so?  I think that NA really is "optional".

--brian

Chris Benson wrote:                           (Fri, 05 Mar 2010 11:50:43)

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

---

From: Chris Benson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2010 12:09:42 -0800 (PST)

Brian,

I thought Network Appearance "conditionally" mandated in 
circumstances such as described early in RFC 4666 ...
   An example scenario is where an SG appears as an
   element in multiple separate nationl SS7 networks
   and the same Signalling Point Code may be reused
   in different networks.
Also there's the issue of Network Appearance being used to 
distinguish between different semantics of Message Priority, 
Point Code range etc.

Can all of this be done satisfactorily (in the presence of
multiple separately administered networks) without Network
Appearance?

This is not an idle question, as I am currently working
as an M3UA implementation provider, to assist a customer
combining NA and different RC value to distinguish between 
different SGs and SGPs, all from the same 1 ASP in 1 AS.

With thanks for your speedy resposne, from Chris Benson.

On Fri, 5 Mar 2010, Brian F. G. Bidulock wrote:

>>  Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2010 12:54:00 -0700
>>  To: Chris Benson <[email-masked]>
>>  Cc:  <[email-masked]>,  <[email-masked]>

---

From: "Brian F. G. Bidulock" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2010 22:11:13 -0700

Chris,

Chris Benson wrote:             (Fri, 05 Mar 2010 12:09:42)
> multiple separately administered networks) without Network

Yes, by routing context.  Routing context is conditional.  NA is
optional in most messages.

> different SGs and SGPs, all from the same 1 ASP in 1 AS.

There used to be a weird case where there could be more than one
NA in an implied AS, and you can still see some text in the RFC
(e.g. under registration request) that alludes to that, but
nobody could describe the management of such a beast and those
that advocated it in the first place had long left the WG.  If
that is the case you are thinking of, then it is really not
"conditional" as that whole weird multiple-NA-implied-AS thing
is completely "optional".  Normally one AS represents one SPMC
in one NA.  In the weird-multiple-NA-implied-AS case, there are
all kinds of things that might be considered conditional, but
as they are not identified by the spec, it is best to leave them
labelled simply "optional", which is true for all described
cases.

--brian

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