IETF Logo Mail Archive

RE: [Dime] Review of draft-tsou-dime-base-routing-ext-03.txt

"Glen Zorn" <glenzorn@comcast.net> Tue, 11 December 2007 18:24 UTC

Return-path: <dime-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J29mE-0008I9-9v; Tue, 11 Dec 2007 13:24:18 -0500
Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J29mC-0008I4-No for dime@ietf.org; Tue, 11 Dec 2007 13:24:16 -0500
Received: from qmta09.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.30.96]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J29mC-0004JO-16 for dime@ietf.org; Tue, 11 Dec 2007 13:24:16 -0500
Received: from OMTA06.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.30.51]) by QMTA09.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net with comcast id PN3R1Y00416AWCU0A0gU00; Tue, 11 Dec 2007 18:24:20 +0000
Received: from gwzPC ([67.168.164.234]) by OMTA06.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net with comcast id PWQJ1Y00653lGY30800000; Tue, 11 Dec 2007 18:24:20 +0000
X-Authority-Analysis: v=1.0 c=1 a=lHSIbCQlPutU3VykrlwA:9 a=RkElPbU2KUNca9IAhfYA:7 a=GI0-MGLy5fMduzRVTNWrjxtcNYgA:4 a=9OHTkwyHC8cA:10 a=yMhMjlubAAAA:8 a=SSmOFEACAAAA:8 a=KO16Eer1JEDnvy3tIBkA:9 a=lvzbM2OI7V_iA-4XujAA:7 a=yZc56zp9RI6GPw0m_7lHoz0DeqIA:4 a=37WNUvjkh6kA:10
From: Glen Zorn <glenzorn@comcast.net>
To: 'Tina TSOU' <tena@huawei.com>, jouni.korhonen@teliasonera.com, preeti.shandilya@aricent.com, tasveren@sonusnet.com
References: <033458F56EC2A64E8D2D7B759FA3E7E7509625@sonusmail04.sonusnet.com> <OFF1D96C66.DAFB08B8-ON652573AE.0016CC5A-652573AE.0017C06A@aricent.com> <59D7431DE2527D4CB0F1EFEDA5683ED3024F9CB8@SEHAN021MB.tcad.telia.se> <00a701c83bcb$8f25acf0$ad7106d0$@net> <018a01c83bd4$9437a780$544c460a@china.huawei.com>
In-Reply-To: <018a01c83bd4$9437a780$544c460a@china.huawei.com>
Subject: RE: [Dime] Review of draft-tsou-dime-base-routing-ext-03.txt
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 10:21:35 -0800
Message-ID: <007b01c83c22$ab1f50d0$015df270$@net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
Thread-Index: Acg71J4ADDKJFqs3Ss2q5RN3GYiE8AATI9eQ
Content-language: en-us
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 4515df9441674711565101d9d5c4f63f
Cc: dime@ietf.org, gshafran@traffixsystems.com
X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group <dime.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime>, <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/dime>
List-Post: <mailto:dime@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime>, <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0526864543=="
Errors-To: dime-bounces@ietf.org

Dear Glen and all,

I know Jouni has two use cases. Jouni, Steve and I talked about them in
Vancouver. I am trying to describe as below. If it is not precise, Jouni,
please correct me.

 

Use case #1:

There are several visiting network, and one home network. 

Type 1# service should go via intermediate node #a in visiting network A#.

Type 2# service should go via intermediate node #b in visiting network B#.

......

This use case can be for both mobile and fix network operator.

[gwz] 

So what happens if node #a is down?  Is Type 1# service
disabled/unavailable?  If not, what's the point of the routing, given that
it is unnecessary; if so, doesn't that sort of defeat the purpose of
fail-over?

[/gwz]

 

Use case #2:

The charging data should be sent from that node.

[gwz] 

Does this mean that the data path must also pass through that node?

[/gwz]

 

This use case can be for mobile operator.

 

B. R.
Tina


_______________________________________________
DiME mailing list
DiME@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email