[Sigtran] DRST message handling

"Shmelev, Kirill" <shmelev@mera.ru> Tue, 06 November 2007 07:20 UTC

Return-path: <sigtran-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IpIk4-0001oF-Uu; Tue, 06 Nov 2007 02:20:56 -0500
Received: from sigtran by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1In79b-0001Ti-Om for sigtran-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 31 Oct 2007 02:34:15 -0400
Received: from sigtran by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1In79b-0001QO-Cn for sigtran@ietf.org; Wed, 31 Oct 2007 02:34:15 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1In77O-0000Gb-O0 for sigtran@ietf.org; Wed, 31 Oct 2007 02:31:58 -0400
Received: from mail.mera.ru ([195.98.57.161]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1In77F-00039n-8i for sigtran@ietf.org; Wed, 31 Oct 2007 02:31:55 -0400
Received: from drweb by mail.mera.ru with drweb-scanned (Exim 4.34; FreeBSD) id 1In76u-0009HH-3H for sigtran@ietf.org; Wed, 31 Oct 2007 09:31:28 +0300
Received: from tegw.mera.ru ([192.168.20.11] helo=texmail.te.mera.ru) by mail.mera.ru with esmtp (Exim 4.34; FreeBSD) id 1In76t-0009H5-SJ for sigtran@ietf.org; Wed, 31 Oct 2007 09:31:27 +0300
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 09:31:25 +0300
Message-ID: <A38501726936C540B67609D8D0C9A03B014A15C5@texmail.te.mera.ru>
Thread-Topic: DRST message handling
Thread-Index: Acgbh6kr4j5wmMHwQcW/2XyLFKXO9g==
From: "Shmelev, Kirill" <shmelev@mera.ru>
To: sigtran@ietf.org
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: bc6181926481d86059e678c9f7cb8b34
X-TMDA-Confirmed: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 02:34:15 -0400
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 06 Nov 2007 02:20:56 -0500
Subject: [Sigtran] DRST message handling
X-BeenThere: sigtran@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Signaling Transport <sigtran.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sigtran>, <mailto:sigtran-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:sigtran@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sigtran-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sigtran>, <mailto:sigtran-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1190364234=="
Errors-To: sigtran-bounces@ietf.org

Hi, 

 

I have doubts about the DRST message. Judging from RFC4666, one can say,
that DRST is somewhat similar to the TFR message. 

The extract from Q.704 (ch. 13.4.3) says:

 

"When a signalling point receives a transfer-restricted message from
signalling transfer point Y and has an alternative equal priority link
set available and not restricted to destination X, it performs the
actions in 8.2."

 

While RFC4666 (ch. 3.4.6) believes:

"The M3UA layer at the ASP is expected to send traffic to the affected
destination via an alternate SG with a route of equal priority, but only
if such an alternate route exists and is available"

 

The difference is in the state of an alternative route, Q.704 proposes
to take into account restricted routes in addition to available ones,
while RFC4666 denies usage of restricted routes. Am I right? If yes,
then, why the restricted routes are removed?

 

It is quite important for us, in spite of the seeming insignificance of
the matter. 

 

Looking forward to see an answer

 

Thank in advance,

Shmelev Kirill, 

_______________________________________________
Sigtran mailing list
Sigtran@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sigtran