Re: [Sigtran] single/double exchange mode doubt

"Brian F. G. Bidulock" <bidulock@openss7.org> Mon, 16 July 2007 07:48 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 1IALJy-0006Os-46; Mon, 16 Jul 2007 03:48:42 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IALJx-0006On-DX for sigtran@ietf.org; Mon, 16 Jul 2007 03:48:41 -0400
Received: from gw.openss7.com ([142.179.199.224]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IALJt-0001Zr-Ix for sigtran@ietf.org; Mon, 16 Jul 2007 03:48:41 -0400
Received: from ns.pigworks.openss7.net (IDENT:QkMPTc89LwruLuJxttFmZZtG7AOBo6tY@ns1.evil.openss7.net [192.168.9.1]) by gw.openss7.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id l6G7maM27543; Mon, 16 Jul 2007 01:48:36 -0600
Received: (from brian@localhost) by ns.pigworks.openss7.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) id l6G7mZU07858; Mon, 16 Jul 2007 01:48:35 -0600
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2007 01:48:35 -0600
From: "Brian F. G. Bidulock" <bidulock@openss7.org>
To: Ankit Kumar Sharma <ankisharma@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Sigtran] single/double exchange mode doubt
Message-ID: <20070716014835.B7007@openss7.org>
Mail-Followup-To: Ankit Kumar Sharma <ankisharma@gmail.com>, "Asveren, Tolga" <tasveren@sonusnet.com>, sigtran@ietf.org
References: <6dbbbf160707050313t7e6e3d4bt492b6be75a0647e@mail.gmail.com> <20070710062631.G16750@openss7.org> <033458F56EC2A64E8D2D7B759FA3E7E7188069@sonusmail04.sonusnet.com> <20070715190503.A1830@openss7.org> <6dbbbf160707152142m2d2a695fr44c51e024e230086@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i
In-Reply-To: <6dbbbf160707152142m2d2a695fr44c51e024e230086@mail.gmail.com>; from ankisharma@gmail.com on Mon, Jul 16, 2007 at 10:12:10AM +0530
Organization: http://www.openss7.org/
Dsn-Notification-To: <bidulock@openss7.org>
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 92df29fa99cf13e554b84c8374345c17
Cc: sigtran@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: sigtran@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
Reply-To: bidulock@openss7.org
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>
Errors-To: sigtran-bounces@ietf.org

Ankit,

I think you are confusing RK provisioning with exchange model.  If you want
to define a new AS with a new routing key, either that routing key, RC value
and AS must be provisioned on both sides, or dynamic RK registration needs
to be done.

--brian

Ankit Kumar Sharma wrote:                      (Mon, 16 Jul 2007 10:12:10)
> 
>    Brian,
>       I think in some scenarios, mixing SE and DE becomes more practical.
>    Please look at following scenario:
>                                                                ----------
>               ------------
>                                                                     |IPSP
>    1|----------------------|IPSP A |
>                                                                ----------
>               -----------
>    1)  IPSP1  is  serving AS-1(PC 111) and IPSP A is serving AS-A(PC 999)
>    with rc=x. They are running happily in single exchange mode.
>    2)  Now,  I want to add an additional AS at IPSP1 ex: AS2(PC 222). For
>    AS2, I need to configure a new RC(rc=y).
>    3)  Corresponding  to  rc=y, I need to send ASP-Active towards IPSP-A.
>    Since  there  is no local AS with rc=y at IPSP-A, it would return with
>    error  code  "invalid RC", unless there is some way to instruct IPSP-A
>    to  behave as a double-exchange IPSP for rc=y. Although I could do the
>    workaround  by adding a dummy AS with rc=y at IPSP-A but that solution
>    is irrational and not so clean.
>    Regards,
>    Ankit
> 
>    On 7/16/07, Brian F. G. Bidulock <[1]bidulock@openss7.org> wrote:
> 
>      Tolga,
>      I  don't see the need for DE in the first place, far less mixing it
>      with SE
>      on the same IPSP.
>      --brian
>      Asveren,  Tolga  wrote:                                (Sun, 15 Jul
>      2007 16:16:48)
>      >  I  was  wondering  whether such a restriction is necessary, i.e.
>      that IPSP
>      > needs to use the same mode for all AS. The state machines are per
>      >  IPSP/AS,  so I would think that it should be possible to operate
>      them
>      > independently.
>      >
>      >  Brian,  is there any specific problem scenario you have in mind,
>      if this
>      > is allowed?
>      >
>      >    Thanks,
>      >    Tolga
>      >
>      --
>      Brian F. G. Bidulock
>      [2]bidulock@openss7.org
>      [3]http://www.openss7.org/
> 
> References
> 
>    1. mailto:bidulock@openss7.org
>    2. mailto:bidulock@openss7.org
>    3. http://www.openss7.org/

-- 
Brian F. G. Bidulock
bidulock@openss7.org
http://www.openss7.org/

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