Re: [Sigtran] Upper boundary of Adaptation Layers

[Ilie Glib <[e-mail]>]

Hello Stanislav,

On 1/9/06, Stanislav Ivanovich <[e-mail]> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Since I find Ilie's questions ambiguous I will extend his questions by
> asking:
>
> 1) Is there a layer which owns state of SIGTRAN objects (like ASP/IPSP
> process states) indepdnednetly on MTP-user or SCCP-user applications by
> making these applications idendepndtz on the ASP/IPSP state?
>

[Ilie] I have not questioned that, in my view this is a fact written
in stone (RFCs).
check e.g. the SIGTRAN applicability draft:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-sigtran-signalling-over-sctp-applic-09.txt

> 2) If such layer exisits and if M3UA and SUA are not just and only protocls
> but also boxes/layers which have a place in the signalling system which is
> to isolate user functions on ASP/IPSP state shold such layer own the control
> on ASP/IPSP states?
>
> For example SCCP subsystem does not want to handle traffic. In legacy
> systems SCCP-user applications own the control on the SCCP-subsystem state
> change thus they control appaearance on N-STATE_request primitive on SCCP
> API.
> However if one thinks that xxUA is not just a set of protocls (ASP-SGP and
> IPSP-IPSP) but also a box which contains a functionality which is to isolate
> user functions on SIGTRAN concepts (like ASP/IPSP) does that imply that such
> box should own commands for AS state change, i.e. it is SUA box but not SCCP
> user function which owns control on AS state change, see section 1.6.3. in
> xxUA RFCs, e.g. Definition of the Boundary between SUA and Layer Management:
>
> M-ASP_ACTIVE request
> Direction: LM -> SUA
> Purpose: LM requests ASP to send an ASP Active message to its peer.
> M-ASP_INACTIVE request
> Direction: LM -> SUA
> Purpose: LM requests ASP to send an ASP Inactive message to its
> peer.
>
> Is this an RFC fault?
>
>
> regards/ stanislav
>
>
> Ilie Glib <[e-mail]> wrote:
> Hello Folks,
>
> In my current understanding of the SIGTRAN:
>
> - SUA and M3UA RFCs define the primitives of the adaptation layers
> towards their users in Section "1.6.1. Definition of the upper
> boundary".
> SUA and M3UA RFCs simply refer to ITU-T and ANSI standards for the
> complete definition of the primitives towards the users, therefore
> SIGTRAN supports existing
> SCCP/MTP users without them being aware of the fact that SIGTRAN is
> used for the transport of messages.
> SIGTRAN concepts and the corresponding entities/objects like AS, RK,
> RC, IPSP, ASP, and SGP are not part of the currently standardized
> upper boundary of M3UA (SUA).
> Thus today's SIGTRAN users do not know anything about those concepts.
>
> Can you please confirm this view or tell me if I'm mislead by my
> interpretation ?
>
> Is their any attempt in SIGTRAN WG to define! an extended upper
> boundary for xxUA that gives the option of managing entities like AS,
> RK, RC, IPSP, ASP, and SGP to xxUA users and what are the enhanced
> services expected from adaptation layers ?
>
> Thank you in advance
>
> --
> Ilie
>
> _______________________________________________
> Sigtran mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sigtran
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> Yahoo! Photos
> Ring in the New Year with Photo Calendars. Add photos, events, holidays,
> whatever.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Sigtran mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sigtran
>
>
>


--
Ilie

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