RFC on ‘Signaling System 7 (SS7) Message Transfer Part 3 (MTP3) – User Adaptation Layer (M3UA)’, published: Monday, September 18th, , The RFC Archive. Morneault & Pastor-Balbas. RFC 1. Standards Track SS7 MTP3-User Adaptation Layer [Page 5] September Introduction This memo defines a protocol for supporting the transport of any SS7.
|Published (Last):||13 February 2015|
|PDF File Size:||10.48 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||4.90 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Thursday, September 20, 9: If the RCT can’t be responded to at all because there is no routing back to it in all the the STP hops then Both ITP’s are out of sync because neither really knows the true congestion status. All good pointsâ€¦ points to which I agree It is not defined in the RFC how this should work.
Ong, Lyndon [ m3ua rfc 4666 Do both ITP’s “Really” handle traffic in m3ua rfc 4666 load shared situation?
[Sigtran] RFC M3UA – Reg Request Message
ANy intermediate node also have the routing. There are more questions that impact how this operates.
Is traffic load shared on the IP side? One very valid reason is that routing already exists across the entire network for the RCT to traverse back to where it needs to go to obtain the congestion status, and once there the node receiving it already has routing to reply as necessary back to m3ua rfc 4666 OPC of the RCT. Thanks m3ua rfc 4666 your input.
RE: [Sigtran] FW: RFC M3UA
If not sync is irrelevant. Load shareâ€¦ Just like a regular B-quad. But having definition to these would m3ua rfc 4666. Wednesday, Rfx 12, 2: Monday, September 10, 1: Same for the TFC.
If possible could you respond to my concerns. Load shareâ€¦ Just like a regular A-link.
This routing is put in place when the routing for the trunks or SCCP are ordered. It is definitely not the best implementation due to the need to open gateway screening for a new set of m3ua rfc 4666 codes rgc will originate the RCT and new routing for TFCs potentially.
This is possibly a false relief of congestion. Josh, This is all new ground.