Shashank,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: sigtran-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:sigtran-bounces@ietf.org]On
> Behalf Of Prasad, Shashank S (Shashank)
> Sent: Friday, November 04, 2005 11:07 AM
> To: 'Tolga Asveren'; sigtran@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: [Sigtran] M3UA: 1IPSP - multiple IPSPs traffic flow
>
>
> Oh OK !
> Looks like, it could potentially happen that NodeB can limit itself to
> sending traffic for PS1 on only one of associations also, rather
> than both.
> However, IPSP1 has really to "listen" at both the associations.
> Is that correct ?
[TOLGA]Yes. Please also note that it is the M3UA-User which controls this
behavior on Node-B, i.e. this is not loadhsaring on M3UA level but one layer
above. IPSP2 and IPSP3 have only one peer anyway, IPSP1. When they receive a
message from their user, they will send it to IPSP1.
>
> A couple of more questions that now comes up:
> 1. In a single ended scenario, how could have IPSP1 (at NodeA) determined
> the Traffic Mode of AS2 at NodeB, if the ASP Active was sent from IPSP1 to
> IPSP2 and IPSP3 ? (Instead of what is shown my illustration)
[TOLGA]Through local configuration, please note Traffic Mode parameter is
optional. OTOH, I think that it could be an idea to modify the protocol a
bit to use TrafficMode parameter in ASPAC-ACK to inform ASPAC sending side
about traffic mode on the peer side in case it is necessary.
>
> 2. In a single exchange scenario, isn't it needed to have the peer ASs
> having the same Traffic Mode ?
[TOLGA]I believe what you mean as "AS traffic mode" is traffic mode of peer
IPSPs in the context of an AS. As far as I can see different traffic modes
shouldn't be a problem. Important is that AS becomes ACTIVE/INACTIVE
simultaneously at both sides.
>
> shashank
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: sigtran-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:sigtran-bounces@ietf.org]On
> Behalf Of Tolga Asveren
> Sent: Friday, November 04, 2005 8:51 PM
> To: sigtran@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: [Sigtran] M3UA: 1IPSP - multiple IPSPs traffic flow
>
>
> This is implementation/traffic type dependent and is not something
> standardized by M3UA.
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Prasad, Shashank S (Shashank) [mailto:ssprasad@lucent.com]
> > Sent: Friday, November 04, 2005 10:28 AM
> > To: 'Tolga Asveren'; sigtran@ietf.org
> > Subject: RE: [Sigtran] M3UA: 1IPSP - multiple IPSPs traffic flow
> >
> >
> > Thanx Tolga. U are right in understanding my question.
> >
> > Followup Question:
> > Since IPSP2 and IPSP3 are serving the same AS, what would determine at
> > NodeB, if the traffic to IPSP1 is
> > to be sent via IPSP2 or IPSP3 ?
> >
> >
> > shashank
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: sigtran-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:sigtran-bounces@ietf.org]On
> > Behalf Of Tolga Asveren
> > Sent: Friday, November 04, 2005 8:13 PM
> > To: sigtran@ietf.org
> > Subject: RE: [Sigtran] M3UA: 1IPSP - multiple IPSPs traffic flow
> >
> >
> > Shashank,
> >
> > As far as I understand your question:
> >
> > You have IPSP1, IPSP2, IPSP3. You have one RK. IPSP sends ASPAC
> > for this RK
> > to IPSP2 and IPSP3. IPSP2 and IPSP3 are working in loadsharing
> > mode. You are
> > wondering whether IPSP1 will receive traffic from both IPSP2 and IPSP3.
> >
> > Yes, it can, but I wouldn't call it traffic being loadshared to
> > IPSP1. IPSP2
> > and IPSP3 are not the same entities. OTOH it makes sense to speak of
> > loadharing traffic from IPSP1 to IPSP2 and IPSP3 because traffic from a
> > single source is distrubuted to multiple peers.
> >
> >    Tolga
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: sigtran-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:sigtran-bounces@ietf.org]On
> > > Behalf Of Prasad, Shashank S (Shashank)
> > > Sent: Friday, November 04, 2005 9:48 AM
> > > To: 'sigtran@ietf.org'
> > > Subject: [Sigtran] M3UA: 1IPSP - multiple IPSPs traffic flow
> > >
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > > I had a specific question related to a specific scenario
> explained below
> > > (Single Exchange scenario)
> > >
> > > NodeA supports 1 PS with 1 IPSP
> > > NodeB supports 1 PS with 2 IPSPs in Loadshared mode.
> > >
> > >
> > > There are two associations between NodeA and NodeB.
> > > The first association is between IPSP1 (NodeA) and IPSP2 (NodeB).
> > > The second association is between IPSP1 (NodeA) and IPSP3 (NodeB).
> > >
> > > The IPSP2 and IPSP3, which are serving loadshared for the PS2
> on NodeB,
> > > send an ASP Up to IPSP1 serving for PS1 on NodeA. Which means
> > > that IPSP2 and
> > > IPSP3,
> > > serving a loadshared PS2, are essentially telling NodeA to
> > > loadshare all the
> > > traffic
> > > for PS2, between IPSP2 and IPSP3.
> > >
> > > The above concepts are also illustrated below....(I have purposefully
> > > avoided AS-ACTIVE notification)
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >          NodeA                   <------------NodeB------------>
> > >
> > >          PS1-IPSP1               PS2-IPSP2                 PS2-IPSP3
> > >           |                        |                          |
> > >           |<-----ASP Up------------|                          |
> > >           |-------ASP Up Ack------>| (Assoc #1)               |
> > >           |                        |                          |
> > >           |                        |                          |
> > >           |<--------------------ASP Up------------------------|
> > (Assoc #2)
> > >           |----------------------------ASP Up Ack------------>|
> > >           |                        |                          |
> > >           |                        |                          |
> > >           |                        |                          |
> > >           |<--ASP Active(Ldshr)----|                          |
> > >           |------ASP Active Ack--->|                          |
> > >           |                        |                          |
> > >           |                        |                          |
> > >           |                        |                          |
> > >           |<--------------------ASP Active(Ldshr)-------------|
> > >           |----------------------------ASP Up Ack------------>|
> > >           |                        |                          |
> > >           |                        |                          |
> > >           |---NOTIFY(AS-ACTIVE)--->|                          |
> > >           |--------------------------NOTIFY(AS-ACTIVE)------->|
> > >           |                        |                          |
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Questions:
> > > Assuming a single exchange scenario, would the traffic towards
> > > PS1 on NodeA,
> > >
> > > be also loadshared across 2 associations ?
> > >
> > > I thought it would and hence another follow-up question:
> > > It looks like a loadshared peer (NodeB in our case) with
> > multiple IPSPs,
> > > is putting a constraint on the NodeA, to ALSO be ready to
> > receive data on
> > > multiple associations and possibly loadshared. Is this a fair
> > > understanding
> > > ?
> > >
> > >
> > > shashank
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Sigtran mailing list
> > > Sigtran@ietf.org
> > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sigtran
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Sigtran mailing list
> > Sigtran@ietf.org
> > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sigtran
> >
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Sigtran mailing list
> Sigtran@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sigtran
>
> _______________________________________________
> Sigtran mailing list
> Sigtran@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sigtran
>



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