[asterisk-ss7] Single Point Code across Multiple * Boxes.

[Matthew Fredrickson]

Domjan Attila wrote:
>> Yeah, that's probably going to be something we'll have to deal with.  A 
>> lot of switches I have seen don't cross T1/E1 boundaries on group 
>> messages, but Asterisk's SS7 implementation has situations where it does 
>> cross T1/E1 boundaries on group messages.
>>
> 
> But I think not enough make the stuff for only the most switches have to
> pass the tests. I have not found any limitation in the itu-t standards.
> Btw would be better if we don't send any group messages overlapping the
> E1/T1s.

I think I agree with that.  It would definitely make things simpler when 
doing ISUP masquerading... (as long as we can count on other switches to 
not cross T1/E1 boundaries).

Matthew Fredrickson
Digium, Inc.

> 
>> For A links, I think it won't be a problem though because the CICs
>> are 
>> going to line up correctly.  For F links (signaling and bearers on same 
>> T1/E1) you'll have problems with lining up group messages with T1/E1 
>> boundaries.
>>
> 
> 
>>> When I have time I'll test your new stuff.
>> It's actually in the svn branches I posted earlier which contain 
>> Domjan's changes... I'm going to have to merge those into trunk anyways, 
>> I just haven't done it yet, so eventually they'll be in trunk.
>>
>> http://svn.digium.com/svn/libss7/branches/mattf/bug13495
>>
>> http://svn.digium.com/svn/asterisk/branches/mattf/bug13495
>>
>> Matthew Fredrickson
>> Digium, Inc.
>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Attila
>>>
>>>> Well, to have a fully redundant setup, you would have separate boxes 
>>>> terminating each signaling link.  These routing machines can masquerade 
>>>> ISUP traffic over to other machines via IP protocol based links.  Each 
>>>> of these IP connected boxes has an IP link to each box with a physical 
>>>> signaling link.  If a machine with a physical link goes down, it reports 
>>>> it to the IP links that are hooked up to it and the machines using those 
>>>> IP links use their alternate IP links instead of that link, providing 
>>>> for redundancy in times of link failure.
>>>>
>>>> There are going to be other problems to think about as well, but I think 
>>>> that the basic logic is sound and will work.
>>>>
>>>> I actually just got masqueraded ISUP messages passing correctly back and 
>>>> forth over IP, but I still have some technical hurdles as far as what to 
>>>> do as IP links go in and out of service.  This list will definitely know 
>>>> what I have something I'm interested in testing :-)
>>>>
>>>> Matthew Fredrickson
>>>> Digium, Inc.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> --Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com--
>>>>
>>>> asterisk-ss7 mailing list
>>>> To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
>>>>    http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-ss7
>>>>
>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> --Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com--
>>>>
>>>> asterisk-ss7 mailing list
>>>> To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
>>>>    http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-ss7
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> --Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com--
>>
>> asterisk-ss7 mailing list
>> To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
>>    http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-ss7
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> --Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com--
>>
>> asterisk-ss7 mailing list
>> To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
>>    http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-ss7