Jim,
Concerning the use of lightweight RRQ:
A lightweight RRQ consists of (ref h225.0, 7.9.1 : "keepAlive, endpointIdentifier, gatekeeperIdentifier, tokens, and timeToLive") A gatekeeper receiving a lightweight RRQ in cases the registration has aged (and is removed) has no information of where to reply to this RRQ. Using the gk discovery port and RRQ sender's IP address is not a good option.
Can we add rasAddress to this list in section 7.9.1 of H.225.0 ?
Espen
Jim Toga wrote:
Greetings,
After some delay, I have completed the edits coming out of the Monterey meeting for the Implementers Guide. Please review the changes and verify that everything is as expected.
I have incorporated (I believel) all of the relevent text mentioned in the Meeting report namely: APCs 1511,1512, 1520, 1522, 1533, 1506, and TDs 10, 14, 33.
If I do not have any comments back by 4/16/99 then I will integrate these changes with the complete document in preparation for the Chile meeting.
Best Regards, jimt.
Name: TD-implementers guide.docTD-implementers guide.doc Type: Microsoft Word Document (application/msword) Encoding: base64
MetaTel - Boston, MA mailto:jim.toga@metatel.com +1-781-891-9000 PGP keyID E746 1CE4 CEC0 C91E 7190 65CA 70B1 B1D2 6A1E A2B7