Annex G

Roy, Radhika R, ALTEC rrroy at ATT.COM
Mon Sep 7 10:34:49 EDT 1998

Dear Mr. Clowes:

The "abstraction of routing" between the GKs is an option. Whether the
"abstraction of this routing option" to be used through a chain of zones or
not is left up to the implementation schemes.

If one does not feel the advantage of this option, then one may not use it.

I hope that this will clarify the things.


Radhika R. Roy

PS When we see references in H.323 that a message is to be sent from one GK
to another GK, it implies that the message has to be "routed" from one GK to
another. (In another scenario, when in H.323 it is assumed that messages are
to be sent between the GKs via "multicasting", it is also a kind of
"routing" through a tree architecture that has a "chain of branches" where
GKs are located.)

> ----------
> From:         Douglas Clowes[SMTP:dclowes at OZEMAIL.COM.AU]
> Reply To:     Mailing list for parties associated with ITU-T Study Group
> 16
> Sent:         Sunday, September 06, 1998 6:21 PM
> Subject:      Re: Annex G
> At 19:38 05/09/98 -0400, you wrote:
> >3.2 Routing
> >
> >Like inter-zone, the communications between the domains also need
> >the abstraction of routing to facilitate inter-GK communications
> >since the inter-domain communication is nothing but the communications
> >through a chain of zones.
> It would appear to me that "the communications through a chain of zones"
> is
> prone to introducing problems.
> Douglas
> >Hi Editor/SG16 Members:
> >
> >A proposal on Annex G is enclosed. Your comments will be highly
> appreciated.
> >
> > <<m_G.doc>>
> >Sincerely,
> >
> >Radhika R. Roy
> >AT&T
> >Tel: + 1 732 949 8657
> >Email: rrroy at
> >
> >Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\m_G.doc"
> >

More information about the sg16-avd mailing list