Annex G

Chris Purvis WVdevmt-WS cpurvis at MADGE.COM
Tue Sep 8 13:25:02 EDT 1998


Radhika,

>Yes, AT&T's contribution, like other proposals, also separates between
the
>RAS signaling stage and the call signaling stage. So, the call signaling
is
>free to take any path as appropriate.
Thank you for this clarification.  Given that you are now permitting
call-signalling and RAS messages to follow different routes I see no
advantage, when placing a call between administrative domains, to routing
any RAS message other than LRQ/LCF/LRJ between gatekeepers/BEs.

The other problem your proposal appears to be trying to solve appears to
be that of roaming users.  Andrew Draper's email of 21st August explains
why there is no necessity for a roaming endpoint to register with a
foreign gatekeeper.  Thus support of roaming users is no reason to route
GRQ/GCF/GRJ, RRQ/RCF/RRJ, ARQ/ACF/ARJ, BRQ/BCF/BRJ, URQ/UCF/URJ,
DRQ/DCF/DRQ, IRQ/IRR/IACK/INACK and RAI/RAC/RIP/NSM/XRS between
gatekeepers.

Nokia's APC 1382 (S. Sengodan, Nokia, "On the Use of Multicast Scope for
Gatekeeper Discovery," is explicitly limited to GRQ/GCF/GRJ, and may be
of interest as a way of propogating knowledge of gatekeepers within an
administrative domain.  The zone messages proposed by Jim Toga in
APC-1422 are an alternative solution to a similar problem.

Regards,
Chris
--
Dr Chris Purvis - Senior Development Engineer, WAVE CC Software
Madge Networks Ltd, Wexham Springs, Framewood Road, Wexham, Berks.
Phone:+44 1753 661359  email: cpurvis at madge.com



More information about the sg16-avd mailing list