FW: MEGACO errata

Tom-PT Taylor taylor at NORTELNETWORKS.COM
Fri May 26 16:08:56 EDT 2000

I'm forwarding this to the SG 16 list copy the Megaco list because I think
the MTP address was firmed up at Red Bank.  Can anyone account for the
failure to accommodate longer MTP addresses?  Was it simply because the
intention was to use Annex I transport within an ITU environment only?

> -----Original Message-----
> From: dacollins at notes.primeco.com [SMTP:dacollins at notes.primeco.com]
> Sent: Friday, May 26, 2000 1:03 PM
> To:   Taylor, Tom-PT [NORSE:B901:EXCH]
> Subject:      MEGACO errata
> Hi Tom,
> Having had a look at the latest version of the MEGACO spec, I noticed
> something
> odd. The mId may be an MTP address. However, the MTP address is defined in
> both
> the ABNF and ASN.1 specifications as being 2 octets in length. The ASN.1
> description provides a comment that the point code (PC) is 14 bits and the
> network indicator (NI) is two bits.
> This is only correct for the ITU version of SS7.
> In several countries, different versions of SS7 are used and different
> addressing schemes are used. In many countries, including the US, Canada
> and
> China, the PC is 24 bits long, with the NI still at two bits, for a total
> of 26
> bits. Therefore, to use an MTP address for the mId in those countries, the
> definition of the mId needs to change.
> I hope this helps in finalizing the spec.
> Daniel Collins
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.packetizer.com/pipermail/sg16-avd/attachments/20000526/87234d10/attachment-0003.html>

More information about the sg16-avd mailing list