FW: MEGACO errata

Christian Groves Christian.Groves at ERICSSON.COM
Sun May 28 23:54:48 EDT 2000

G'Day Tom,

When doing the definition of it was intended to support the ITU variant.
There wasn't any input to support anything else at the time.

Cheers, Christian

Tom-PT Taylor wrote:
> 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

For help on this mail list, send "HELP ITU-SG16" in a message to
listserv at mailbag.intel.com

More information about the sg16-avd mailing list