Domjan Attila wrote: >> Yeah, that's probably going to be something we'll have to deal with. A >> lot of switches I have seen don't cross T1/E1 boundaries on group >> messages, but Asterisk's SS7 implementation has situations where it does >> cross T1/E1 boundaries on group messages. >> > > But I think not enough make the stuff for only the most switches have to > pass the tests. I have not found any limitation in the itu-t standards. > Btw would be better if we don't send any group messages overlapping the > E1/T1s. I think I agree with that. It would definitely make things simpler when doing ISUP masquerading... (as long as we can count on other switches to not cross T1/E1 boundaries). Matthew Fredrickson Digium, Inc. > >> For A links, I think it won't be a problem though because the CICs >> are >> going to line up correctly. For F links (signaling and bearers on same >> T1/E1) you'll have problems with lining up group messages with T1/E1 >> boundaries. >> > > >>> When I have time I'll test your new stuff. >> It's actually in the svn branches I posted earlier which contain >> Domjan's changes... I'm going to have to merge those into trunk anyways, >> I just haven't done it yet, so eventually they'll be in trunk. >> >> http://svn.digium.com/svn/libss7/branches/mattf/bug13495 >> >> http://svn.digium.com/svn/asterisk/branches/mattf/bug13495 >> >> Matthew Fredrickson >> Digium, Inc. >> >>> Regards, >>> Attila >>> >>>> Well, to have a fully redundant setup, you would have separate boxes >>>> terminating each signaling link. These routing machines can masquerade >>>> ISUP traffic over to other machines via IP protocol based links. Each >>>> of these IP connected boxes has an IP link to each box with a physical >>>> signaling link. If a machine with a physical link goes down, it reports >>>> it to the IP links that are hooked up to it and the machines using those >>>> IP links use their alternate IP links instead of that link, providing >>>> for redundancy in times of link failure. >>>> >>>> There are going to be other problems to think about as well, but I think >>>> that the basic logic is sound and will work. >>>> >>>> I actually just got masqueraded ISUP messages passing correctly back and >>>> forth over IP, but I still have some technical hurdles as far as what to >>>> do as IP links go in and out of service. This list will definitely know >>>> what I have something I'm interested in testing :-) >>>> >>>> Matthew Fredrickson >>>> Digium, Inc. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> --Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com-- >>>> >>>> asterisk-ss7 mailing list >>>> To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: >>>> http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-ss7 >>>> >>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> --Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com-- >>>> >>>> asterisk-ss7 mailing list >>>> To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: >>>> http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-ss7 >> >> _______________________________________________ >> --Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com-- >> >> asterisk-ss7 mailing list >> To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: >> http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-ss7 >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> _______________________________________________ >> --Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com-- >> >> asterisk-ss7 mailing list >> To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: >> http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-ss7
|