Hi folks, Im not sure if its the best choice but i think it might be a standard way to terminate a sig channel in one box and make it talk MGCP to other boxes. As far as i could remember Mathew was after adding MGCP to chan_zap sometimes before. Whats your opinion guys? Regards. -- M. Shokuie Nia On 13/01/2009, Matthew Fredrickson <creslin at digium.com> wrote: > > Amish Chana wrote: > > Hi, > >>> Hi Matthew, > >>> > >>> In this case, if the point code is distributed across more than one > box, > >>> how do you manage SS7 link (and linkset) failures, where the messages > >>> need to be re-routed via another link (or linkset) during failure > scenarios? > >> 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. > > Have you looked at the RSerPool > > (http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/rserpool-charter.html). It may be one > > method of addressing these requirements. > > I actually have seen a number of different projects like this for > cluster distribution, management, and synchronization. > > > > >> 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 :-) > > What about using M3UA to address the requirement of having one point > > code across more than one box? The Routing Key registration method > > provided for in M3UA will allow each box to register the CIC values for > > which they want to receive ISUP messages. See the example architecture > > with M3U1 below. Box1 (ASP1) would register a routing key for CIC 1..93, > > Box2 (ASP2) would register a routing key for CIC 94..186, and Box3 > > (ASP3) would register a routing key for CIC 187..279. The E1s/T1s from > > each SEP to each Box/ASP would still exist, however we would terminate > > the SS7 on a Signalling Gateway and route M3UA between the SG and each > > ASP. (The example below shows one SG but at least 2 will be necessary). > > > > ---- > > / \ > > /---+ ASP1 | > > / \ / > > SG / ---- > > +---------------+ / > > | | |---/ ---- > > +-------+ SS7 links | | | / \ > > | SEP +--------------| SS7 Ntwk.|M3UA+-----------+ ASP2 | > > +-------+ | | | \ / > > | | | ---- > > | | |---\ > > +---------------+ \ ---- > > \ / \ > > \----+ ASP3 | > > \ / > > ---- > > Although I am not using true M3UA and sigtran protocols right now, > conceptually, this is almost exactly what we are doing, except we will > support multiple SGs to each ASP as well. > > 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 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.digium.com/pipermail/asterisk-ss7/attachments/20090114/c1a43120/attachment.htm
|