On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 9:36 PM, Kashif Ali <kashif at kashifbukhari.com> wrote:
> test
>
> On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 11:43 PM, German Becker <german.becker at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Thanks Michael, but this is not possible in our scenario: A1 and A2 are
>> in different locations and stp1 only connects to a1 and stp2 only connect
>> to a2. I guess I will need some custom development...
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 20:26, Michael Mueller <ss7box at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Better chance of working without doing additional development. ssp to
>>> stp1 would be primary. ssp to stp2 would be alternative.
>>>
>>> A1------------stp1----------ssp
>>> | | |
>>> | +-----+ |
>>> | | |
>>> +---------------+ |
>>> | | |
>>> +------+ | |
>>> | | |
>>> A2------------stp2-----------+
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 9:50 AM, German Becker <german.becker at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> HI Michael, thanks for the reply. By hosts I mean asterisk boxes, that
>>>> would make them SSPs Both of them are connected with one signalling link to
>>>> one STP (different STP for each host) wich in turn will connect to the
>>>> destination STP(s). I'll try to sketch the scenario
>>>>
>>>> -------------
>>>> | Asterisk1 |--voice trunks-
>>>> | mtp3d |----------------|STP 1|----------|SSP| (destination point
>>>> code)
>>>> ------------- /
>>>> | (tcp) /
>>>> ------------ /
>>>> |Asterisk2 |--voice trunks /
>>>> |mtp3d |----------------|STP 2|--
>>>> ------------
>>>>
>>>> As for the variant. it is ITU. And weather it would be
>>>> primary/alternate or "load balanced" is under discussion with the connected
>>>> party. However load bancing is a possibility.
>>>>
>>>> What I would like to achieve is for incomming messages, both mtp3d
>>>> route them to the corresponding host (according to cic and ord opc); and
>>>> for outgoing messages, each asterisk deceide on which link (or linkset)
>>>> send it.
>>>>
>>>> I thought something like these could be achieved, based on this part of
>>>> the below(l4isuop.c), However, I don't get how should i configure it.
>>>>
>>>> switch (link->linkset->loadshare) {
>>>> case LOADSHARE_NONE:
>>>> if (!link->schannel.mask)
>>>> slink = link;
>>>> break;
>>>> case LOADSHARE_LINKSET:
>>>> if (linkset->n_slinks)
>>>> slink = linkset->slinks[cic % linkset->n_slinks];
>>>> break;
>>>> case LOADSHARE_COMBINED_LINKSET:
>>>> {
>>>> int n_slinks = 0;
>>>> int six;
>>>> for (lsi = 0; lsi < n_linksets; lsi++)
>>>> if (linksets[lsi].enabled)
>>>> if (&linksets[lsi] == linkset ||
>>>> (is_combined_linkset(linkset,
>>>> &linksets[lsi])))
>>>> n_slinks += linksets[lsi].n_slinks;
>>>> if (n_slinks) {
>>>> six = cic % n_slinks;
>>>> n_slinks = 0;
>>>> for (lsi = 0; lsi < n_linksets; lsi++)
>>>> if (linksets[lsi].enabled)
>>>> if (&linksets[lsi] == linkset ||
>>>> (is_combined_linkset(linkset,
>>>> &linksets[lsi]))) {
>>>> if (six - n_slinks <
>>>> linksets[lsi].n_slinks) {
>>>> slink = linksets[lsi].slinks[six -
>>>> n_slinks];
>>>> break;
>>>> }
>>>> n_slinks += linksets[lsi].n_slinks;
>>>> }
>>>> }
>>>> }
>>>> break;
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 11:29, Michael Mueller <ss7box at gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> are those 2 "hosts" STPs or SSPs? what you describe could be a
>>>>> combined linkset if connected to STPs and using ANSI SS7; if using ITU then
>>>>> this might be a primary/alternate linkset scenario; my experience says the
>>>>> combined linkset concept exists in ANSI SS7 and not in ITU
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 8:15 AM, German Becker <
>>>>> german.becker at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have a scenario with 2 hosts, 2 links on each host, one of the
>>>>>> links with signaling on each host and the DPC for all the voice TS
>>>>>> reachable through both signaling links.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm not sure if I need to create a single linkset with two signaling
>>>>>> links on it (one per host), or two combined linksets.
>>>>>> I tried the 2 links aproach, but when one of the links is down (i.e.
>>>>>> asterisk lose connection with the remote mtp3d), all the TS are set to
>>>>>> block, instead of singnaling through the other link.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Has anyone set up a similar scenario?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> _____________________________________________________________________
>>>>>> -- 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
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> _____________________________________________________________________
>> -- 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/20141205/f0229958/attachment.html>
|