Article View: comp.protocols.iso
Article #1518Re: ISDN, Layer 3
From: Larry Swift
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 1988 14:32
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 1988 14:32
47 lines
2698 bytes
2698 bytes
Don, thanks for the info. Some additional questions:
In article <3080@druco.ATT.COM> stanwyck@druco.ATT.COM (D. Stanwyck) writes:
>User-user signalling is a service where the two "users" (hint- user <>
>end-system) may send information between themselves in the call control
>messages. This comes is several varieties - some associated with a
>circuit-switched call, and at least one not associated with any other
>communication path. This latter is the type you mention above.
>
>For this connection type, the network is told that all you want is to relay
>messages between the users without establishing a related communication
>path for e.g., a voice call. You could (correctly) call this using the
>CCS7 network or whatever the network's internal common channel signalling
>fabric is based on as a packet-switching network. As a result, not all
>network providers are jumping eagerly into this service, as the user data
>flows could potentially (and likely) block call-related signalling
>information.
This discription almost sounds synonymous with OSI's "connectionless"
service, which isn't flow-controlled. Is that a reasonable association?
>.... The brief answer is that Disconnect Request does not require the
>termination of all communication - i.e., you could potentially keep some
>type of user-user signalling up, while release request occurs some messages
>later and implies a total release of communications.
Can you give some idea of application?
>Overlap sending/receiving and overlap modes relate to whether the address
>information is all carried in one message or is sent piecemeal to/from the
>exchange. Both are possibilities.
Just curious here. Do you have an idea as to how the term "overlap" came
to be used?
>You really should get a copy of the current draft proposed American National
>Standard (DpANS) based on Q.931. It should be out for ballot by the end of
>this year.
I have Q.931; is the ANSI draft substantially different? more readable?
I'll try to get a copy.
Larry Swift UUCP: {peora,uunet}!pdn!larry
Paradyne Corp., LF-207 Phone: (813) 530-8605
P. O. Box 2826
Largo, FL, 34649-9981 She's old and she's creaky, but she holds!
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<4183@pdn.UUCP>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!mailrus!uwmcsd1!marque!uunet!pdn!larryReferences:
<4091@pdn.UUCP> <3080@druco.ATT.COM>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!mailrus!uwmcsd1!marque!uunet!pdn!larry From: larry@pdn.UUCP (Larry Swift) Newsgroups: comp.protocols.iso Subject: Re: ISDN, Layer 3 Message-ID: <4183@pdn.UUCP> Date: 26 Aug 88 14:32:00 GMT References: <4091@pdn.UUCP> <3080@druco.ATT.COM> Reply-To: larry@pdn.UUCP (0000-Larry Swift) Organization: Paradyne Corporation, Largo, Florida Lines: 47