Subject: Re: [IPTEL] Definition of "trunk group"

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 10:01:29 EST

In a message dated 1/14/02 4:00:27 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
[email-masked] writes:

> That is why it may be better to separate the policy decision (which is 
>  preferred) from the basic facts.  The use of terms "direct" and "indirect" 
>  meaning that a switch of that carrier is one hop from the gateway doing 
the 
>  advertising is factual and unambiguous.
>  
>  Mike

I agree, policy decisions (or opinions) should not be included in signaling, 
except the problem remains that policy decisions (of the carrier) can still 
effect routing. Due to many factors, a carrier may desire to use the 
"indirect" route as the first choice. After all, the "direct" choice could be 
a GW with a path to a carrier's access point on the other side of the world, 
and the "indirect" one goes to a GW which then needs to go through another 
switch sitting in the same building in order to get to the carrier's access 
point which is also in the same building. Something needs to control the 
choice of routing based on more than just a "direct" or "indirect" attribute.

Mike Pierce
_______________________________________________
IPTEL mailing list
[email-masked]
http://lists.bell-labs.com/mailman/listinfo/iptel

---

From: Michael Hammer <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 10:19:35 -0500

Agree.  That was part of my intent in separating the two.

Mike