Media Gateway Control (megaco)

Albrecht.Schwarz | 2 Oct 2006 06:25

Picon

Picon

Re: Re: Mandatory serviceChangeReason parameter?


ServiceChangeMethod AND ServiceChangeReason are BOTH MANDATORY.
See H.248.1 § 7.1.13 and Annexes A or B.
- Albrecht

                                                                                                                                        
                      "Ron Ho"                                                                                                          
                      <ron.ho.megaco <at> g         To:      megaco <megaco <at> ietf.org>                                                        
                      mail.com>                cc:                                                                                      
                                               Subject: [Megaco] Re: Mandatory serviceChangeReason parameter?                           
                      30.09.2006 22:04                                                                                                  

Hi All,

I digged up an old message about the servicechange reason. Kevin indicated
that it is mandatory. I believe it still hold true, right? I have seen
vendors' SC request with no reason code attached. Just wanted to confirm.

Thanks,
Ron

===============================================
    * To: Rasool Wani <rasool.wani <at> utstar.com>, megaco <at> ietf.org , Samuel
Tardieu <sam <at> rfc1149.net>
    * Subject: RE: [Megaco] Mandatory serviceChangeReason parameter?
    * From: "Kevin Boyle" < kboyle <at> nortelnetworks.com>
    * Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 04:37:30 -0500
    * List-help: <mailto:megaco-request <at> ietf.org?subject=help>
    * List-id: Media Gateway Control < megaco.ietf.org>
    * List-post: <mailto:megaco <at> ietf.org>

(Continue reading)

Albrecht.Schwarz | 10 Oct 2006 08:44

Picon

Picon

H.248 SDP Version Determination Package; Re: Replacement of obsoleted RFC 2327 by RFC 4566; RE: ETSI H.248 Ia Profile: issue with media value '-'in SDP"m=" line


fyi, due to the results of the Ottawa meeting

   http://ftp3.itu.int/av-arch/avc-site/2005-2008/0608_Ott/TD-13a.zip,

we did work on an initial design for a H.248.SDPVER package.

We'll present next week our first draft at ETSI TISPAN#11-Ter meeting:
   11tTD109 SDP Version Determination at H.248 Interfaces - Discussion of a
   correspondent H.248.SDPVER Package Design

Concerning the field value "-" in "m=" line fields in ES 283 018 v1.1.1,
we've prepared following CR:

   11tTD107 WI-03089 H.248 Ia Profile V1 CR Note to SDP syntax
   specification for m= line in § 5.15

- Albrecht

                                                                                                                                      
                      Albrecht                                                                                                        
                      SCHWARZ/DE/ALCAT         To:      "Kevin Boyle" <kboyle <at> nortel.com>                                             
                      EL <at> ALCATEL               cc:      megaco <at> ietf.org                                                               
                                               Subject: Replacement of obsoleted RFC 2327 by RFC 4566;  RE: [Megaco] ETSI H.248 Ia    
                      16.08.2006 09:58         Profile: issue with media value '-'in SDP"m=" line                                     

fyi,
we've prepared a contribution for the Ottawa meeting, providing an initial
cross-check and correspondent change proposals for H.248.1.

(Continue reading)

YAMAMOTO, Susumu | 11 Oct 2006 11:30

Picon

RE: Segmentation error

Hi all,

Could you please let me know the current situation regarding
459 error of segmentation package discussed as we can see
below ?

That will be excellent if any document of the latest situation,
and the updated error image.

Thanks,
-Susumu

---
>I think the best way to fix this will be to have the error text carry
>the TransID.  I will see about taking this to Ottawa in August to be
>fixed.
>
>Kevin
>
>________________________________
>
>From: B Venkat S.R Swamy [mailto:b.swamy <at> flextronicssoftware.com]
>Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 11:40 PM
>To: Ron Ho
>Cc: megaco
>Subject: Re: [Megaco] Segmentation error
>
>
>Hi
>

(Continue reading)

Ganesh Kumar | 12 Oct 2006 10:56

Multi level extension issue in spne package

Hi,

I'm seeing that there's a conflict in the property ID values defined in
SPNE package and its base package nt. Both are defining a property with
property id (0x0007). 

As per the extension rules in H.248 V2 this is not allowed:
   Extends (Optional): existing package Descriptor 
      A package may extend an existing package. The version of the
original 
      package must be specified. When a package extends another package
it 
      shall only add additional Properties, Events, Signals, Statistics
and 
      new possible values for an existing parameter described in the 
      original package. An extended package shall not redefine or
overload 
      an identifier defined in the original package and packages it may 
      have extended (multiple levels of extension).

	The spne package (Q.115.0) extends tdmc package and tdmc extends
nt package.
	
SPNE Control Package
 PackageID: nt (0x0069)
 Noise Reduction
 PropertyID: in-nrd (0x0007)

Network Package 
 PackageID: nt (0x000b)

(Continue reading)

Albrecht.Schwarz | 14 Oct 2006 07:51

Picon

Picon

Fw: Question on H.248.37 Amendment 1

... forward Reinaldo's question first to MEGACO list ...

----- Forwarded by Albrecht SCHWARZ/DE/ALCATEL on 14.10.2006 07:50 -----

                      "Reinaldo Penno"                                                                                                  
                      <rpenno <at> juniper.         To:      <tsbsg16 <at> itu.int>                                                               
                      net>                     cc:      Albrecht SCHWARZ/DE/ALCATEL <at> ALCATEL                                             
                                               Subject: Question on H.248.37 Amendment 1                                                
                      14.10.2006 01:06                                                                                                  

Hello SG16/Albrecht,

I have some question from a media Gateway perspective related to this
document.

In section:

"5.6.3             NAPT traversal processing: 'RELATCH' mode
When the NAT traversal processing signal with parameter NAPT on a
termination/stream is set to RELATCH, then the MG will perform a similar
process to the latching process described above. The difference is that
the MG will check for a change of source IP address/port on the incoming
media stream. If/when a new source IP address and/or port are detected,
then they will be used as the destination address and port for future
outgoing packets. After re-latching, any packets received on the old
source address and port combination will be considered as malicious and
will be treated accordingly (discarded and counted; see sub-clause
5.6.x)."

Security Questions:

(Continue reading)

Reinaldo Penno | 14 Oct 2006 08:24

RE: Question on H.248.37 Amendment 1

Thanks Albrecht, I did not know this list was still active. That's good,
since I felt there was no proper place to discuss H.248 extension
packages.

I will be sending my other questions to the megaco list as well.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Albrecht.Schwarz <at> alcatel.de 
> [mailto:Albrecht.Schwarz <at> alcatel.de] 
> Sent: Friday, October 13, 2006 10:51 PM
> To: megaco <at> ietf.org
> Cc: Reinaldo Penno
> Subject: Fw: Question on H.248.37 Amendment 1
> 
> ... forward Reinaldo's question first to MEGACO list ...
> 
> ----- Forwarded by Albrecht SCHWARZ/DE/ALCATEL on 14.10.2006 
> 07:50 -----
>                                                               
>                                                               
>             
>                       "Reinaldo Penno"                        
>                                                               
>             
>                       <rpenno <at> juniper.         To:      
> <tsbsg16 <at> itu.int>                                             
>                   
>                       net>                     cc:      
> Albrecht SCHWARZ/DE/ALCATEL <at> ALCATEL                           
>

(Continue reading)

Reinaldo Penno | 14 Oct 2006 09:00

Question on Interface Routing in relation to H.248 Profile for controlling Border Gateway Functions (BGF) (ETSI ES 283 018)

In the specification above (or TS 102 333 for that matter) there is a
proposal for the termination ID. 

"5.6.1.1.1 Overview and prose specification
The Termination ID structure shall follow the guidelines of H.248 and
shall be based on four fields:
* "ip/<group>/<interface>/<id>"."

I would like to understand what "interface" means in this context when
related to routing.

The scenario is a BGF with many input and output interfaces.

     +----+
Ifa -|    |-ifx
Ifb -| RT |-ify   RT means routing table
Ibc -|    |-ifz
     +----+

Packets come from one of the input interfaces (left), a routing lookup
is done, and exit through one of the output interfaces (right).

Given the termination ID ip/1/ifx/200 and a gate with source IP a.b.c.d
and destination IP e.f.g.h associated with it, which actions should be
done?

A) One should attach the termination to interface Ifx and if packets go
through that interface (and termination) any gate actions are applied.

B) One should override the routing table in order to make sure that

(Continue reading)

Albrecht.Schwarz | 16 Oct 2006 15:39

Picon

Picon

Re: Question on Interface Routing in relation to H.248 Profile for controlling Border Gateway Functions (BGF) (ETSI ES 283 018)


Reinaldo,

1st H.248 vs IP RIB/FIB
   There aren't any H.248 capabilities defined so far, allowing the
   modification of IP RIB/FIB data bases. Thus, H.248 is entirely decoupled
   from IP routing protocols.

2nd TerminationID
   Don't over-interprete this TerminatinationID structure. The defined
   naming convention by ES 283 018 is rather specific because besides the
   basic "identification" function, the syntax is also a) overloaded with
   other functions (a1 -> usage of <group>; a2 -> usage of <interface>);
   and b) hierarchical (-> benefit in case of wildcarding).

   The prime purpose behind (a2) is "IP address realm" indication. Please
   note that the ipdc package (H.248.41) was not yet available when ES 283
   018 was defined.
   So, the term "interface" could mislead if interpreted as "IP interface"
   (but this isn't the definition by Table 4/ES 283 018).

- Albrecht

                                                                                                                                      
                      "Reinaldo Penno"                                                                                                
                      <rpenno <at> juniper.         To:      <megaco <at> ietf.org>                                                             
                      net>                     cc:                                                                                    
                                               Subject: [Megaco] Question on Interface Routing in relation to H.248 Profile     for   
                      14.10.2006 09:00         controlling Border Gateway Functions (BGF) (ETSI ES 283 018)

(Continue reading)

Christian Groves | 17 Oct 2006 03:28

Re: Segmentation error

Hello Susumu,

I will be bringing an IG item to the upcoming SG16 meeting to propose to 
carry the transaction id in the error text.

Regards, Christian

YAMAMOTO, Susumu wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> Could you please let me know the current situation regarding
> 459 error of segmentation package discussed as we can see
> below ?
>
> That will be excellent if any document of the latest situation,
> and the updated error image.
>
> Thanks,
> -Susumu
>
> ---
>
>> I think the best way to fix this will be to have the error text carry
>> the TransID.  I will see about taking this to Ottawa in August to be
>> fixed.
>>
>> Kevin
>>
>> ________________________________

(Continue reading)

Christian Groves | 17 Oct 2006 03:55

Re: Multi level extension issue in spne package

Hello Ganesh,

Yes this is a problem and your understanding is correct. I will prepare 
an input to SG16 to rectify the problem by renumbering the 
NoiseReductiion property from 0x0007 to 0x000e.

Regards, Christian

Ganesh Kumar wrote:

>Hi,
>
>I'm seeing that there's a conflict in the property ID values defined in
>SPNE package and its base package nt. Both are defining a property with
>property id (0x0007). 
>
>As per the extension rules in H.248 V2 this is not allowed:
>   Extends (Optional): existing package Descriptor 
>      A package may extend an existing package. The version of the
>original 
>      package must be specified. When a package extends another package
>it 
>      shall only add additional Properties, Events, Signals, Statistics
>and 
>      new possible values for an existing parameter described in the 
>      original package. An extended package shall not redefine or
>overload 
>      an identifier defined in the original package and packages it may 
>      have extended (multiple levels of extension).
>

(Continue reading)

Group

gmane.ietf.megaco.

Search Archive

Page

1 | 2 | 3 | 4

Articles in period: 38

October 2006

Language

Change language

Options

Current view: Threads only / Showing only 20 lines / Not hiding cited text.
Change to All messages, whole messages, or hide cited text.

Post a message
NNTP Newsgroup
Classic Gmane web interface
XML

XML

RSS Feed
List Information

About Gmane

Recent entries

Biggest Fake Conference in Computer Science (27 Apr 2013)
2013-06 Meeting: New wildcard proposal "~" (15 Apr 2013)
Usage of silence suppression in Local Connection Options (7 Mar 2013)
H.248 Mode property vs. signals/events (5 Mar 2013)
Draft H.248.80; FW: [MMUSIC] RFC 6871 on Session Description Protocol (28 Feb 2013)
Creation new TID in MGC (26 Dec 2012)
H.248.TCP & H.248.TLS related contributions (13 Dec 2012)
Megaco/Mgcp Digitmap (11 Oct 2012)
Upcoming Q.3 meeting of Media Gateway Control Protocols (21 Sep 2012)
AVD-4273a; RE: AVD-4273 H.248.50: Questions for clarifications and upd (20 Sep 2012)
Digitmap (30 Aug 2012)
MEGACO version in ServiceChange Reply (22 Aug 2012)
Wildcard "$" in Add command changes Signal properties in physical term (22 Aug 2012)
H.248-controlled T.38 configurations: SDP- vs Property-based H.248 sig (3 Aug 2012)
H.248-controlled T.38 configurations: SDP- vs Property-based H.248 sig (3 Aug 2012)
H.248-controlled T.38 configurations: SDP- vs Property-based H.248 sig (3 Aug 2012)
H.248-controlled T.38 configurations: SDP- vs Property-based H.248 sig (2 Aug 2012)
H.248-controlled T.38 configurations: SDP- vs Property-based H.248 sig (1 Aug 2012)
MEGACO for T38 (24 Jul 2012)
MEGACO Message Termination-Id mapping to SS7 TDM channel (13 Jun 2012)
Response to tonegen request (29 May 2012)

Archives

3	April 2013
10	March 2013
1	February 2013
1	January 2013
3	December 2012
2	October 2012
4	September 2012
13	August 2012
3	July 2012
3	June 2012
3	May 2012
3	March 2012
9	February 2012
7	January 2012
45	December 2011
23	November 2011
21	October 2011
1	September 2011
3	August 2011
11	July 2011
4	June 2011
13	May 2011
6	April 2011
2	March 2011
13	February 2011
4	January 2011
7	December 2010
4	November 2010
6	October 2010
5	August 2010
15	July 2010
14	June 2010
1	May 2010
9	March 2010
22	February 2010
1	January 2010
20	December 2009
6	November 2009
14	October 2009
28	September 2009
17	August 2009
13	July 2009
19	June 2009
32	May 2009
7	April 2009
3	March 2009
12	February 2009
6	January 2009
9	December 2008
15	November 2008
10	October 2008
30	September 2008
21	August 2008
19	July 2008
17	June 2008
24	May 2008
23	April 2008
31	March 2008
38	February 2008
73	January 2008
73	December 2007
16	November 2007
49	October 2007
35	September 2007
38	August 2007
42	July 2007
65	June 2007
45	May 2007
69	April 2007
50	March 2007
61	February 2007
66	January 2007
37	December 2006
41	November 2006
38	October 2006
32	September 2006
60	August 2006
94	July 2006
25	June 2006
76	May 2006
40	April 2006
61	March 2006
94	February 2006
65	January 2006
63	December 2005
86	November 2005
65	October 2005
101	September 2005
73	August 2005
82	July 2005
133	June 2005
50	May 2005
84	April 2005
49	March 2005
40	February 2005
49	January 2005
55	December 2004
77	November 2004
31	October 2004
43	September 2004
51	August 2004
38	July 2004
51	June 2004
42	May 2004
60	April 2004
85	March 2004
61	February 2004
113	January 2004
94	December 2003
87	November 2003
58	October 2003
75	September 2003
44	August 2003
36	July 2003
82	June 2003
68	May 2003
104	April 2003
89	March 2003
58	February 2003
119	January 2003
57	December 2002
106	November 2002
191	October 2002
145	September 2002
153	August 2002
283	July 2002
169	June 2002
300	May 2002
217	April 2002

Design

Zawodny | Right Menu | Left Menu

Your Own Design

Paste the URL of your CSS below. Download CSS template