israel | 1 Mar 23:22 2007
Picon

MEGACO LOST CONNECTION


Hi,
    When the IP connection between two media gateways is bounced, is posible
for this protocol to reestablish the H.248 communication?

     Thanks,
IM

    
--

-- 
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/MEGACO-LOST-CONNECTION-tf3330269.html#a9259966
Sent from the IETF - Megaco mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Terry Howe | 2 Mar 15:47 2007

Re: MEGACO LOST CONNECTION

On Thu, 2007-03-01 at 14:22 -0800, israel wrote:
> Hi,
>     When the IP connection between two media gateways is bounced, is posible
> for this protocol to reestablish the H.248 communication?
> 

It would be possible for the application using the protocol to
reestablish.  I don't think it would be up to the protocol.

Terry Howe
Kevin Boyle | 2 Mar 18:40 2007

RE: MEGACO LOST CONNECTION

H.248 does not run over the link between two MGs.  I assume the question
is if the RTP connection is lost, can H.248 be used to reestablish the
connection?  The answer is yes -- as long as the MGC(s) involved know
that the connection was lost.  It would not be autonomous, however --
the MGC(s) controlling the MGs would have to set the connection back up.

Kevin 

-----Original Message-----
From: Terry Howe [mailto:terry <at> jeeptech.com] 
Sent: Friday, March 02, 2007 9:48 AM
To: israel
Cc: megaco <at> ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Megaco] MEGACO LOST CONNECTION

On Thu, 2007-03-01 at 14:22 -0800, israel wrote:
> Hi,
>     When the IP connection between two media gateways is bounced, is 
> posible for this protocol to reestablish the H.248 communication?
> 

It would be possible for the application using the protocol to
reestablish.  I don't think it would be up to the protocol.

Terry Howe

_______________________________________________
Megaco mailing list
Megaco <at> ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/megaco
(Continue reading)

Sudhanshu Garg | 3 Mar 05:11 2007

Re: MEGACO LOST CONNECTION


Hi,

You may find the H.248.40 "Application data inactivity detection package" useful here.

Regards,
Sudhanshu Garg
Technical Leader
Aricent
Phone:  +91-124-4176333 extn 5109
Fax: +91-124-4176224
web: www.aricent.com


israel <israel.medina <at> nokia.com>

03/02/2007 03:52 AM

To
megaco <at> ietf.org
cc
Subject
[Megaco] MEGACO LOST CONNECTION






Hi,
   When the IP connection between two media gateways is bounced, is posible
for this protocol to reestablish the H.248 communication?

    Thanks,
IM

   
--
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/MEGACO-LOST-CONNECTION-tf3330269.html#a9259966
Sent from the IETF - Megaco mailing list archive at Nabble.com.


_______________________________________________
Megaco mailing list
Megaco <at> ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/megaco



***********************  Aricent-Private   ***********************
"DISCLAIMER: This message is proprietary to Aricent and is intended solely for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed. It may contain privileged or confidential information and should not be circulated or used for any purpose other than for what it is intended. If you have received this message in error, please notify the originator immediately. If you are not the intended recipient, you are notified that you are strictly prohibited from using, copying, altering, or disclosing the contents of this message. Aricent accepts no responsibility for loss or damage arising from the use of the information transmitted by this email including damage from virus."
_______________________________________________
Megaco mailing list
Megaco <at> ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/megaco
Zollner, Gerhild | 6 Mar 15:03 2007
Picon

error encountered for a mandatory command in an actionRequest

Hello,

I have the following question:

according to H248.1 an action processing stops if an error is encountered for a mandatory commandRequest  in an actionRequest.

-> The commandReplies for all already executed commandRequests are included in the actionReply as well as the erroneous one. The rest of the commandRequests of the action is not exectued and not replied. Correct??

Question: is it possible to include in addition in the actionReply a topologyDescriptor (indication the already executed topology parts) or an errorDecsriptor (in case the topology could not be executed at all)??

How should the actionReply be composed?

Thank you very much

Best regards / Mit freundlichen Grüßen
Gerhild Zollner

Siemens Networks GmbH & Co. KG
MN PG P D A 1
St.-Martin-Str. 53, 81669 Muenchen
Phone:  +49 89 636 79345
Fax:    +49 89 636 79319
E-Mail: gerhild.zollner <at> siemens.com

Siemens Networks GmbH & Co.
KG - Sitz der Gesellschaft/ Registered office: München (Munich) - Registergericht /Commercial register: München (Munich), HRA 88537 - WEEE-Reg.-No. DE 52984304. Persönlich haftende Gesellschafterin /General Partner: Siemens Networks Management GmbH - Geschäftsführer /Board of Directors: Christian Unterberger, Joachim Malterer, Roland Meinzer - Sitz der Gesellschaft / Registered office: München (Munich) - Registergericht /Commercial register: München (Munich), HRB 163416

"The Siemens Networks business will merge into a joint venture with the Nokia Networks Business Group. The new company, Nokia Siemens Networks, is expected to start operations in the first quarter 2007, subject to the completion of the closing conditions and the agreement of a number of detailed implementation steps."


_______________________________________________
Megaco mailing list
Megaco <at> ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/megaco
Albrecht.Schwarz | 6 Mar 16:09 2007
Picon

Re: MEGACO LOST CONNECTION

[This relates to loss of "bearer connection" or "bearer connectivity"
(right?), but not loss of connectivity concerning the "H.248 Control
Association".]

I may confirm that the adid package may be used for the DETECTION of
inactivity on the IP connection between the two H.248 MGs. RE-ESTABLISHMENT
is firstly meaningless, because the MG would NOTIFY only the MGC in case of
inactivity. Not more. Re-establishment make anyway only sense for
connection-oriented IP transport connections, e.g. TCP or SCTP, but not
UDP.
[You could specify e.g. TCP re-establishment behaviour in an H.248 Profile
specification.]

Instead of H.248.40, you may also use other inactivity/activity DETECTION
methods for IP ROUTES (like e.g. BFD, ICMP Ping, RTP NOOP) and CORRELATE
them with H.248 REPORTING methods like e.g. H.248 ServiceChange, H.248
netfail event, H.248 quality alert event.
Again, the selected method should be specified in an H.248 Profile
specification because MGC and MG require the same semantic of the applied
syntax.

- Albrecht

                                                                                                                                      
                      Sudhanshu Garg                                                                                                  
                      <sudhanshu.garg <at> a         To:      israel <israel.medina <at> nokia.com>                                             
                      ricent.com>               cc:      megaco <at> ietf.org                                                              
                                                Subject: Re: [Megaco] MEGACO LOST CONNECTION                                          
                      03.03.2007 05:11                                                                                                

Hi,

You may find the H.248.40 "Application data inactivity detection package"
useful here.

Regards,
Sudhanshu Garg
Technical Leader
Aricent
Phone:  +91-124-4176333 extn 5109
Fax: +91-124-4176224
web: www.aricent.com

                                                                           
 israel <israel.medina <at> nokia.com>                                          

                                                                           
 03/02/2007 03:52 AM                                                    To 
                                             megaco <at> ietf.org               
                                                                        cc 

                                                                   Subject 
                                             [Megaco] MEGACO LOST          
                                             CONNECTION                    

Hi,
   When the IP connection between two media gateways is bounced, is posible
for this protocol to reestablish the H.248 communication?

    Thanks,
IM

--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/MEGACO-LOST-CONNECTION-tf3330269.html#a9259966
Sent from the IETF - Megaco mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

_______________________________________________
Megaco mailing list
Megaco <at> ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/megaco

***********************  Aricent-Private   ***********************
                                                                            
 "DISCLAIMER: This message is proprietary to Aricent  and is intended       
 solely for the use of                                                      
 the individual to whom it is addressed. It may contain privileged or       
 confidential information and should not be                                 
 circulated or used for any purpose other than for what it is intended. If  
 you have received this message in error,                                   
 please notify the originator immediately. If you are not the intended      
 recipient, you are notified that you are strictly                          
 prohibited from using, copying, altering, or disclosing the contents of    
 this message. Aricent accepts no responsibility for                        
 loss or damage arising from the use of the information transmitted by this 
 email including damage from virus."                                        

_______________________________________________
Megaco mailing list
Megaco <at> ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/megaco
Arvind Charanyan | 7 Mar 12:56 2007

Number of Extension Resources in Detailed Congestion Reporting Package

Hi,

 

In the case of the Detailed Congestion Reporting Package (DCR), the resource names and IDs are as given below –

Table 1/H.248.32 – Resource Names

Resource Name:

PropertyID / EnumerationValue

Text Identifier

Binary Identifier

General Resources

gen

0x0001

DSP Resources

dsp

0x0002

IP Resources

ip

0x0003

ATM Resources

atm

0x0004

Reserved

 

0x0005 – 0x0020

Extension Resource 1

ext1

0x0021

Extension Resource 2

ext2

0x0022

 

 

Extension Resource 20

ext20

0x0040

 

The Extension Resources are from 1 to 20 as given in the table. Does that mean there are 32 Extension Resources (from ext1….extA…ext10….ext1F till ext20)?

 

Or does that mean that the number of extension resources is 20, though their Binary ID is in Hexadecimal?

 

Thanks and Regards,

Arvind 

 

_______________________________________________
Megaco mailing list
Megaco <at> ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/megaco
Albrecht.Schwarz | 7 Mar 14:36 2007
Picon

Table 1/H.248.32 ? Resource names; Re: Number of Extension Resources in Detailed Congestion Reporting Package


This is a valid point in my opinion and an IMG item.
I believe that the intention was not to use hex numbers in the text
identifier and the resource name, we had rather decimal numbers in mind as
far as I remember.

Given that, my suggestion is to change in the last table row
1st column: "Extension resource 20" by "Extension resource 32", and
2nd column: "ext20" by "ext32".

Christian, could we tackle this next week as an IMG item?

-Albrecht

                                                                                                                                     
                      "Arvind                                                                                                        
                      Charanyan"               To:      <megaco <at> ietf.org>                                                            
                      <arvind.charanya         cc:                                                                                   
                      n <at> ccpu.com>              Subject: [Megaco] Number of Extension Resources in Detailed Congestion     Reporting  
                                               Package                                                                               
                      07.03.2007 12:56                                                                                               

Hi,

In the case of the Detailed Congestion Reporting Package (DCR), the
resource names and IDs are as given below ?

                     Table 1/H.248.32 ? Resource Names

|----------------------------------------+                            ----|
|             Resource Name:             |       PropertyID /        |    |
|                                        |     EnumerationValue      |    |
|----------------------------------------+---------------------------+----|
|                                        |Text Identifier            |Bina|
|                                        |                           |ry  |
|                                        |                           |Iden|
|                                        |                           |tifi|
|                                        |                           |er  |
|----------------------------------------+---------------------------+----|
|General Resources                       |gen                        |0x00|
|                                        |                           |01  |
|----------------------------------------+---------------------------+----|
|DSP Resources                           |dsp                        |0x00|
|                                        |                           |02  |
|----------------------------------------+---------------------------+----|
|IP Resources                            |ip                         |0x00|
|                                        |                           |03  |
|----------------------------------------+---------------------------+----|
|ATM Resources                           |atm                        |0x00|
|                                        |                           |04  |
|----------------------------------------+---------------------------+----|
|Reserved                                |                           |0x00|
|                                        |                           |05 ?|
|                                        |                           |0x00|
|                                        |                           |20  |
|----------------------------------------+---------------------------+----|
|Extension Resource 1                    |ext1                       |0x00|
|                                        |                           |21  |
|----------------------------------------+---------------------------+----|
|Extension Resource 2                    |ext2                       |0x00|
|                                        |                           |22  |
|----------------------------------------+---------------------------+----|
|                                        |?                          |    |
|----------------------------------------+---------------------------+----|
|Extension Resource 20                   |ext20                      |0x00|
|                                        |                           |40  |
|----------------------------------------+---------------------------+----|

The Extension Resources are from 1 to 20 as given in the table. Does that
mean there are 32 Extension Resources (from ext1?.extA?ext10?.ext1F till
ext20)?

Or does that mean that the number of extension resources is 20, though
their Binary ID is in Hexadecimal?

Thanks and Regards,
Arvind
 _______________________________________________
Megaco mailing list
Megaco <at> ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/megaco

Dani Stettiner | 7 Mar 18:19 2007

V3 question - statistics per stream

Dear Expers,

 

   Section    “7.1.15        Statistics Descriptor” says:

   “By default, statistics occur at a   termination level”

    However, MGC might instruct mg to collect some statistics in stream level.

 

     The section  also says that on subtract by default all statistics should be reported for both termination level and stream level

     (naturally at stream level it would be only the  statistics  we were asked to collect)

 

     And it says that by default the statistics of termination level should be computed as the sum of statistics from streams

     (unless if special computation is needed such as average, but I stay with the simple sum case)

 

   Suppose a termination has 2 streams, MGC instructs MG to collect a specific statisticsParameter  (e.g. rtp/pr)

    In stream 1 only.

 

    My questions are:

1.       Should rtp/pr be collected also in termination level?

2.       What should I report in subtract as the value for termination level?  It is supposed to be the sum from 2 streams, but

only  stream 1 was instructed to collect this field.   (seems to me that if the value was collected also in termination level

 it is more accurate  in this case to report it instead of the sum)

 

   thanks

 

Dan Stettiner
Software Engineer, R&D
H.248/MEGACO

Audiocodes
Email: dani.stettiner <at> audiocodes.com
Tel. +972-3-9764415
www.audiocodes.com

 

 

_______________________________________________
Megaco mailing list
Megaco <at> ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/megaco
Araz. | 7 Mar 14:46 2007
Picon

JAIN Megaco contact?

Hi all,
sorry if somehow irrevelant . I've come across some fundamental Q's concerning JAIN Megaco and was unable to contact emai's provided in JAIN sepcification to solve my problem.( Jmegaco_hss <at> hss.hns.com and Jmegaco_hss <at> hss.com )
How can I contact JAIN Megaco people?
Araz.
 
_______________________________________________
Megaco mailing list
Megaco <at> ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/megaco

Gmane