Re: "IP NAPT traversal package: Update of the Remote Descriptor with the latched address information as a result of latch/relatch signal completion "
Christian Groves <Christian.Groves <at> nteczone.com>
2007-06-05 05:12:14 GMT
Hello Jisu,
As the profile is owned by ETSI Tispan interested companies should
contribute there to ensure they adopt the changes and keep in sync. Also
Q.3/16 will most likely send a liaison to Tispan WG3 informing them of
the progress on H.248.37 Amm1. If Miri's proposal is accepted then it
would be contained in the liaison. Tispan as a result of the liaison
could then decide to include it in their profile.
Regards, Christian
Jisu Bhattacharya wrote:
> Christian,
>
> How do we ensure that the profile update is being done to keep it in
> sync with the package modifications?
>
> Thanks,
> Jisu Bhattacharya
> Cisco Systems
>
> On 6/3/07, *Christian Groves* <Christian.Groves <at> nteczone.com
> <mailto:Christian.Groves <at> nteczone.com>> wrote:
>
> Hello Jisu,
>
> I can't see why this is a problem. The profile itself would have to be
> updated to meet the new proposal. Keepactive could be changed then.
>
> Regards, Christian
>
> Jisu Bhattacharya wrote:
> > Miri,
> >
> > There is a small problem with your proposal. The KeepActive in
> Signals
> > is not available in the ETSI_BGF profile (I've checked until version
> > 1.1.4) .
> >
> > Table 27: KeepActive
> >
> > KeepActive used on signals:
> >
> >
> >
> > No
> >
> >
> > So, KeepActive will not be usable with ETSI_BGF profile, one of the
> > primary candidates for this package.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Jisu Bhattacharya
> > Cisco Systems
> >
> > On 6/2/07, * Miri Epstein* <mepstein <at> juniper.net
> <mailto:mepstein <at> juniper.net>
> > <mailto: mepstein <at> juniper.net <mailto:mepstein <at> juniper.net>>> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > Please see below.
> > Sorry, but sending it as an attachment (.doc) is not
> possible. As
> > a result, the change proposals became not clear enough.
> >
> > Thx,
> > Miri
> > ---------------------------
> > Miri Epstein
> > System Architect
> > VoIP Engineering
> > Juniper Networks
> > Direct +972.9.9717315
> > Fax +972.9.9717334
> > mepstein <at> juniper.net <mailto:mepstein <at> juniper.net>
> <mailto:mepstein <at> juniper.net <mailto:mepstein <at> juniper.net>>
> > www.juniper.net <http://www.juniper.net>
> <http://www.juniper.net>
> >
> > ___________________
> >
> > TELECOMMUNICATION
> > STANDARDIZATION SECTOR
> > STUDY PERIOD 2005-2008
> > STUDY GROUP 16
> >
> > Original: English
> > Question(s):
> > Source:
> > Juniper Networks
> > Title:
> > H.248.37 Amendment 1 - IP NAPT traversal package: Update of the
> > Remote Descriptor with the latched address information as a
> result
> > of latch/relatch signal completion.
> >
> > Purpose:
> > Proposal / Discussion
> >
> > Problem:
> > The IP NAPT traversal package does not provide the MGC with a
> > method to obtain the latched address information, resulting
> with a
> > possible ambiguity about "the address towards which packets are
> > sent".
> >
> > Problem Description:
> > The existing way for an MGC to learn about a remote destination
> > address change is by the reporting of the new address and
> port as
> > defined by the Address Reporting package (adr). This method is
> > based on a Notify command being sent from the MG.
> > There is a significant drawback on using only this method. The
> > latched address information is not always available for MGC,
> for
> > example, if the Notify command was lost due to a network
> > disconnection or an MGC failover. In any such case, the MGC
> cannot
> > retrieve this important information.
> > In addition, following a latch/relatch event, the customary
> method
> > of using an AuditValue command to synchronize between states of
> > the MGC and the MG may result in an error. Based on the reply of
> > the AuditValue, the MGC has no way of knowing whether the MG is
> > still sending packets to the address appearing in the Remote
> > descriptor or to the new (latched) address. In fact, the MGC
> might
> > not even know that an ipnapt/latch signal was ever applied
> to the
> > stream.
> > Following, we analyze the possible states for a stream regarding
> > the ipnapt/latch signal:
> > a) When the ipnapt/latch signal is not activated, the Remote
> > Descriptor represents the destination of the media packets.
> > b) When the ipnapt/latch signal is activated, but no
> > latching/relatching has occurred yet, the Remote Descriptor
> still
> > represents the destination of the media packets.
> > c) After the stream has latched/relatched, the destination
> of the
> > media packets is the latched address (and port) and not the
> > no-longer-valid Remote Descriptor. The ipnapt/latch signal has
> > completed, so an attempt to audit the Signals Descriptor
> will not
> > show it. This case is a new state, different from both (a) and
> > (b). However, the MGC cannot distinguish (using AuditValue)
> > between (a) and (c).
> > This analysis demonstrates that the current approach creates a
> > kind of "hysteresis" - the result of a termination's AuditValue
> > does not encompass the complete gate state - but must be merged
> > with past information; the previous existence of an
> ipnapt/latch
> > signal and a received adr Notify. Also, this approach creates a
> > deviation from the semantic meaning of the Remote descriptor as
> > "the address towards which packets are sent".
> >
> > Suggested Solution:
> > We suggest updating the Remote Descriptor with the latched
> address
> > information. The SDP connection data field <connection-address>
> > will hold the new address and the media field <port> will
> hold the
> > new port. Both are updated as a result of latching/relatching.
> > This permits the ordinary use of the AuditValue command with the
> > Remote Descriptor, at any time, in order to get the actual
> > destination of the media packets.
> > This also makes state (c) above identical to state (a),
> > eliminating the AuditValue ambiguity.
> >
> > Further Incentives, the KeepActive flag:
> > Because states (a) and (c) above are indistinguishable by
> the MGC,
> > clause 5.6.5 suggests the use of the KeepActive flag in order to
> > avoid the state (a, b or c) changing following a Modify of the
> > Signals Descriptor.
> > This use appears inconsistent with clause 7.11 of H.248.1:
> > "Signals present in the replacement descriptor and
> containing the
> > KeepActive flag shall be continued if they are currently
> playing
> > and have not already completed. If a replacement Signals
> > Descriptor contains a signal that is not currently playing and
> > contains the KeepActive flag, that signal shall be ignored."
> > Therefore it would seem that even if the KeepActive flag is
> used,
> > a Modify of the Signals Descriptor should cause state (c)
> above to
> > revert to (a).
> > This issue is avoided by having the latch completion update the
> > Remote Descriptor. As the MG always sends media towards the
> > address appearing in the Remote Descriptor, there is no need
> for a
> > special mechanism for maintaining state (c).
> >
> > Conclusion:
> > By updating the Remote Descriptor with the latched address
> > information, we achieve a simple and standardized way to
> > facilitate tracking and tracing changes of the destination of
> > media packets.
> > Also, this update makes the specialized use of the KeepActive
> > signal flag redundant.
> > Correspondent changes are proposed below.
> >
> > Change proposal against TD-35:
> > [Begin Proposal]
> > 5.6.2 NAPT traversal processing: 'LATCH' mode
> > When the NAPT processing signal latch with parameter napt on a
> > termination/stream is set to LATCH, then this results in the MG
> > updating the addresses received in the RemoteDescriptor. The MG
> > will use the source address and source port from the incoming
> > media stream ( i.e., from the other terminations) as the
> > destination address and destination port of the outgoing
> > application data. The RemoteDescriptor is updated with these new
> > source address and source port. Figure 2/H.248.37
> illustrates this
> > behaviour.
> > To the figure: an additional rectangle containing "Remote
> > Address=CPE1"should be inserted under the existing one (marked
> > with "x")
> > Latching is limited on the very first IP packet arrival event.
> > Source address information of afterwards received IP packets
> will
> > not be used for latching.
> > [End Change Proposal]
> >
> > [Begin Proposal]
> > 5.6.2.1.2 RecvOnly or Inactive before latching
> > In all cases here, the initial StreamMode is supposed to be
> > "RecvOnly" or "Inactive.
> > There are following possibilities:
> > * Underspecified RD without initial remote destination address
> > information, but all other descriptor elements are available:
> > Initially no packets will be sent because the destination
> address
> > information is not available and because restricted by
> StreamMode
> > settings. The first packet arrival event after enabling 'LATCH'
> > will allow packet sending (dependent on StreamMode settings).
> > * Still missing RD:
> > There could be theoretically already IP packets sent after the
> > first packet arrival event after enabling 'LATCH' (given that
> > StreamMode settings have changed for sending). But this is
> > questionable in practice due to potentially "meaningless IP
> > packets" ( e.g. still missing correct media field, format
> list, etc.).
> > The packet sending process should be therefore tightly coupled
> > with RD, i.e. the availability of all required information
> elements.
> > Initial signaled remote destination address information (in
> RD):
> > The packet sending process will not be started as long as the
> > initial StreamMode settings will not be changed to a value of
> > SendOnly or SendReceive. Nevertheless, the first packet arrival
> > event after enabling 'LATCH' will overwrite the remote
> destination
> > address in the RemoteDescriptor with the latched address,
> > independent of whether the H.248 signalled address
> information is
> > equal to or unequal to the latched address information.
> > [End Change Proposal]
> >
> > [Begin Proposal]
> > 5.6.3 NAPT traversal processing: 'RELATCH' mode
> > When the NAT traversal processing signal latch 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 updated
> in the
> > Remote Descriptor and 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
> > possibly counted; see sub-clause5.6.6). This is an implicit
> filter
> > rule related to source filtering. This implicit filter
> conditions
> > may be overruled by other, explicit filter rules as defined by
> > other H.248 packages, see clause 7.
> > The packet sending process in 'RELATCH' mode, before and after
> > successful re-latching, has again the two dependencies on
> > * available destination address information (IP DA, IP DP), and
> > NOTE: Information is implicitly available after re-latching and
> > may be available before the re-latching event dependent on RD
> > settings.
> > * StreamMode settings.
> > Application of 'RELATCH' mode does not imply a previous 'LATCH'
> > mode. New IP terminations may be therefore initially enabled for
> > the 'RELATCH' mode by the ADD.request command.
> > [End Change Proposal]
> >
> > [Begin Proposal]
> > 5.6.4.1 <http://5.6.4.1> <http://5.6.4.1> Recommendations
> for 'LATCH' and 'RELATCH'
> > mode
> > The generic event g/sc, associated to signal latch,
> > * could be useful for MGCs which are interested in
> successful (or
> > unsuccessful) latching occurrences,
> > * but is basically not required for the application of
> ipnapt package.
> > * If requested by the MGC, the signal completion event would be
> > returned when packets are received according to the latching
> > process (e.g. MG detects a packet coming from a different
> address
> > for the particular stream).
> > The signal completion event would be returned irrespective
> of the
> > address in the RD.
> > The MGC may ask for the address information the MG is using as a
> > result of the latch process by usage of the adr package (see
> > clause6), or by issuing an AuditValue command with the
> > RemoteDescriptor.
> >
> > * If requested by the MGC, the signal completion event would be
> > returned when packets are received according to the latching
> > process (e.g. MG detects a packet coming from a different
> address
> > for the particular stream).
> > The signal completion event would be returned irrespective
> of the
> > address in the RD. ME: this last sentence can be removed.
> > [End Change Proposal]
> >
> > [Begin Proposal]
> > 5.6.5 Usage of signal 'latch' together with signal parameter
> > 'KeepActive'
> > The KeepActive flag could be principally combined with signal
> > latch (in new Signals Descriptor), see clause7.1.11/H.248.1. The
> > KeepActive flag is required to support the following use case:
> > The MGC starts the (re)latching process; and does not know
> whether
> > the process has completed. If, later on, the MGC modifies the
> > ephemeral termination signals descriptor, the MGC adds the
> > KeepActive flag to avoid either turning the signal on (if it
> has
> > already completed) or off (if it was not completed yet).
> >
> > [End Change Proposal]
> >
> >
> > ___________________
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Megaco mailing list
> > Megaco <at> ietf.org <mailto:Megaco <at> ietf.org>
> <mailto:Megaco <at> ietf.org <mailto:Megaco <at> ietf.org>>
> > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/megaco
> >
> >
> >
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Megaco mailing list
> > Megaco <at> ietf.org <mailto:Megaco <at> ietf.org>
> > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/megaco
> >
>
>