Schwarz Albrecht | 2 Feb 14:15 2010

H.248.PIPA Package Identifier Publishing and Application; RE: H248 Question

Wayne,
this is indeed a question for clarification (in my understanding).
Q.3/16 got a work item H.248.PIPA on that subject, attached some old contributions.
I've Cc'd MEGACO because there are different opinions on that topic, which prevented progress in 2009.
 
Regards,
Albrecht

From: Wayne Cutler [mailto:wayne.cutler <at> ericsson.com]
Sent: Dienstag, 2. Februar 2010 09:18
To: Schwarz Albrecht
Subject: H248 Question

 
Hi Albrecht,
 
Do you have a view on the following issue raised by our developers.
 
As we know, H248 permits packages to extend others. So, let's say that packasge A has events e1 & e2 and package B extends A and adds an event e3.
 
So, the MGC may arm for A/e1, A/e2, B/e1, B/e2, Be3 (and A/e1 is equivalent to B/e1 as is A/e2 to B/e2).
 
The issue is with regard to the behaviour of the GW in the event of being armed to look for B/e1. In the event of event e1 being detected on the GW, is it permissable
for the GW to report  :- 1) only B/e1 or 2) either A/e1 or B/e1 (i.e. since A/e1 is equivalent to B/e1).
 
I've looked thru' the IG and the base protocol text and it is not explicit. What do you think ?
 
Thanks,
Wayne
 
 

 
_______________________________________________
Megaco mailing list
Megaco <at> ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/megaco
Christian Groves | 3 Feb 09:15 2010

Re: H.248.PIPA Package Identifier Publishing and Application; RE: H248 Question

Hello Albrecht,

FYI. We intend on bringing a contribution to the March Q.3/16 to again 
start progress on H.248.PIPA. Hopefully it will satisfy the different 
opinions as well as clarify the issue.

Regards, Christian

Schwarz Albrecht wrote:
> Wayne,
> this is indeed a question for clarification (in my understanding).
> Q.3/16 got a work item H.248.PIPA on that subject, attached some old 
> contributions.
> I've Cc'd MEGACO because there are different opinions on that topic, 
> which prevented progress in 2009.
>  
> Regards,
> Albrecht
>
>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>     *From:* Wayne Cutler [mailto:wayne.cutler <at> ericsson.com]
>     *Sent:* Dienstag, 2. Februar 2010 09:18
>     *To:* Schwarz Albrecht
>     *Subject:* H248 Question
>
>      
>     Hi Albrecht,
>      
>     Do you have a view on the following issue raised by our developers.
>      
>     As we know, H248 permits packages to extend others. So, let's say
>     that packasge A has events e1 & e2 and package B extends A and
>     adds an event e3.
>      
>     So, the MGC may arm for A/e1, A/e2, B/e1, B/e2, Be3 (and A/e1 is
>     equivalent to B/e1 as is A/e2 to B/e2).
>      
>     The issue is with regard to the behaviour of the GW in the event
>     of being armed to look for B/e1. In the event of event e1 being
>     detected on the GW, is it permissable
>     for the GW to report  :- 1) only B/e1 or 2) either A/e1 or B/e1
>     (i.e. since A/e1 is equivalent to B/e1).
>      
>     I've looked thru' the IG and the base protocol text and it is not
>     explicit. What do you think ?
>      
>     Thanks,
>     Wayne
>      
>      
>
>      
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Megaco mailing list
> Megaco <at> ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/megaco
>   
stivenashley756 | 4 Feb 22:47 2010

''



_______________________________________________
Megaco mailing list
Megaco <at> ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/megaco
stivenashley756 | 4 Feb 22:45 2010

(no subject)

<!-- /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:""; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; text-align:right; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; direction:rtl; unicode-bidi:embed; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";} p {mso-margin-top-alt:auto; margin-right:0in; mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; margin-left:0in; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";} span.postbody {mso-style-name:postbody;} span.postbody1 {mso-style-name:postbody1; mso-ansi-font-size:6.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size:6.0pt;} <at> page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} -->
Hi , I'm a final year in networking student.

I want to finish my masters and for this reason, I have to go through a capstone project. I 'm looking for an idea for this capstone project which will help me fetch a job in the field of Voice over IP.

For my final year project I’m planning to use free H.248 SoftSwitch software like VoIPEmulator  and use some cheap Gateway ...

 

I’m trying to get a hold of a cheap simple Gateway ?

I would appreciate any Tip !

 

Thanks a lot !
Stiven
_______________________________________________
Megaco mailing list
Megaco <at> ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/megaco
sushil kumar | 5 Feb 10:40 2010
Picon

Query Regarding Long Timer in conjuction with HandOff in H, 248

Hi All,

I need a help , what should be the behavior of MG (H.248 Protocol) in following scenario:-

1. MGC1 established association with MG

2. MGC1 initiate Add 1 request towards MG with transaction ID(let transactionID be 2)

3. MG responded the Add request and should keep a copy of it for 30 sec (LONG Timer ) so that it can response back if same transaction request comes again.

4. Now MGC1 initiate handoff towards MGC2 (upto this point LONG timer did not expire ) .

5. MGC2 established association with MG(upto this point LONG timer did not expire ) .

6. Now MGC2 initiate Add 2  request towards MG with transaction ID 1( same as above) and still LONG Timer did not expire.

What should be the expected response from MG ?

i) Should it reply this Add2 request?

    Or

ii) should in response of this request (having same transaction Id  and Long timer did not expire ) MG  should return the same response which it saved already?

Currently it respond with the OLD response which it already saved .

Please find the attached call flow for reference.

Thanks in advance !!

Regards

Sushil

 

 

 

[10.202.2.206]:5515 [18832650 (10 ms)] !/1 [10.202.3.1]:5515 T = 312{ C = - {sc=ROOT  { sv { v = 2 , mt = rs , re =
"901 Cold Boot",pf=CISCO_TGW/1,20100113T10002800 }  } }}

[18832777 (10 ms)] !/2 <es250-6>:5515 P=312 {C=-{SC=root{SV{V=2}}}}

[18832804 (10 ms)] !/2 <es250-6>:5515 Transaction=2 {Context = $ { Add = ds/1/1/1 { Media { LocalControl {
Mode = SendReceive } }}
,Add = RTP$ { Media { LocalControl { Mode = Receiveonly, RV=off } ,Local {
v=0
c=IN IP4 $
m=audio $ RTP/AVP $
} } } } }

[10.202.2.206]:5515 [18832805 (10 ms)] !/2 [10.202.3.1]:5515 P = 2{ C = 59 {a=ds/1/1/1  ,a=RTP/8122  { m { l {
v=0
o=- 58 1263376830 IN IP4 10.202.9.1
s=-
c=IN IP4 10.202.9.1
t=0 0
m=audio 16498 RTP/AVP 99 101
a=rtpmap:99 G729AB/8000/1
a=ptime:20
a=rtpmap:101 telephone-event/8000/1
a=fmtp:101 0-15
 }  }  } }}

Jai-1.1.VXSM.a >
[18834419 (10 ms)] !/2 <es250-6>:5515 T=5 { C=- {
SC = root {SV {
method=Handoff,MgcIdToTry=[10.202.2.223]:5515,Profile=CISCO_TGW/1
} } } }

[10.202.2.206]:5515 [18834420 (10 ms)] !/2 [10.202.3.1]:5515 P = 5{ C = - {sc=ROOT }}

[10.202.2.223]:5515 [18834420 (10 ms)] !/1 [10.202.3.1]:5515 T = 313{ C = - {sc=ROOT  { sv { v = 2 , mt = ho , re =
"903 MGC Directed Change",pf=CISCO_TGW/1,20100113T10004600 }  } }}

[18834451 (10 ms)] !/2 <netra-9>:5515 P=313 {C=-{SC=root{SV{V=2}}}}

Jai-1.1.VXSM.a > dsph248calls 1
[18834850 (10 ms)] !/2 <netra-9>:5515 Transaction=2 {Context = $ { Add = DS/1/1/3 { Media { LocalControl {
Mode = SendReceive } } },
Add = RTP$ { Media { LocalControl { Mode = SendReceive } ,Local {
v=0
c=IN IP4 $
m=audio $ RTP/AVP 0
a=rtpmap:108 G723.1-H/8000/1
} }}}}

[10.202.2.223]:5515 [18834850 (10 ms)] !/2 [10.202.3.1]:5515 P = 2{ C = 59 {a=ds/1/1/1  ,a=RTP/8122  { m { l {
v=0
o=- 58 1263376830 IN IP4 10.202.9.1
s=-
c=IN IP4 10.202.9.1
t=0 0
m=audio 16498 RTP/AVP 99 101
a=rtpmap:99 G729AB/8000/1
a=ptime:20
a=rtpmap:101 telephone-event/8000/1
a=fmtp:101 0-15
 }  }  } }}

_______________________________________________
Megaco mailing list
Megaco <at> ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/megaco
sushil kumar | 8 Feb 10:14 2010
Picon

Query Regarding Long Timer in conjuction with HandOff in H.248

Hi All,

I need a help , what should be the behavior of MG (H.248 Protocol) in following scenario:-

1. MGC1 established association with MG

2. MGC1 initiate Add 1 request towards MG with transaction ID(let transactionID be 2)

3. MG responded the Add request and should keep a copy of it for 30 sec (LONG Timer ) so that it can response back if same transaction request comes again.

4. Now MGC1 initiate handoff towards MGC2 (upto this point LONG timer did not expire ) .

5. MGC2 established association with MG(upto this point LONG timer did not expire ) .

6. Now MGC2 initiate Add 2  request towards MG with transaction ID 1( same as above) and still LONG Timer did not expire.

What should be the expected response from MG ?

i) Should it reply this Add2 request?

    Or

ii) should in response of this request (having same transaction Id  and Long timer did not expire ) MG  should return the same response which it saved already?

Currently it respond with the OLD response which it already saved .

Please find the attached call flow for reference.

Thanks in advance !!

Regards

Sushil

 

 

 

_______________________________________________
Megaco mailing list
Megaco <at> ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/megaco
sushil kumar | 8 Feb 12:12 2010
Picon

Query Regarding Long Timer in conjuction with HandOff in H.248

 

Hi All,

I need a help , what should be the behavior of MG (H.248 Protocol) in following scenario:-

1. MGC1 established association with MG

2. MGC1 initiate Add 1 request towards MG with transaction ID(let transactionID be 2)

3. MG responded the Add request and should keep a copy of it for 30 sec (LONG Timer ) so that it can response back if same transaction request comes again.

4. Now MGC1 initiate handoff towards MGC2 (upto this point LONG timer did not expire ) .

5. MGC2 established association with MG(upto this point LONG timer did not expire ) .

6. Now MGC2 initiate Add 2  request towards MG with transaction ID 1( same as above) and still LONG Timer did not expire.

What should be the expected response from MG ?

i) Should it reply this Add2 request?

    Or

ii) should in response of this request (having same transaction Id  and Long timer did not expire ) MG  should return the same response which it saved already?

Currently it respond with the OLD response which it already saved .

Please find the attached call flow for reference.

Thanks in advance !!

Regards

Sushil

 

 

 

_______________________________________________
Megaco mailing list
Megaco <at> ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/megaco
Schwarz Albrecht | 8 Feb 15:15 2010

Re: Query Regarding Long Timer in conjuction with HandOff inH.248

Your scenario might be too high level, thus I may just guess:
 
You know that there is just a single H.248 Control Association (CA) from MG perspective (a PMG or VMG).
Thus, the initial CA (with MGC1) does NOT exist anymore after the successfull changeover procedure (via handoff) to MGC2.
 
Please don't forget that the 2nd CA is different to the 1st CA (due to different MGC instances), see e.g.
ITU-T H.Sup7, § 5.2 Constitution of a Control Association.
 
 
Thus, any OLD responses from the CA with MGC1 are meaningless at the new CA with MGC2.
Both MGC entities must use a different MID anyway.
 
 

From: megaco-bounces <at> ietf.org [mailto:megaco-bounces <at> ietf.org] On Behalf Of sushil kumar
Sent: Montag, 8. Februar 2010 12:12
To: megaco <at> ietf.org
Subject: [Megaco] Query Regarding Long Timer in conjuction with HandOff inH.248

 

Hi All,

I need a help , what should be the behavior of MG (H.248 Protocol) in following scenario:-

1. MGC1 established association with MG

2. MGC1 initiate Add 1 request towards MG with transaction ID(let transactionID be 2)

3. MG responded the Add request and should keep a copy of it for 30 sec (LONG Timer ) so that it can response back if same transaction request comes again.

4. Now MGC1 initiate handoff towards MGC2 (upto this point LONG timer did not expire ) .

5. MGC2 established association with MG(upto this point LONG timer did not expire ) .

6. Now MGC2 initiate Add 2  request towards MG with transaction ID 1( same as above) and still LONG Timer did not expire.

What should be the expected response from MG ?

i) Should it reply this Add2 request?

    Or

ii) should in response of this request (having same transaction Id  and Long timer did not expire ) MG  should return the same response which it saved already?

Currently it respond with the OLD response which it already saved .

Please find the attached call flow for reference.

Thanks in advance !!

Regards

Sushil

 

 

 

_______________________________________________
Megaco mailing list
Megaco <at> ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/megaco
John Wainwright | 8 Feb 17:14 2010

MGCP question?

I know this is a Megaco forum but I was hoping someone could help me with an MGCP question since the 2 protocols are similar in many ways.

If a gateway receive the following from its Call Agent

RQNT 39086638 phone/1 <at> [1.2.3.4] MGCP 1.0

X: 1

R: L/HU(N)

S:

Q: STEP

T: L/HU,L/HD,L/HF,D/[0-9A-D#*T]

 

When it detects a HookFlash event should this be immediately reported since it is in the Detect Events parameter (T) or should it be ignored because it is not in the Requested Events parameter (R) ?  My confusion arises out of when DetectEvents type events are reported as opposed to RequestedEvents type events in cases such as this.

Thanks

John

The information contained in this message may be confidential, privileged or protected from disclosure. If you have received it by mistake, please let us know by e-mail reply and delete it from your system; you may not copy, disseminate or disclose the contents of this message to anyone.
_______________________________________________
Megaco mailing list
Megaco <at> ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/megaco
Ginotra, Rajiv | 9 Feb 07:21 2010

Re: Megaco Digest, Vol 70, Issue 4

Hi Sushil,

I have some good text regarding the below question from the Megaco ITU-T
specs.

"When the MGC initiates a handoff, the handover should be transparent to
operations on the Media Gateway. Transactions can be executed in any
order, and could be in progress when the ServiceChange is executed.
Accordingly, commands in progress continue and replies to all commands
from the original MGC must be sent to the transport address from which
they were sent. If the service relationship with the sending MGC has
ended, the replies should be discarded. The MG may receive outstanding
transaction replies from the new MGC. No new messages shall be sent to
the new MGC until the control association is established. Repeated
transaction requests shall be directed to the new MGC. The MG shall
maintain the state of all terminations and contexts."

Regards,
Rajiv

-----Original Message-----
From: megaco-bounces <at> ietf.org [mailto:megaco-bounces <at> ietf.org] On Behalf
Of megaco-request <at> ietf.org
Sent: Monday, February 08, 2010 9:44 PM
To: megaco <at> ietf.org
Subject: Megaco Digest, Vol 70, Issue 4

If you have received this digest without all the individual message
attachments you will need to update your digest options in your list
subscription.  To do so, go to 

https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/megaco

Click the 'Unsubscribe or edit options' button, log in, and set "Get
MIME or Plain Text Digests?" to MIME.  You can set this option
globally for all the list digests you receive at this point.

Send Megaco mailing list submissions to
	megaco <at> ietf.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/megaco
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
	megaco-request <at> ietf.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
	megaco-owner <at> ietf.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Megaco digest..."

Today's Topics:

   1. Query Regarding Long Timer in conjuction with HandOff in
      H.248 (sushil kumar)
   2. Query Regarding Long Timer in conjuction with HandOff in
      H.248 (sushil kumar)
   3. Re: Query Regarding Long Timer in conjuction with HandOff
      inH.248 (Schwarz Albrecht)
   4. MGCP question? (John Wainwright)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2010 14:44:40 +0530
From: "sushil kumar" <sushilku <at> cisco.com>
Subject: [Megaco] Query Regarding Long Timer in conjuction with
	HandOff in	H.248
To: <megaco <at> ietf.org>
Message-ID: <007801caa89f$2616df20$72449d60$ <at> com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Hi All,

I need a help , what should be the behavior of MG (H.248 Protocol) in
following scenario:-

1. MGC1 established association with MG 

2. MGC1 initiate Add 1 request towards MG with transaction ID(let
transactionID be 2)

3. MG responded the Add request and should keep a copy of it for 30 sec
(LONG Timer ) so that it can response back if same transaction request
comes
again.

4. Now MGC1 initiate handoff towards MGC2 (upto this point LONG timer
did
not expire ) .

5. MGC2 established association with MG(upto this point LONG timer did
not
expire ) .

6. Now MGC2 initiate Add 2  request towards MG with transaction ID 1(
same
as above) and still LONG Timer did not expire.

What should be the expected response from MG ?

i) Should it reply this Add2 request?

    Or

ii) should in response of this request (having same transaction Id  and
Long
timer did not expire ) MG  should return the same response which it
saved
already?

Currently it respond with the OLD response which it already saved .

Please find the attached call flow for reference.

Thanks in advance !!

Regards

Sushil

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/megaco/attachments/20100208/2d4b48
aa/attachment.htm>

------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2010 16:42:25 +0530
From: "sushil kumar" <sushilku <at> cisco.com>
Subject: [Megaco] Query Regarding Long Timer in conjuction with
	HandOff in	H.248
To: <megaco <at> ietf.org>
Message-ID: <008e01caa8af$98e33250$caa996f0$ <at> com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Hi All,

I need a help , what should be the behavior of MG (H.248 Protocol) in
following scenario:-

1. MGC1 established association with MG 

2. MGC1 initiate Add 1 request towards MG with transaction ID(let
transactionID be 2)

3. MG responded the Add request and should keep a copy of it for 30 sec
(LONG Timer ) so that it can response back if same transaction request
comes
again.

4. Now MGC1 initiate handoff towards MGC2 (upto this point LONG timer
did
not expire ) .

5. MGC2 established association with MG(upto this point LONG timer did
not
expire ) .

6. Now MGC2 initiate Add 2  request towards MG with transaction ID 1(
same
as above) and still LONG Timer did not expire.

What should be the expected response from MG ?

i) Should it reply this Add2 request?

    Or

ii) should in response of this request (having same transaction Id  and
Long
timer did not expire ) MG  should return the same response which it
saved
already?

Currently it respond with the OLD response which it already saved .

Please find the attached call flow for reference.

Thanks in advance !!

Regards

Sushil

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/megaco/attachments/20100208/403159
d5/attachment.htm>

------------------------------

Message: 3
Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2010 15:15:08 +0100
From: "Schwarz Albrecht" <Albrecht.Schwarz <at> alcatel-lucent.com>
Subject: Re: [Megaco] Query Regarding Long Timer in conjuction with
	HandOff	inH.248
To: "sushil kumar" <sushilku <at> cisco.com>, <megaco <at> ietf.org>
Message-ID:
	
<F4562D4585113D42AC08DC47FDEC49B00277A7A6 <at> FRVELSMBS23.ad2.ad.alcatel.com
>
	
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

Your scenario might be too high level, thus I may just guess:

You know that there is just a single H.248 Control Association (CA) from
MG perspective (a PMG or VMG).
Thus, the initial CA (with MGC1) does NOT exist anymore after the
successfull changeover procedure (via handoff) to MGC2.

Please don't forget that the 2nd CA is different to the 1st CA (due to
different MGC instances), see e.g.
ITU-T H.Sup7, ? 5.2 Constitution of a Control Association.

 
Thus, any OLD responses from the CA with MGC1 are meaningless at the new
CA with MGC2.
Both MGC entities must use a different MID anyway.

________________________________

	From: megaco-bounces <at> ietf.org [mailto:megaco-bounces <at> ietf.org]
On Behalf Of sushil kumar
	Sent: Montag, 8. Februar 2010 12:12
	To: megaco <at> ietf.org
	Subject: [Megaco] Query Regarding Long Timer in conjuction with
HandOff inH.248
	
	

	 

	Hi All,

	I need a help , what should be the behavior of MG (H.248
Protocol) in following scenario:-

	1. MGC1 established association with MG 

	2. MGC1 initiate Add 1 request towards MG with transaction
ID(let transactionID be 2)

	3. MG responded the Add request and should keep a copy of it for
30 sec (LONG Timer ) so that it can response back if same transaction
request comes again.

	4. Now MGC1 initiate handoff towards MGC2 (upto this point LONG
timer did not expire ) .

	5. MGC2 established association with MG(upto this point LONG
timer did not expire ) .

	6. Now MGC2 initiate Add 2  request towards MG with transaction
ID 1( same as above) and still LONG Timer did not expire.

	What should be the expected response from MG ?

	i) Should it reply this Add2 request?

	    Or

	ii) should in response of this request (having same transaction
Id  and Long timer did not expire ) MG  should return the same response
which it saved already?

	Currently it respond with the OLD response which it already
saved .

	Please find the attached call flow for reference.

	Thanks in advance !!

	Regards

	Sushil

	 

	 

	 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/megaco/attachments/20100208/05a9ce
89/attachment.htm>

------------------------------

Message: 4
Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2010 10:14:58 -0600
From: "John Wainwright" <john.wainwright <at> txpcorp.com>
Subject: [Megaco] MGCP question?
To: <megaco <at> ietf.org>
Message-ID:
	<DAAA7926EDB64B4188AF45D8A9A5A29002370352 <at> exchange.txp.lan>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

I know this is a Megaco forum but I was hoping someone could help me
with an MGCP question since the 2 protocols are similar in many ways.

If a gateway receive the following from its Call Agent

RQNT 39086638 phone/1 <at> [1.2.3.4] MGCP 1.0

X: 1

R: L/HU(N)

S:

Q: STEP

T: L/HU,L/HD,L/HF,D/[0-9A-D#*T]

When it detects a HookFlash event should this be immediately reported
since it is in the Detect Events parameter (T) or should it be ignored
because it is not in the Requested Events parameter (R) ?  My confusion
arises out of when DetectEvents type events are reported as opposed to
RequestedEvents type events in cases such as this.

Thanks

John

****************************************
The information contained in this message may be confidential,
privileged or protected from disclosure. If you have received it by
mistake, please let us know by e-mail reply and delete it from your
system; you may not copy, disseminate or disclose the contents of this
message to anyone.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/megaco/attachments/20100208/00b290
0e/attachment.htm>

------------------------------

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

End of Megaco Digest, Vol 70, Issue 4
*************************************

Gmane