kkversus_u | 4 Sep 2007 04:07

Do we like the same books?

I just joined Shelfari to connect with other book lovers. Come see the books I love and see if we have any in common. Then pick my next book so I can keep on reading.

Click below to join my group of friends on Shelfari!

http://www.shelfari.com/

kkversus_u


Shelfari is a free site that lets you share book ratings and reviews with friends and meet people who have similar tastes in books. It also lets you build an online bookshelf, join book clubs, and get good book recommendations from friends. You should check it out.

You have received this email because kkversus_u (kuldeepjanjua <at> gmail.com) directly invited you to join his/her community on Shelfari.

It is against Shelfari's policies to invite people who you don't know directly. Follow this link to prevent future invitations to this address. If you believe you do not know this person, you may view his/her Shelfari page or report him/her in our feedback section.

Shelfari, 616 1st Ave #300, Seattle, WA 98104

_______________________________________________
Sigtran mailing list
Sigtran <at> ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sigtran
Asveren, Tolga | 5 Sep 2007 13:56
Favicon

RE: RE: RE: Re: SP Status double endpoint

Hi Jacky,

Sorry for not making my question clear. What I wanted to ask was:
Why do you think we need procedures similar to MTP3 changeover/changeback procedures (or something
providing similar functionality)? The M3UA way of achieving NIF/network redundancy is SCTP
multihoming; and for the cases where a host itself is down, MTP3 changeover/changeback doesn’t help either.

We had a few times discussions about whether SCTP multihoming is enough for NIF/network redundancy (and my
impression is neither side could convince the other one) so we still have the original assumption I stated above.

  Thanks,
  Tolga

> -----Original Message-----
> From: chen.puran <at> zte.com.cn [mailto:chen.puran <at> zte.com.cn]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2007 3:14 AM
> To: Asveren, Tolga
> Cc: sigtran <at> ietf.org
> Subject: RE: RE: [Sigtran] RE: Re: SP Status double endpoint
> 
> 
> 
> >
> > ------->(jacky chen) it is so complex,i think RFC4666 MAY use change
> and
> > changeback procedure like MTP3, maybe it will be easy,
> > just add news messages and procedure like MTP3 does.
> I was wondering when this will come up again :-) . I did not follow this
> thread in full but could you summarize shortly why you believe that this
> is needed?
> 
> ----------------------------------------------
> Jacky chen:
> the changeback procedure of MTP3 is mature and easy to be realized,but the
> draft using the CorrectionId
> is not simple .
> 
> and,how do you think about adding parameter into HEATBEAT to check the
> ASP'S  Status In AS of each endpoint ,like STLM/STLA.
Padmalochan Moharana | 6 Sep 2007 14:31
Picon
Favicon

Doubt regarding Notify and traffic mode for IPSP end point in M3UA

Hi, 

 I have a doubt regarding notify procedure and traffic
handling mode in case IPSP_SE and IPSP_DE case. 
In case of IPSP_DE and IPSP_SE case what is the
behabiour of Notify messgae, 

thanks, 
Padmalochan

       
____________________________________________________________________________________
Choose the right car based on your needs.  Check out Yahoo! Autos new Car Finder tool.
http://autos.yahoo.com/carfinder/
Asveren, Tolga | 7 Sep 2007 20:33
Favicon

RE: RE: RE: RE: Re: SP Status double endpoint

If you can send an example message flow, that would be really helpful to understand the scenario you are
mentioning in detail.

   Thanks,
   Tolga

> -----Original Message-----
> From: chen.puran <at> zte.com.cn [mailto:chen.puran <at> zte.com.cn]
> Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2007 10:39 PM
> To: Asveren, Tolga
> Cc: sigtran <at> ietf.org
> Subject: RE: RE: RE: [Sigtran] RE: Re: SP Status double endpoint
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Jacky,
> 
> Sorry for not making my question clear. What I wanted to ask was:
> Why do you think we need procedures similar to MTP3 changeover/changeback
> procedures (or something providing similar functionality)? The M3UA way of
> achieving NIF/network redundancy is SCTP multihoming; and for the cases
> where a host itself is down, MTP3 changeover/changeback doesn’t help
> either.
> 
> We had a few times discussions about whether SCTP multihoming is enough
> for
> NIF/network redundancy (and my impression is neither side could convince
> the other one) so we still have the original assumption I stated above.
> 
>   Thanks,
>   Tolga
> 
> --------------------------------->
> 
> jackey chen:
>    SCTP multihoming just for the reliant SCTP Association,but SP(server
> Process)'S Status contains FAILURE,
> And to an endpoint,more than one SP(server Process)'S are used for
> traffic,so changeover/changeback of SP(server Process) is very
> important for the traffic(no data be discarded).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>                    扑
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> ====================================================
> 南京市雨花台区紫荆花路68号中兴通讯大厦中心研究院3G平台软件二部
> 电话:(86)25-52877532,#02587532 ***(NEW)***
> 电邮:chen.puran <at> mail.zte.com.cn
> MSN: abba_eagle <at> hotmail.com
> 邮编:210012
> ====================================================
Ong, Lyndon | 12 Sep 2007 21:15

FW: RFC 4666 M3UA

Forwarding question to the main list for comments.

From: kevin.p.spence <at> verizon.com [mailto:kevin.p.spence <at> verizon.com]
Sent: Monday, September 10, 2007 1:50 PM
To: kmorneau <at> cisco.com; j.javier.pastor <at> ericsson.com; Ong, Lyndon
Subject: RFC 4666 M3UA

Ken,Javier,Lyndon,

I got your names from an inquiry to the IETF about the RFC 4666.
Recently I have been involved in some testing of SS7 congestion and it's reaction from and IP network using M3UA. The SS7 physical connection utilized two ITP's with BLinks to the SS7 network. It appears the ITP's tested were not capable of transmitting the RCT ( Route Congestion Test) message in response to the TFC ( Transfer Congestion) they received with a proper Originating Point Code. The ITP responded to the TFC with a RCT that contained it's own originating point code. The RCT should contain the OPC of the node at the end of the trunks. This would be the IP endpoint not the ITP. Further it appears there is no provision within M3UA to facilitate IP endpoints to send a message to the ITP that would generate a proper RCT.

If possible could you respond to my concerns.

  1. Do I understand the M3UA protocol in the belief there is no workable RCT provision, or is there a provision that would enable the ITP to reply to a received TFC with a RCT that has the originating point code of the IP endpoint?
  2. I notice the DAUD message contains an Information Parameter. Is there an intent or possibility the DAUD message could trigger a RCT on the SS7 side of the ITP with the correct OPC of the IP endpoint?

Kevin P. Spence
Verizon Communications
Network Specialist
TSS ENET Essential Network Elements Team
972-615-8199 ext. 4907
_______________________________________________
Sigtran mailing list
Sigtran <at> ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sigtran
Ong, Lyndon | 12 Sep 2007 21:17

RE: FW: RFC 4666 M3UA

FYI, "ITP" referred to in the email is a type of SG.

From: Ong, Lyndon [mailto:Lyong <at> Ciena.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2007 12:15 PM
To: sigtran <at> ietf.org
Cc: kevin.p.spence <at> verizon.com
Subject: [Sigtran] FW: RFC 4666 M3UA

Forwarding question to the main list for comments.

From: kevin.p.spence <at> verizon.com [mailto:kevin.p.spence <at> verizon.com]
Sent: Monday, September 10, 2007 1:50 PM
To: kmorneau <at> cisco.com; j.javier.pastor <at> ericsson.com; Ong, Lyndon
Subject: RFC 4666 M3UA

Ken,Javier,Lyndon,

I got your names from an inquiry to the IETF about the RFC 4666.
Recently I have been involved in some testing of SS7 congestion and it's reaction from and IP network using M3UA. The SS7 physical connection utilized two ITP's with BLinks to the SS7 network. It appears the ITP's tested were not capable of transmitting the RCT ( Route Congestion Test) message in response to the TFC ( Transfer Congestion) they received with a proper Originating Point Code. The ITP responded to the TFC with a RCT that contained it's own originating point code. The RCT should contain the OPC of the node at the end of the trunks. This would be the IP endpoint not the ITP. Further it appears there is no provision within M3UA to facilitate IP endpoints to send a message to the ITP that would generate a proper RCT.

If possible could you respond to my concerns.

  1. Do I understand the M3UA protocol in the belief there is no workable RCT provision, or is there a provision that would enable the ITP to reply to a received TFC with a RCT that has the originating point code of the IP endpoint?
  2. I notice the DAUD message contains an Information Parameter. Is there an intent or possibility the DAUD message could trigger a RCT on the SS7 side of the ITP with the correct OPC of the IP endpoint?

Kevin P. Spence
Verizon Communications
Network Specialist
TSS ENET Essential Network Elements Team
972-615-8199 ext. 4907
_______________________________________________
Sigtran mailing list
Sigtran <at> ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sigtran
Asveren, Tolga | 12 Sep 2007 21:52
Favicon

RE: FW: RFC 4666 M3UA

Even for the case, where SG has its own PC, it needs to execute MTP3
procedures for the PC of AS.  

In this example, generating proper RCT is responsibility of SG and it
needs to do this autonomously.

   Thanks,
   Tolga

________________________________________
From: Ong, Lyndon [mailto:Lyong <at> Ciena.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2007 3:15 PM
To: sigtran <at> ietf.org
Cc: kevin.p.spence <at> verizon.com
Subject: [Sigtran] FW: RFC 4666 M3UA

Forwarding question to the main list for comments.

________________________________________
From: kevin.p.spence <at> verizon.com [mailto:kevin.p.spence <at> verizon.com] 
Sent: Monday, September 10, 2007 1:50 PM
To: kmorneau <at> cisco.com; j.javier.pastor <at> ericsson.com; Ong, Lyndon
Subject: RFC 4666 M3UA
Ken,Javier,Lyndon,

I got your names from an inquiry to the IETF about the RFC 4666.
Recently I have been involved in some testing of SS7 congestion and it's
reaction from and IP network using M3UA. The SS7 physical connection
utilized two ITP's with BLinks to the SS7 network. It appears the ITP's
tested were not capable of transmitting the RCT ( Route Congestion Test)
message in response to the TFC ( Transfer Congestion) they received with
a proper Originating Point Code. The ITP responded to the TFC with a RCT
that contained it's own originating point code. The RCT should contain
the OPC of the node at the end of the trunks. This would be the IP
endpoint not the ITP. Further it appears there is no provision within
M3UA to facilitate IP endpoints to send a message to the ITP that would
generate a proper RCT.

If possible could you respond to my concerns.
1. Do I understand the M3UA protocol in the belief there is no workable
RCT provision, or is there a provision that would enable the ITP to
reply to a received TFC with a RCT that has the originating point code
of the IP endpoint? 
2. I notice the DAUD message contains an Information Parameter. Is there
an intent or possibility the DAUD message could trigger a RCT on the SS7
side of the ITP with the correct OPC of the IP endpoint?

Kevin P. Spence
Verizon Communications
Network Specialist 
TSS ENET Essential Network Elements Team
972-615-8199 ext. 4907
Barry Nagelberg | 12 Sep 2007 21:53

RE: FW: RFC 4666 M3UA

Kevin,

1. Regarding how the SGP should respond to the SS7 TFC msg - This question relates only to the behavior of the MTP3
layer within the SGP, and is thus beyond the scope of RFC4666.

2. Regarding the lack of a provision within M3UA to facilitate IP endpoints to send a message to the ITP that would
generate a proper RCT - I agree with you that this is missing from RFC4666. Is this a "must have" issue for you?

Barry Nagelberg

-----Original Message-----
From: Ong, Lyndon [mailto:Lyong <at> Ciena.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2007 3:18 PM
To: Ong, Lyndon; sigtran <at> ietf.org
Cc: kevin.p.spence <at> verizon.com
Subject: RE: [Sigtran] FW: RFC 4666 M3UA

FYI, "ITP" referred to in the email is a type of SG.

From: Ong, Lyndon [mailto:Lyong <at> Ciena.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2007 12:15 PM
To: sigtran <at> ietf.org
Cc: kevin.p.spence <at> verizon.com
Subject: [Sigtran] FW: RFC 4666 M3UA

Forwarding question to the main list for comments.

From: kevin.p.spence <at> verizon.com [mailto:kevin.p.spence <at> verizon.com]
Sent: Monday, September 10, 2007 1:50 PM
To: kmorneau <at> cisco.com; j.javier.pastor <at> ericsson.com; Ong, Lyndon
Subject: RFC 4666 M3UA

Ken,Javier,Lyndon,

I got your names from an inquiry to the IETF about the RFC 4666.
Recently I have been involved in some testing of SS7 congestion and it's reaction from and IP network using
M3UA. The
SS7 physical connection utilized two ITP's with BLinks to the SS7 network. It appears the ITP's tested were
not capable
of transmitting the RCT ( Route Congestion Test) message in response to the TFC ( Transfer Congestion) they received
with a proper Originating Point Code. The ITP responded to the TFC with a RCT that contained it's own
originating point
code. The RCT should contain the OPC of the node at the end of the trunks. This would be the IP endpoint not the ITP.
Further it appears there is no provision within M3UA to facilitate IP endpoints to send a message to the ITP
that would
generate a proper RCT.

If possible could you respond to my concerns.

Do I understand the M3UA protocol in the belief there is no workable RCT provision, or is there a provision
that would
enable the ITP to reply to a received TFC with a RCT that has the originating point code of the IP endpoint?
I notice the DAUD message contains an Information Parameter. Is there an intent or possibility the DAUD
message could
trigger a RCT on the SS7 side of the ITP with the correct OPC of the IP endpoint?

Kevin P. Spence
Verizon Communications
Network Specialist
TSS ENET Essential Network Elements Team
972-615-8199 ext. 4907
Padmalochan Moharana | 13 Sep 2007 08:27
Picon
Favicon

Directin of REG REQ message in case of IPSP model.

Hi All,

Can anybody clarify me the call flow of the IPSP_SE
and IPSP_DE cases if dynamic registration is enabled.
The call flow is not describe in the RFC4666 section
5.6.1 and 5.6.2 and not sure about the direction of
the registration request message.

Please let me know the direction of Notify message
also.

Thanks
Padmalochan

       
____________________________________________________________________________________
Moody friends. Drama queens. Your life? Nope! - their life, your story. Play Sims Stories at Yahoo! Games.
http://sims.yahoo.com/  
Brian F. G. Bidulock | 13 Sep 2007 18:48
Favicon

Re: FW: RFC 4666 M3UA

Kevin,

I believe that you are talking about the multiple SG as STP scenario.
For this scenario to work correctly, from the SS7 perspective, each STP
must view the ASP Point Code to be an alias point code that is local to
the STP in the same sense as an ANSI T1.111.4/2000 SCCP "Alias" point
code described in ANSI T1.111.4/2000 3.9 and 3.A.  That is, the remote
ASP is connecting via M3UA to a local MTP-SAP on the STP which is shared
between STP pairs in the ANSI T1.111.4 "Alias" sense.

When set up in this manner, each STP must respond to TFC in the
appropriate manner as dictated by, for example, ANSI T1.111.4 Section
13.7, and in your case:

 13.7.5 If T15 expires after the last updated of the congestion
 status of the signalilng route set towards destination X by a
 transfer-controlled message relating to the same destination, the
 signalling-route-set-congestion-rest procedure is invoked (see
 13.9).

and

 13.9 The signalling-route-set-congestion-test procedure is used at
 an originating signalling point to update the congestion status
 associated with a route set towards a certain destination.  The
 purpose is to test whether or not signalling messages destined
 towards that destination with a given message priority or higher
 may be sent.

 ...

Because the "Alias" point code is considered local to the STP, the STP
must respond in the same manner as a signalling end point under sections
13.7 and 13.9.

The DAUD procedure is not intended to trigger SS7 procedures at the SG,
but is intended as an optional procedure invoked by the ASP to permit
the ASP to syncrhonize its state with regard to availability and
congestion of remote signalling points to support restart.

The SCON is the equivalent of the MTP-STATUS.

So, sending RCT is the obligation of the STP which "owns" the ASP's
signalling point code in the SS7 sense.  Route set status changes
resulting from the procedure are indicated to the ASP using SCON.

Because your implementation appears to be sending RCT under the correct
circumstances, but is mere placing the wrong point code in the test
message, it is likely just a bug.

--brian

Lyndon Ong wrote:                                (Wed, 12 Sep 2007 15:15:00)
> 
>    Ken,Javier,Lyndon,
>    I got your names from an inquiry to the IETF about the RFC 4666.
>    Recently  I  have  been involved in some testing of SS7 congestion and
>    it's  reaction  from  and  IP  network  using  M3UA.  The SS7 physical
>    connection  utilized  two  ITP's  with  BLinks  to the SS7 network. It
>    appears  the  ITP's  tested were not capable of transmitting the RCT (
>    Route  Congestion  Test)  message  in  response  to the TFC ( Transfer
>    Congestion)  they  received  with a proper Originating Point Code. The
>    ITP  responded  to  the  TFC  with  a  RCT  that  contained  it's  own
>    originating  point code. The RCT should contain the OPC of the node at
>    the  end  of  the  trunks.  This would be the IP endpoint not the ITP.
>    Further  it appears there is no provision within M3UA to facilitate IP
>    endpoints  to  send  a message to the ITP that would generate a proper
>    RCT.
>    If possible could you respond to my concerns.
>     1. Do  I  understand  the  M3UA  protocol  in  the belief there is no
>        workable  RCT provision, or is there a provision that would enable
>        the  ITP  to  reply  to  a  received  TFC  with a RCT that has the
>        originating point code of the IP endpoint?
>     2. I  notice  the  DAUD message contains an Information Parameter. Is
>        there  an  intent  or possibility the DAUD message could trigger a
>        RCT  on  the  SS7  side  of the ITP with the correct OPC of the IP
>        endpoint?
> 

--

-- 
Brian F. G. Bidulock
bidulock <at> openss7.org
http://www.openss7.org/

Gmane