Subject: [Megaco] Section 8.3 Messages - MID

From: "Chuong N. Nguyen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 14:30:02 -0500

In 3015corr and H.248v2, section 8.3 Messages, the following was added

An H.248.1 entity
   (MG/MGC) must consistently use the same MID in all messages it
   originates for the duration of control association with the peer
   (MGC/MG).

Does this imply that if MG/MGC receives a msg that does not have the
same MID,
an error should be returned to the sender?

Is this necessary?
What is the point in this?

From previous discussions Tom had indicated

The MId simply labels incoming messages so they can be correlated with
an active association.  It should not be considered to be any part of a
security
scheme.

What if MGC can correlate w/an active association w/o using MID, does
MGC still needs to validate this parameter?
IF MGC does, what error code should be returned?

If this error occurs, MG will consistently get the same error back from
MGC.
What should the MG do - Try to register w/another MGC?

IF MGC uses MID as an active association correlation and MGC detects
that the MID is incorrect,
how can MGC response back when it can't determine what the MID is.
That is MGC would not be able to tell if the Gwy it has an active
association w/the MG.

Thanks
Chuong

--
  Alcatel USA, Inc             Internet: [email-masked]
  1000 Coit Road Plano, Texas 75075           Phone:    (972) 519-4613
  **** The opinions expressed are not those of Alcatel USA, Inc ****

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2002 10:51:02 +0530

Hi

Please find attached my comments below.

Regards
Vivek Bansal

NGN Group
Hughes Software Systems
Off: 0124-6346666 Extn 3603
www.hssworld.com

"Chuong N. Nguyen" <[email-masked]> on 06/28/2002 01:00:02 AM

To:   "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
cc:    (bcc: Vivek Bansal/HSS)

Subject:  [Megaco] Section 8.3 Messages - MID

An H.248.1 entity

<Vivek> As per whatever has been discussed earlier, MID field uniquely
identifies the logical MG/MGC (entity) in the system. And the identity of the
entity should not change during the life cycle of the control association.

Is this necessary?

<Vivek> MGC may be configured to have multiple association towards different
MGs. This field cannot not be used for the security mechanism, but
implementations may use the MId field to identify the association between
MG-MGC. If the message is received from the entity with the unknown Mid, then
the application may ignore such message. Generating the error at this point
might help the peer entity to take some corrective action.

<Vivek> Are we identifying the association using transport parameters. Then I
don't think it good to this because underlying security may not be enabled and
there are chances of IP address spoofing. Keeping this in mind, I think MId is a
better option.

<Vivek> This would be the case if MG is not authorised to register to that MGC.
MG should try to register another MGC or MGC needs to update its configuration.

Thanks
Chuong

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2002 10:51:02 +0530

Hi

Regards
Vivek Bansal

NGN Group
Hughes Software Systems

An H.248.1 entity

Is this necessary?

Thanks
Chuong