Subject: [Sigtran] SS7 UPU FROM ASP

From: "emmanuel mavrommatis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 May 2007 18:09:15 +0100

Hi Brian,

In a previous discussion about
User Part Unavailable at ASP in M3UA
in the question:

I want to know which message is sent by the ASP in case it detects the

>    user part unavailability?

you have stated:

Kuldeep,
>
> In the case that the RK is based on SI value, ASP Inactive is the correct
>
> message.  In the case that RK is based on PC, user part flow control is
> the responsibility of the ASP (i.e. it could send UPU (the SS7 message, not
> the M3UA SNMM message) to the other end, or an equivalent user part message
>
> (e.g. Subsystem Prohibited).
>
> --brian
>
>
Could you please specify how the ASP will be able to send a SS7 UPU message?
In what format this will be and which primitive between M3UA user and M3UA
will be used? Is this covered by the standard?

Best Regards,
Emmanuel
_______________________________________________
Sigtran mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sigtran

---

From: "Barry Nagelberg" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 May 2007 13:23:40 -0400

Emmanuel,

The ASP sends a SS7 UPU message via its MTP3 layer, as specified by the MTP3 specs.

This happens when M3UA sends an implementation-dependent primitive to the MTP3 layer (not to the M3UA-user). Because
this primitive is implementation-dependent, it is not covered by the M3UA RFC.

Barry Nagelberg
Adax, Inc.

-----Original Message-----
From: emmanuel mavrommatis [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2007 1:09 PM
To: sigtran
Subject: [Sigtran] SS7 UPU FROM ASP

Hi Brian,

in the question:

you have stated:

Kuldeep,In the case that the RK is based on SI value, ASP Inactive is the correct
message.  In the case that RK is based on PC, user part flow control isthe responsibility of the ASP (i.e. it could send
UPU (the SS7 message, notthe M3UA SNMM message) to the other end, or an equivalent user part message
(e.g. Subsystem Prohibited).--brian
Could you please specify how the ASP will be able to send a SS7 UPU message? In what format this will be and which
primitive between M3UA user and M3UA will be used? Is this covered by the standard?

Best Regards,
Emmanuel

---

From: "emmanuel mavrommatis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 May 2007 18:38:43 +0100

Hi Barry,

Thanks for the responce.

I understand that ASP at the AS does not have MTP3 layer (just M3UA). As so
when you say M3UA implementation-dependent primitive to the MTP3 layer, do
you mean a M3UA implementation-dependent message to the MTP3 layer at the
SG?

Thanks,
Emmanuel

On 5/31/07, Barry Nagelberg <[email-masked]> wrote:
> This happens when M3UA sends an implementation-dependent primitive to the
> MTP3 layer (not to the M3UA-user). Because
> message.  In the case that RK is based on PC, user part flow control isthe
> responsibility of the ASP (i.e. it could send
> Could you please specify how the ASP will be able to send a SS7 UPU
> message? In what format this will be and which

---

From: "Brian F. G. Bidulock" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 May 2007 12:39:26 -0600

Emmanuel,

At the ASP, M3UA is envisioned by the RFC as presenting an MTP to MTP-User
service primitive interface an MTP-User.  As Barry notes, how availability
of the MTP user is detected across the MTP/MTP-User interface is
implementation dependent for SS7 MTP (see Q.701 for example).  As such, this
must be an implementation dependent mechanism.

For example, if the MTP/MTP-User interface is implemented as pseudo-device
driver and service primitives passed using, say, getpmsg(2) and putpmsg(2)
system calls, unavalability of the local MTP-User might be signalled across
the interface by closing the file description associated with the pseudo-
device driver.  Of couse, other representations and implementations are
possible.

So if closing a file descriptor signals the unavaibility of an equipped MTP
User, the M3UA implementation should deactivate for the associated AS.  At
the SGP, the SGP is responsible for determining if the entire AS is
unavailable and, if so, should generated UPU messages toward originators
sending messags to the unavailable User Part.

Sending a UPU message directly from the ASP would consists of packaging a
normal SS7 UPU message in an M3UA DATA message and sending it to the SGP.
However, beware that the ASP needs to known the availability of all ASPs for
the AS with all SGP, and that some NIF at the SG might reject the message out
of hand.

It is better and fully in fitting with th RFC to indicate unavailability to
the SGP, only using ASPTM.

--brian

emmanuel mavrommatis wrote:                    (Thu, 31 May 2007 18:38:43)
> 
>    Hi Barry,
>    Thanks for the responce.
>    I  understand that ASP at the AS does not have MTP3 layer (just M3UA).
>    As so when you say M3UA implementation-dependent primitive to the MTP3
>    layer, do you mean a M3UA implementation-dependent message to the MTP3
>    layer at the SG?
>    Thanks,
>    Emmanuel
> 

-- 
Brian F. G. Bidulock
[email-masked]
http://www.openss7.org/

---

From: "emmanuel mavrommatis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 May 2007 21:20:32 +0100

Brian/Barry,

Thanks both for your input. I see your point.

Best Regards,
Emmanuel