From ajaygargnsit@gmail.com  Wed Mar 12 23:18:26 2014
Return-Path: <ajaygargnsit@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: sigtran@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sigtran@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A999C1A08DE for <sigtran@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 12 Mar 2014 23:18:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XwvDg4EoOYGt for <sigtran@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 12 Mar 2014 23:18:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pb0-x230.google.com (mail-pb0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c01::230]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D7DC1A08D7 for <sigtran@ietf.org>; Wed, 12 Mar 2014 23:18:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pb0-f48.google.com with SMTP id md12so635614pbc.35 for <sigtran@ietf.org>; Wed, 12 Mar 2014 23:18:19 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;  h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=IOe+vQRMNU/PbIYo8sjLd91Sta/olK1ef1WsDmrKLzA=; b=mTJO4lzwHiyGmGUIpNdZdExxGSis9QePwONmoobCWIatdVXc4jTlSXvWqDwHA2Ykym xPknbS/orHNhdre3J92u1+/IvQkqpwRU8J9E/JeqeDMVnqwuq5Tcj/q3fxbEtLXseWE2 I0w5lUm0AOaghGH7iSdXLVPQ1/kxWyf0wYBCjMJDno1Wt7VWqZ6a1NHAH1vtISnDz/WR WNBVIQZNugaDgmAiSytO93G7NN61jKKJ/4l2VYjDkA2Ols6A1ViCa0zHkEV7nTvDCjBm bwb6RewCgF0ymCzFArfYlWXzFm9adV6S7kX2H6pG3jUeCSJ8Lin+sAnVj4j1SEeg4pCe alfg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.66.163.164 with SMTP id yj4mr26713pab.91.1394691499312; Wed, 12 Mar 2014 23:18:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.70.92.9 with HTTP; Wed, 12 Mar 2014 23:18:19 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2014 11:48:19 +0530
Message-ID: <CAHP4M8VFfMjLXGQ703yL+Ne7Dujf7GmxOjJY+Ndvzn9k5K553Q@mail.gmail.com>
From: Ajay Garg <ajaygargnsit@gmail.com>
To: sigtran@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b86ec5e63499d04f476eb0d
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sigtran/H_RiR46tn4nF1vUjltugUQwj6pk
Subject: [Sigtran] Conceptual doubt between an ASP and SGP
X-BeenThere: sigtran@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Signaling Transport <sigtran.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/sigtran>, <mailto:sigtran-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sigtran/>
List-Post: <mailto:sigtran@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sigtran-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sigtran>, <mailto:sigtran-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2014 06:19:47 -0000

--047d7b86ec5e63499d04f476eb0d
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

Hi all.

I am an absolute newbie in telecom domain, so kindly forgive me if I sound
incredibly stupid.


>From what I understand, an ASP is a process running on an AS, and a SGP is
a process running on a SG.
Each ASP <-> SGP link is a SCTP connection.

Also, I understand that SGP is responsible for message-routing, while an
ASP is merely an end-point for a SCTP connection.


Given that, are there any extra differences between a ASP and SGP (in
addition to the routing-capabilities of a SGP)?


I will be grateful for any pointers/clarifications.


Thanks and Regards,
Ajay

--047d7b86ec5e63499d04f476eb0d
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div><div><div><div><div><div><div>Hi all.<br><br></div>I =
am an absolute newbie in telecom domain, so kindly forgive me if I sound in=
credibly stupid.<br><br><br></div>From what I understand, an ASP is a proce=
ss running on an AS, and a SGP is a process running on a SG.<br>
</div>Each ASP &lt;-&gt; SGP link is a SCTP connection.<br><br></div><div>A=
lso, I understand that SGP is responsible for message-routing, while an ASP=
 is merely an end-point for a SCTP connection.<br><br><br></div>Given that,=
 are there any extra differences between a ASP and SGP (in addition to the =
routing-capabilities of a SGP)?<br>
</div><br><br></div>I will be grateful for any pointers/clarifications.<br>=
<br><br></div>Thanks and Regards,<br><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><di=
v>Ajay<br>
</div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div>

--047d7b86ec5e63499d04f476eb0d--


From nobody Wed Mar 12 23:45:17 2014
Return-Path: <ajaygargnsit@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: sigtran@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sigtran@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 13E8E1A08F9 for <sigtran@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 12 Mar 2014 23:45:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.005
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.005 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, PLING_QUERY=0.994, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YcBaRtp2x5WS for <sigtran@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 12 Mar 2014 23:45:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pd0-x233.google.com (mail-pd0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c02::233]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D9DCD1A08E4 for <sigtran@ietf.org>; Wed, 12 Mar 2014 23:45:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pd0-f179.google.com with SMTP id w10so653334pde.10 for <sigtran@ietf.org>; Wed, 12 Mar 2014 23:45:08 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;  h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=A1j6lyHt5NdQ9loPyRmBTjU5ivIO0MfMkjXOryixYAk=; b=iG2SJiKn3hXls+atm+esz3t95fKwifCKkmLgh/ER1WBm4k93JkgBY6Yn78XYd5J24B racUUPtn0oMAh2n9slOSp0CPhDeBD4oFpaWVaDdqf1EXRXWvGl/qfnsRwIEOPEGO9RBe ee/pKQmzrdblUz28qX8Z5ki7VpigMr4bsqoQwE9zlw4mrqJ185EKgLUtAv1IOsJ1rw6b yj4pEfRqGYlG/G1RBUqxjqPw0hhVrfTbKAweb9HjrlgeXXJAzd7Ey6Rv7yRpBbzocOwv AoxQU4IyhZXopviYbjQdQMtXODKtIeUNjrJsacyeOyhtrtCO89VVF4oJvEFGQ9f51t7Z RnAw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.68.7.66 with SMTP id h2mr143603pba.91.1394693108160; Wed, 12 Mar 2014 23:45:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.70.92.9 with HTTP; Wed, 12 Mar 2014 23:45:08 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2014 12:15:08 +0530
Message-ID: <CAHP4M8W42_NTvwQJzGf5cM21-8jQu9dGmGzHXQ8zoeq380cLZA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Ajay Garg <ajaygargnsit@gmail.com>
To: sigtran@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=bcaec52156a948606b04f4774bf0
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sigtran/w3buQpdM8IqvAv89ZDyIiNsxv2A
Subject: [Sigtran] State-machines wrong in the RFC-3332 and RFC-4666 ??!!
X-BeenThere: sigtran@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Signaling Transport <sigtran.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/sigtran>, <mailto:sigtran-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sigtran/>
List-Post: <mailto:sigtran@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sigtran-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sigtran>, <mailto:sigtran-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2014 06:45:17 -0000

--bcaec52156a948606b04f4774bf0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

Hi all.

Sorry if I am acting stupid, but


1)
At https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3332.txt, in the section

                               5.1.4 Three ASPs in an Application Server
("n+k" sparing, loadsharing case)

should not "Notify (AS-ACTIVE)" be sent to ASP1 and ASP2 (as against ASP2
and ASP3 as per the diagram), since ASP1 and ASP2 are the ones that sent
the "ASP Act (Ldshr)" message (and are thus the "n" active ASPs)?



2)
At https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4666, in the section


<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4666#section-5.1.4>5.1.4 Three ASPs in an
Application Server ("n+k" sparing, loadsharing case)


why will "Notify (AS-ACTIVE)" be sent to ASP3 (since only ASP1 and ASP2
sent the "ASP Act. (Ldshr)" message, and are thus the "n" active ASPs)?





Again, sorry if I am missing something very fundamental.



Thanks and Regards,
Ajay

--bcaec52156a948606b04f4774bf0
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div><div><div>Hi all.<br><br></div>Sorry if I am acting s=
tupid, but <br><br><br>1)<br></div>At <a href=3D"https://www.ietf.org/rfc/r=
fc3332.txt">https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3332.txt</a>, in the section<br><br=
>
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0=A0 5.1.4 Three =
ASPs in an Application Server (&quot;n+k&quot; sparing, loadsharing case)<b=
r><br></div>should not &quot;Notify (AS-ACTIVE)&quot; be sent to ASP1 and A=
SP2 (as against ASP2 and ASP3 as per the diagram), since ASP1 and ASP2 are =
the ones that sent the &quot;ASP Act (Ldshr)&quot; message (and are thus th=
e &quot;n&quot; active ASPs)?<br>
<br><br><br>2)<br>At <a href=3D"https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4666">https:=
//tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4666</a>, in the section<br><br>=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 <a class=3D"" name=3D"section-5=
.1.4" href=3D"https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4666#section-5.1.4"></a>5.1.4 =
Three ASPs in an Application Server (&quot;n+k&quot; sparing, loadsharing c=
ase)<br>
<br><br>why will &quot;Notify (AS-ACTIVE)&quot; be sent to ASP3 (since only=
 ASP1 and ASP2 sent the &quot;ASP Act. (Ldshr)&quot; message, and are thus =
the &quot;n&quot; active ASPs)?<br><br><br><br><br><br>Again, sorry if I am=
 missing something very fundamental.<br>
<div><pre></pre><pre><br></pre><pre><br></pre><div><div>Thanks and Regards,=
<br><div>Ajay<br>
</div></div></div></div></div>

--bcaec52156a948606b04f4774bf0--


From nobody Thu Mar 13 00:07:01 2014
Return-Path: <bidulock@openss7.org>
X-Original-To: sigtran@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sigtran@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E6FB1A091E for <sigtran@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 13 Mar 2014 00:07:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.206
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.206 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, PLING_QUERY=0.994, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Mh75tEpZkwb9 for <sigtran@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 13 Mar 2014 00:06:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gw.openss7.com (gw.openss7.com [142.59.210.7]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C1D91A08F6 for <sigtran@ietf.org>; Thu, 13 Mar 2014 00:06:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wilbur.pigworks.openss7.net (ns5.evil.openss7.net [192.168.9.5]) by gw.openss7.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/Debian-5+lenny1) with ESMTP id s2D76WQP020781; Thu, 13 Mar 2014 01:06:32 -0600
Received: from wilbur.pigworks.openss7.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by wilbur.pigworks.openss7.net (8.14.3/8.14.3/Debian-5+lenny1) with ESMTP id s2D76WiP015393; Thu, 13 Mar 2014 01:06:32 -0600
Received: (from brian@localhost) by wilbur.pigworks.openss7.net (8.14.3/8.14.3/Submit) id s2D76WRq015392; Thu, 13 Mar 2014 01:06:32 -0600
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2014 01:06:32 -0600
From: "Brian F. G. Bidulock" <bidulock@openss7.org>
To: Ajay Garg <ajaygargnsit@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20140313070632.GA15132@openss7.org>
Mail-Followup-To: Ajay Garg <ajaygargnsit@gmail.com>, sigtran@ietf.org
References: <CAHP4M8W42_NTvwQJzGf5cM21-8jQu9dGmGzHXQ8zoeq380cLZA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAHP4M8W42_NTvwQJzGf5cM21-8jQu9dGmGzHXQ8zoeq380cLZA@mail.gmail.com>
Organization: http://www.openss7.org/
Dsn-Notification-To: <bidulock@openss7.org>
X-Spam-To: <blockme@openss7.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sigtran/1bNxOwd5SCmtn3cT1PfCBwxcpWA
Cc: sigtran@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Sigtran] State-machines wrong in the RFC-3332 and RFC-4666 ??!!
X-BeenThere: sigtran@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
Reply-To: bidulock@openss7.org
List-Id: Signaling Transport <sigtran.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/sigtran>, <mailto:sigtran-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sigtran/>
List-Post: <mailto:sigtran@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sigtran-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sigtran>, <mailto:sigtran-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2014 07:07:00 -0000

Ajay,

Please see comments below:

Ajay Garg wrote:                        (Thu, 13 Mar 2014 12:15:08)
>    1)
>    At [1]https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3332.txt, in the section
>                                   5.1.4 Three ASPs in an Application
>    Server ("n+k" sparing, loadsharing case)
>    should not "Notify (AS-ACTIVE)" be sent to ASP1 and ASP2 (as against
>    ASP2 and ASP3 as per the diagram), since ASP1 and ASP2 are the ones
>    that sent the "ASP Act (Ldshr)" message (and are thus the "n" active
>    ASPs)?

On the first page of RFC 4666 you will see the line: "Obsoletes: 3332".


>    2)
>    At [2]https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4666, in the section
>                                  5.1.4 Three ASPs in an Application Server
>    ("n+k" sparing, loadsharing case)
>    why will "Notify (AS-ACTIVE)" be sent to ASP3 (since only ASP1 and ASP2
>    sent the "ASP Act. (Ldshr)" message, and are thus the "n" active ASPs)?
>    Again, sorry if I am missing something very fundamental.

RFC 4666 4.3.4.5 Notify Procedures:

  A Notify message reflecting a change in the AS state MUST be sent to
  all ASPs in the AS, except those in the ASP-DOWN state, with
  appropriate Status information and any ASP identifier of the failed
  ASP.

ASP3 is not in the ASP down state and therefore must be sent the
AS-ACTIVE message.

--brian

-- 
Brian F. G. Bidulock
bidulock@openss7.org
http://www.openss7.org/


From nobody Thu Mar 13 00:17:40 2014
Return-Path: <bidulock@openss7.org>
X-Original-To: sigtran@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sigtran@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5DFE71A06AB for <sigtran@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 13 Mar 2014 00:17:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fhrmmmKwzFxC for <sigtran@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 13 Mar 2014 00:17:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gw.openss7.com (gw.openss7.com [142.59.210.7]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ECDAD1A001F for <sigtran@ietf.org>; Thu, 13 Mar 2014 00:17:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wilbur.pigworks.openss7.net (ns5.evil.openss7.net [192.168.9.5]) by gw.openss7.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/Debian-5+lenny1) with ESMTP id s2D7HUOl020830; Thu, 13 Mar 2014 01:17:30 -0600
Received: from wilbur.pigworks.openss7.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by wilbur.pigworks.openss7.net (8.14.3/8.14.3/Debian-5+lenny1) with ESMTP id s2D7HTlZ015584; Thu, 13 Mar 2014 01:17:29 -0600
Received: (from brian@localhost) by wilbur.pigworks.openss7.net (8.14.3/8.14.3/Submit) id s2D7HT3T015583; Thu, 13 Mar 2014 01:17:29 -0600
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2014 01:17:29 -0600
From: "Brian F. G. Bidulock" <bidulock@openss7.org>
To: Ajay Garg <ajaygargnsit@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20140313071729.GB15132@openss7.org>
Mail-Followup-To: Ajay Garg <ajaygargnsit@gmail.com>, sigtran@ietf.org
References: <CAHP4M8VFfMjLXGQ703yL+Ne7Dujf7GmxOjJY+Ndvzn9k5K553Q@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAHP4M8VFfMjLXGQ703yL+Ne7Dujf7GmxOjJY+Ndvzn9k5K553Q@mail.gmail.com>
Organization: http://www.openss7.org/
Dsn-Notification-To: <bidulock@openss7.org>
X-Spam-To: <blockme@openss7.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sigtran/wdSRlULxGs0QKAtWwqg2x1AmM0o
Cc: sigtran@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Sigtran] Conceptual doubt between an ASP and SGP
X-BeenThere: sigtran@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
Reply-To: bidulock@openss7.org
List-Id: Signaling Transport <sigtran.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/sigtran>, <mailto:sigtran-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sigtran/>
List-Post: <mailto:sigtran@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sigtran-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sigtran>, <mailto:sigtran-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2014 07:17:39 -0000

Ajay,

Please see comments below...

Ajay Garg wrote:                              (Thu, 13 Mar 2014 11:48:19)
>    Hi all.
>    I am an absolute newbie in telecom domain, so kindly forgive me if I
>    sound incredibly stupid.
>    From what I understand, an ASP is a process running on an AS, and a SGP
>    is a process running on a SG.

Not quite.  See RFC 4666 "1.2 Terminology" for a definition of ASP,
AS, SGP and SG.

>    Each ASP <-> SGP link is a SCTP connection.
>    Also, I understand that SGP is responsible for message-routing, while
>    an ASP is merely an end-point for a SCTP connection.
>    Given that, are there any extra differences between a ASP and SGP (in
>    addition to the routing-capabilities of a SGP)?
>    I will be grateful for any pointers/clarifications.

RFC 4666 describes for 124 pages the differences between ASP and SGP.

BTW, it is not an SGP per se that has routing capabilities, but an
SG, where the SG is made up of some SGP, an SS7 stack and a
interworking function.

See also RFC 2719 "Framework Architecture for Signaling Transport"
for a better overview of what's going on.

--brian

-- 
Brian F. G. Bidulock
bidulock@openss7.org
http://www.openss7.org/


From nobody Thu Mar 13 00:20:54 2014
Return-Path: <ajaygargnsit@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: sigtran@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sigtran@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E8B181A035C for <sigtran@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 13 Mar 2014 00:20:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.405
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.405 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_12=0.6, PLING_QUERY=0.994, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6LqwB7JAz6VW for <sigtran@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 13 Mar 2014 00:20:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pa0-x234.google.com (mail-pa0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c03::234]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A9A2F1A001F for <sigtran@ietf.org>; Thu, 13 Mar 2014 00:20:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pa0-f52.google.com with SMTP id rd3so716840pab.11 for <sigtran@ietf.org>; Thu, 13 Mar 2014 00:20:42 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;  h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=Wbh6pn+ev2VS8ae/KRytlxKZAfCu5Q6bLyJgkG9CvTE=; b=gdQCF6gIDjoOhw23yCit6x/gnX2YX8P3xATJ0ODgFDlBdfuhaXxRj58lz7I+06ZOXw 6V9DaNXay9NjTMlfMyYySY+PpQnFYfdno+cJOi8rfxsV18JesfuUoTCcMl0XTbhzehbN Zf+wz8pjoojjBv6IwOqSKCyWtsEpFMBJM8e/s50+9DV9zqa1bYQ7JY2kElOSwkuI0kj4 lpYFQSlfqp0r/ZpHCZxlRsFg9mzoYwWD/SQdipO+81YuTQURQ8XBUxRRkA/dgMJBCt1n z9SJvCuSqT4LgtMUK9ZdNukrvOVbttmowyn42AEqLjlvT/4GtO62kDxipmXWFnjE6quE 11Pg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.66.142.42 with SMTP id rt10mr384257pab.1.1394695242486; Thu, 13 Mar 2014 00:20:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.70.92.9 with HTTP; Thu, 13 Mar 2014 00:20:42 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20140313070632.GA15132@openss7.org>
References: <CAHP4M8W42_NTvwQJzGf5cM21-8jQu9dGmGzHXQ8zoeq380cLZA@mail.gmail.com> <20140313070632.GA15132@openss7.org>
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2014 12:50:42 +0530
Message-ID: <CAHP4M8W7cFsATw5icyZO1f6qRc-FTu-b1=QooJu4Pqw6LBi5og@mail.gmail.com>
From: Ajay Garg <ajaygargnsit@gmail.com>
To: bidulock@openss7.org, sigtran@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1133048a7f972204f477ca46
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sigtran/Vpg2HSjDTcbxi3rvvo3pxQ5zAvo
Subject: Re: [Sigtran] State-machines wrong in the RFC-3332 and RFC-4666 ??!!
X-BeenThere: sigtran@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Signaling Transport <sigtran.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/sigtran>, <mailto:sigtran-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sigtran/>
List-Post: <mailto:sigtran@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sigtran-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sigtran>, <mailto:sigtran-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2014 07:20:51 -0000

--001a1133048a7f972204f477ca46
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

Thanks Brian for the quick reply.


On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 12:36 PM, Brian F. G. Bidulock <bidulock@openss7.org
> wrote:

> Ajay,
>
> Please see comments below:
>
> Ajay Garg wrote:                        (Thu, 13 Mar 2014 12:15:08)
> >    1)
> >    At [1]https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3332.txt, in the section
> >                                   5.1.4 Three ASPs in an Application
> >    Server ("n+k" sparing, loadsharing case)
> >    should not "Notify (AS-ACTIVE)" be sent to ASP1 and ASP2 (as against
> >    ASP2 and ASP3 as per the diagram), since ASP1 and ASP2 are the ones
> >    that sent the "ASP Act (Ldshr)" message (and are thus the "n" active
> >    ASPs)?
>
> On the first page of RFC 4666 you will see the line: "Obsoletes: 3332".
>

:)
We are in the process of moving to the new release of the stack provided by
our vendor (right now, the stack uses M3UA in accordance with RFC 3332).

For purely academic purposes, I guess that here too "Notify (AS-ACTIVE)"
would be sent to all the ASPs (as per your reply to my second query, and
RFC-3332 also has the same "Notify Procedures")?





>
>
> >    2)
> >    At [2]https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4666, in the section
> >                                  5.1.4 Three ASPs in an Application
> Server
> >    ("n+k" sparing, loadsharing case)
> >    why will "Notify (AS-ACTIVE)" be sent to ASP3 (since only ASP1 and
> ASP2
> >    sent the "ASP Act. (Ldshr)" message, and are thus the "n" active
> ASPs)?
> >    Again, sorry if I am missing something very fundamental.
>
> RFC 4666 4.3.4.5 Notify Procedures:
>
>   A Notify message reflecting a change in the AS state MUST be sent to
>   all ASPs in the AS, except those in the ASP-DOWN state, with
>   appropriate Status information and any ASP identifier of the failed
>   ASP.
>
> ASP3 is not in the ASP down state and therefore must be sent the
> AS-ACTIVE message.
>


Thanks Brian ... !!!!



Thanks a ton Brian for the clarifications !!




>
> --brian
>
> --
> Brian F. G. Bidulock
> bidulock@openss7.org
> http://www.openss7.org/
>



-- 
Regards,
Ajay

--001a1133048a7f972204f477ca46
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr">Thanks Brian for the quick reply.<br><div class=3D"gmail_e=
xtra"><br><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 12:36 PM, =
Brian F. G. Bidulock <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:bidulock@opens=
s7.org" target=3D"_blank">bidulock@openss7.org</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-=
left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">Ajay,<br>
<br>
Please see comments below:<br>
<br>
Ajay Garg wrote: =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0(Thu, 13 Ma=
r 2014 12:15:08)<br>
&gt; =A0 =A01)<br>
&gt; =A0 =A0At [1]<a href=3D"https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3332.txt" target=
=3D"_blank">https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3332.txt</a>, in the section<br>
<div class=3D"">&gt; =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 5.1.4 Three ASPs in an Application<br>
&gt; =A0 =A0Server (&quot;n+k&quot; sparing, loadsharing case)<br>
&gt; =A0 =A0should not &quot;Notify (AS-ACTIVE)&quot; be sent to ASP1 and A=
SP2 (as against<br>
&gt; =A0 =A0ASP2 and ASP3 as per the diagram), since ASP1 and ASP2 are the =
ones<br>
&gt; =A0 =A0that sent the &quot;ASP Act (Ldshr)&quot; message (and are thus=
 the &quot;n&quot; active<br>
&gt; =A0 =A0ASPs)?<br>
<br>
</div>On the first page of RFC 4666 you will see the line: &quot;Obsoletes:=
 3332&quot;.<br></blockquote><div><br>:) <br></div><div>We are in the proce=
ss of moving to the new release of the stack provided by our vendor (right =
now, the stack uses M3UA in accordance with RFC 3332).<br>
<br></div><div>For purely academic purposes, I guess that here too &quot;No=
tify (AS-ACTIVE)&quot; would be sent to all the ASPs (as per your reply to =
my second query, and RFC-3332 also has the same &quot;Notify Procedures&quo=
t;)?<br>
<br></div><div><br><br>=A0</div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"=
margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-lef=
t:1ex">
<br>
<br>
&gt; =A0 =A02)<br>
&gt; =A0 =A0At [2]<a href=3D"https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4666" target=3D=
"_blank">https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4666</a>, in the section<br>
<div class=3D"">&gt; =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A05.1.4 Three ASPs in an Application Server<br>
&gt; =A0 =A0(&quot;n+k&quot; sparing, loadsharing case)<br>
&gt; =A0 =A0why will &quot;Notify (AS-ACTIVE)&quot; be sent to ASP3 (since =
only ASP1 and ASP2<br>
&gt; =A0 =A0sent the &quot;ASP Act. (Ldshr)&quot; message, and are thus the=
 &quot;n&quot; active ASPs)?<br>
&gt; =A0 =A0Again, sorry if I am missing something very fundamental.<br>
<br>
</div>RFC 4666 4.3.4.5 Notify Procedures:<br>
<br>
=A0 A Notify message reflecting a change in the AS state MUST be sent to<br=
>
=A0 all ASPs in the AS, except those in the ASP-DOWN state, with<br>
=A0 appropriate Status information and any ASP identifier of the failed<br>
=A0 ASP.<br>
<br>
ASP3 is not in the ASP down state and therefore must be sent the<br>
AS-ACTIVE message.<br></blockquote><div><br><br></div><div>Thanks Brian ...=
 !!!!<br><br><br><br></div><div>Thanks a ton Brian for the clarifications !=
!<br><br></div><div><br></div><div>=A0</div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quot=
e" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204)=
;padding-left:1ex">

<span class=3D""><font color=3D"#888888"><br>
--brian<br>
<br>
--<br>
Brian F. G. Bidulock<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:bidulock@openss7.org">bidulock@openss7.org</a><br>
<a href=3D"http://www.openss7.org/" target=3D"_blank">http://www.openss7.or=
g/</a><br>
</font></span></blockquote></div><br><br clear=3D"all"><br>-- <br>Regards,<=
br>Ajay<br>
</div></div>

--001a1133048a7f972204f477ca46--


From nobody Thu Mar 13 00:24:15 2014
Return-Path: <bidulock@openss7.org>
X-Original-To: sigtran@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sigtran@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D3921A08F3 for <sigtran@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 13 Mar 2014 00:24:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.606
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.606 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, J_CHICKENPOX_12=0.6, PLING_QUERY=0.994, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3WnxHxVxFgkh for <sigtran@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 13 Mar 2014 00:24:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gw.openss7.com (gw.openss7.com [142.59.210.7]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A3AD1A0155 for <sigtran@ietf.org>; Thu, 13 Mar 2014 00:24:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wilbur.pigworks.openss7.net (ns5.evil.openss7.net [192.168.9.5]) by gw.openss7.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/Debian-5+lenny1) with ESMTP id s2D7O4Ce020870; Thu, 13 Mar 2014 01:24:04 -0600
Received: from wilbur.pigworks.openss7.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by wilbur.pigworks.openss7.net (8.14.3/8.14.3/Debian-5+lenny1) with ESMTP id s2D7O4Ae015807; Thu, 13 Mar 2014 01:24:04 -0600
Received: (from brian@localhost) by wilbur.pigworks.openss7.net (8.14.3/8.14.3/Submit) id s2D7O48V015806; Thu, 13 Mar 2014 01:24:04 -0600
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2014 01:24:04 -0600
From: "Brian F. G. Bidulock" <bidulock@openss7.org>
To: Ajay Garg <ajaygargnsit@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20140313072404.GC15132@openss7.org>
Mail-Followup-To: Ajay Garg <ajaygargnsit@gmail.com>, sigtran@ietf.org
References: <CAHP4M8W42_NTvwQJzGf5cM21-8jQu9dGmGzHXQ8zoeq380cLZA@mail.gmail.com> <20140313070632.GA15132@openss7.org> <CAHP4M8W7cFsATw5icyZO1f6qRc-FTu-b1=QooJu4Pqw6LBi5og@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAHP4M8W7cFsATw5icyZO1f6qRc-FTu-b1=QooJu4Pqw6LBi5og@mail.gmail.com>
Organization: http://www.openss7.org/
Dsn-Notification-To: <bidulock@openss7.org>
X-Spam-To: <blockme@openss7.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sigtran/ri9WrrajYExw-C-bGmOK539vifA
Cc: sigtran@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Sigtran] State-machines wrong in the RFC-3332 and RFC-4666 ??!!
X-BeenThere: sigtran@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
Reply-To: bidulock@openss7.org
List-Id: Signaling Transport <sigtran.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/sigtran>, <mailto:sigtran-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sigtran/>
List-Post: <mailto:sigtran@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sigtran-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sigtran>, <mailto:sigtran-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2014 07:24:13 -0000

Ajay,

Please see comments below...

Ajay Garg wrote:                           (Thu, 13 Mar 2014 12:50:42)
>    We are in the process of moving to the new release of the stack
>    provided by our vendor (right now, the stack uses M3UA in accordance
>    with RFC 3332).
>    For purely academic purposes, I guess that here too "Notify
>    (AS-ACTIVE)" would be sent to all the ASPs (as per your reply to my
>    second query, and RFC-3332 also has the same "Notify Procedures")?

RFC 3332 has the same statement in section 4.3.4.5.

--brian

-- 
Brian F. G. Bidulock
bidulock@openss7.org
http://www.openss7.org/


From nobody Thu Mar 13 01:51:05 2014
Return-Path: <ajaygargnsit@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: sigtran@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sigtran@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1628D1A0993 for <sigtran@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 13 Mar 2014 01:51:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.405
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.405 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_12=0.6, PLING_QUERY=0.994, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tjHHU9c40hLA for <sigtran@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 13 Mar 2014 01:51:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pa0-x232.google.com (mail-pa0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c03::232]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8FF851A098C for <sigtran@ietf.org>; Thu, 13 Mar 2014 01:51:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pa0-f50.google.com with SMTP id kq14so806002pab.37 for <sigtran@ietf.org>; Thu, 13 Mar 2014 01:50:55 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;  h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=jfGV1lWFl6AUg4m3CL4WkrYzVF9Ulx+oORxAx1hH/gY=; b=TCZ+9acasVP82HBTD8XBojCYXqoS4b8sgSc54ZVL8awHtGo88529KSwiIrbrbpDAZf eTX7nfmY42a5augc6rNilVoCnlUiLbglzoyHy/wIS4AoXg0odtGwKRkebVsb0CPXtFe+ rSBWSEObQMTCsJPBrGOEpBUCw5ddH1apXJNnoNHpiEafKd1TtquFqAPVxtut8Xsiv6J8 NTsdh+E77z5hadAsVf2MUFVz7sUqifUAqegXONt8SuRh8ef86LSXvyD3QxJQFQlchblZ XHnQsrbXvKyITzT77eoT8PPQGjXBMiO/n5/Q7Y6powlPb8fAEEstCW+tBXD4DhlpLy5u +r5A==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.66.163.164 with SMTP id yj4mr723977pab.91.1394700655346; Thu, 13 Mar 2014 01:50:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.70.92.9 with HTTP; Thu, 13 Mar 2014 01:50:55 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20140313072404.GC15132@openss7.org>
References: <CAHP4M8W42_NTvwQJzGf5cM21-8jQu9dGmGzHXQ8zoeq380cLZA@mail.gmail.com> <20140313070632.GA15132@openss7.org> <CAHP4M8W7cFsATw5icyZO1f6qRc-FTu-b1=QooJu4Pqw6LBi5og@mail.gmail.com> <20140313072404.GC15132@openss7.org>
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2014 14:20:55 +0530
Message-ID: <CAHP4M8W6NzM2Mz0Ea+QUR90LuYZsRDi21Srm-hQeAd3kL8pVxQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Ajay Garg <ajaygargnsit@gmail.com>
To: bidulock@openss7.org, sigtran@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b86ec5e2148e804f4790d3a
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sigtran/KGX9JIayC1RGtc0pA6qfFh1XpDA
Subject: Re: [Sigtran] State-machines wrong in the RFC-3332 and RFC-4666 ??!!
X-BeenThere: sigtran@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Signaling Transport <sigtran.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/sigtran>, <mailto:sigtran-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sigtran/>
List-Post: <mailto:sigtran@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sigtran-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sigtran>, <mailto:sigtran-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2014 08:51:04 -0000

--047d7b86ec5e2148e804f4790d3a
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

Thanks Brian !!


On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 12:54 PM, Brian F. G. Bidulock <bidulock@openss7.org
> wrote:

> Ajay,
>
> Please see comments below...
>
> Ajay Garg wrote:                           (Thu, 13 Mar 2014 12:50:42)
> >    We are in the process of moving to the new release of the stack
> >    provided by our vendor (right now, the stack uses M3UA in accordance
> >    with RFC 3332).
> >    For purely academic purposes, I guess that here too "Notify
> >    (AS-ACTIVE)" would be sent to all the ASPs (as per your reply to my
> >    second query, and RFC-3332 also has the same "Notify Procedures")?
>
> RFC 3332 has the same statement in section 4.3.4.5.
>
> --brian
>
> --
> Brian F. G. Bidulock
> bidulock@openss7.org
> http://www.openss7.org/
>



-- 
Regards,
Ajay

--047d7b86ec5e2148e804f4790d3a
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr">Thanks Brian !!<br></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><b=
r><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 12:54 PM, Brian F. G. =
Bidulock <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:bidulock@openss7.org" targ=
et=3D"_blank">bidulock@openss7.org</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1p=
x #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Ajay,<br>
<br>
Please see comments below...<br>
<br>
Ajay Garg wrote: =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 (Thu, =
13 Mar 2014 12:50:42)<br>
<div class=3D"">&gt; =A0 =A0We are in the process of moving to the new rele=
ase of the stack<br>
&gt; =A0 =A0provided by our vendor (right now, the stack uses M3UA in accor=
dance<br>
&gt; =A0 =A0with RFC 3332).<br>
&gt; =A0 =A0For purely academic purposes, I guess that here too &quot;Notif=
y<br>
&gt; =A0 =A0(AS-ACTIVE)&quot; would be sent to all the ASPs (as per your re=
ply to my<br>
&gt; =A0 =A0second query, and RFC-3332 also has the same &quot;Notify Proce=
dures&quot;)?<br>
<br>
</div>RFC 3332 has the same statement in section 4.3.4.5.<br>
<div class=3D"HOEnZb"><div class=3D"h5"><br>
--brian<br>
<br>
--<br>
Brian F. G. Bidulock<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:bidulock@openss7.org">bidulock@openss7.org</a><br>
<a href=3D"http://www.openss7.org/" target=3D"_blank">http://www.openss7.or=
g/</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br><br clear=3D"all"><br>-- <br>Regards,<br=
>Ajay<br>
</div>

--047d7b86ec5e2148e804f4790d3a--


From nobody Thu Mar 13 03:04:49 2014
Return-Path: <ajaygargnsit@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: sigtran@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sigtran@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E52761A09AD for <sigtran@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 13 Mar 2014 03:04:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id J2ZZd2ycS5OS for <sigtran@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 13 Mar 2014 03:04:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pb0-x233.google.com (mail-pb0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c01::233]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B85B1A09A4 for <sigtran@ietf.org>; Thu, 13 Mar 2014 03:04:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pb0-f51.google.com with SMTP id uo5so881917pbc.38 for <sigtran@ietf.org>; Thu, 13 Mar 2014 03:04:38 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;  h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=t/5PvZMcduLnFCuKsL8jTCWqyjIChxOsoH0d2aWbjcA=; b=s7EPTrEx8QqVghyswlXOVGokz+EYuEzzRN95zmeikYErznO1RukN6nasN1F+wRQPiV x5r94MyRyOeklEiA+YiYm5u+4Zbmn+EkX/wLNnaPSxCvb0gP2UgLwEJWth1paOY8tbPc yfv1MMTZZdhTPu2bwF3O+5leyhAu0mU+o45bbvoJ4TZ22d7O8CJLUvxNG6WdzMPsB03p fQqgTu+h4ZKE8Mq8eLTCswoaGZ48ApA8L3k7Tv1uJsZZgmjc5f8BNBQsvPdn2IwI9QKb 9uCXIyzjLeb2wv6fLZr7fTureWP2OKzF1ygKHvkbG6BIQWli2jQ4F7IdK5WbjEuDtZOM 44RA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.66.226.145 with SMTP id rs17mr1209575pac.144.1394705078222;  Thu, 13 Mar 2014 03:04:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.70.92.9 with HTTP; Thu, 13 Mar 2014 03:04:38 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20140313071729.GB15132@openss7.org>
References: <CAHP4M8VFfMjLXGQ703yL+Ne7Dujf7GmxOjJY+Ndvzn9k5K553Q@mail.gmail.com> <20140313071729.GB15132@openss7.org>
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2014 15:34:38 +0530
Message-ID: <CAHP4M8VbbdprFv-AAfuu43fpwp3fskk4CZ6v2Xfaw_g2=MdfeQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Ajay Garg <ajaygargnsit@gmail.com>
To: bidulock@openss7.org, sigtran@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=e89a8f3b552ec104e804f47a1469
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sigtran/NOHmZY31ww1xjX4aDPWghnkfcwE
Subject: Re: [Sigtran] Conceptual doubt between an ASP and SGP
X-BeenThere: sigtran@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Signaling Transport <sigtran.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/sigtran>, <mailto:sigtran-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sigtran/>
List-Post: <mailto:sigtran@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sigtran-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sigtran>, <mailto:sigtran-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2014 10:04:48 -0000

--e89a8f3b552ec104e804f47a1469
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

Brian,

RFC-2719 seems to be too technical for the use-case we are trying to
understand :)
I would rather present (a simplified version of) our use-case.

*
We have 3 nodes - N1, N2, N3.

*
We need to transfer messages in-between N1 and N3.

*
There is an IPSP-IPSP association each between between N1 <-> N2, and N2
<-> N3 (but no IPSP-IPSP association between N1 <-> N3).

*
Also, provisions for GTT are available at each of N1, N2 and N3.



Theoritically/Practically, would the above configuration work? Or is it
necessary to have a SGP configured at N2?


Looking forward to clarifications.


Thanks and Regards,
Ajay



On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 12:47 PM, Brian F. G. Bidulock <bidulock@openss7.org
> wrote:

> Ajay,
>
> Please see comments below...
>
> Ajay Garg wrote:                              (Thu, 13 Mar 2014 11:48:19)
> >    Hi all.
> >    I am an absolute newbie in telecom domain, so kindly forgive me if I
> >    sound incredibly stupid.
> >    From what I understand, an ASP is a process running on an AS, and a
> SGP
> >    is a process running on a SG.
>
> Not quite.  See RFC 4666 "1.2 Terminology" for a definition of ASP,
> AS, SGP and SG.
>
> >    Each ASP <-> SGP link is a SCTP connection.
> >    Also, I understand that SGP is responsible for message-routing, while
> >    an ASP is merely an end-point for a SCTP connection.
> >    Given that, are there any extra differences between a ASP and SGP (in
> >    addition to the routing-capabilities of a SGP)?
> >    I will be grateful for any pointers/clarifications.
>
> RFC 4666 describes for 124 pages the differences between ASP and SGP.
>
> BTW, it is not an SGP per se that has routing capabilities, but an
> SG, where the SG is made up of some SGP, an SS7 stack and a
> interworking function.
>
> See also RFC 2719 "Framework Architecture for Signaling Transport"
> for a better overview of what's going on.
>
> --brian
>
> --
> Brian F. G. Bidulock
> bidulock@openss7.org
> http://www.openss7.org/
>



-- 
Regards,
Ajay

--e89a8f3b552ec104e804f47a1469
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div><div><div><div>Brian,<br><br></div>RFC-2719 seems to =
be too technical for the use-case we are trying to understand :)<br></div>I=
 would rather present (a simplified version of) our use-case.<br><br></div>
*<br>We have 3 nodes - N1, N2, N3.<br><br></div><div>* <br>We need to trans=
fer messages in-between N1 and N3.<br><br></div><div>*<br>There is an IPSP-=
IPSP association each between between N1 &lt;-&gt; N2, and N2 &lt;-&gt; N3 =
(but no IPSP-IPSP association between N1 &lt;-&gt; N3).<br>
<br></div><div>*<br>Also, provisions for GTT are available at each of N1, N=
2 and N3.<br><br><br><br></div><div>Theoritically/Practically, would the ab=
ove configuration work? Or is it necessary to have a SGP configured at N2?<=
br>
<br><br></div><div>Looking forward to clarifications.<br><br><br></div><div=
>Thanks and Regards,<br>Ajay<br></div><div><br></div><div class=3D"gmail_ex=
tra"><br><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 12:47 PM, B=
rian F. G. Bidulock <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:bidulock@openss=
7.org" target=3D"_blank">bidulock@openss7.org</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1p=
x #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Ajay,<br>
<br>
Please see comments below...<br>
<br>
Ajay Garg wrote: =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =
=A0(Thu, 13 Mar 2014 11:48:19)<br>
<div class=3D"">&gt; =A0 =A0Hi all.<br>
&gt; =A0 =A0I am an absolute newbie in telecom domain, so kindly forgive me=
 if I<br>
&gt; =A0 =A0sound incredibly stupid.<br>
&gt; =A0 =A0From what I understand, an ASP is a process running on an AS, a=
nd a SGP<br>
&gt; =A0 =A0is a process running on a SG.<br>
<br>
</div>Not quite. =A0See RFC 4666 &quot;1.2 Terminology&quot; for a definiti=
on of ASP,<br>
AS, SGP and SG.<br>
<div class=3D""><br>
&gt; =A0 =A0Each ASP &lt;-&gt; SGP link is a SCTP connection.<br>
&gt; =A0 =A0Also, I understand that SGP is responsible for message-routing,=
 while<br>
&gt; =A0 =A0an ASP is merely an end-point for a SCTP connection.<br>
&gt; =A0 =A0Given that, are there any extra differences between a ASP and S=
GP (in<br>
&gt; =A0 =A0addition to the routing-capabilities of a SGP)?<br>
&gt; =A0 =A0I will be grateful for any pointers/clarifications.<br>
<br>
</div>RFC 4666 describes for 124 pages the differences between ASP and SGP.=
<br>
<br>
BTW, it is not an SGP per se that has routing capabilities, but an<br>
SG, where the SG is made up of some SGP, an SS7 stack and a<br>
interworking function.<br>
<br>
See also RFC 2719 &quot;Framework Architecture for Signaling Transport&quot=
;<br>
for a better overview of what&#39;s going on.<br>
<span class=3D"HOEnZb"><font color=3D"#888888"><br>
--brian<br>
<br>
--<br>
Brian F. G. Bidulock<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:bidulock@openss7.org">bidulock@openss7.org</a><br>
<a href=3D"http://www.openss7.org/" target=3D"_blank">http://www.openss7.or=
g/</a><br>
</font></span></blockquote></div><br><br clear=3D"all"><br>-- <br>Regards,<=
br>Ajay<br>
</div></div>

--e89a8f3b552ec104e804f47a1469--


From nobody Thu Mar 13 03:54:22 2014
Return-Path: <David.Laight@ACULAB.COM>
X-Original-To: sigtran@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sigtran@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 05E291A093F for <sigtran@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 13 Mar 2014 03:54:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.347
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.347 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_12=0.6, MIME_BAD_LINEBREAK=0.5, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=0.001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.547, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2VYDFDnfw84C for <sigtran@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 13 Mar 2014 03:54:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx0.aculab.com (mx0.aculab.com [213.249.233.131]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id C91841A001F for <sigtran@ietf.org>; Thu, 13 Mar 2014 03:54:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 13157 invoked from network); 13 Mar 2014 10:54:03 -0000
Received: from localhost (127.0.0.1) by mx0.aculab.com with SMTP; 13 Mar 2014 10:54:03 -0000
Received: from mx0.aculab.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mx0.aculab.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with SMTP id 13033-01 for <sigtran@ietf.org>; Thu, 13 Mar 2014 10:54:01 +0000 (GMT)
Received: (qmail 13127 invoked by uid 599); 13 Mar 2014 10:54:00 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO AcuExch.aculab.com) (10.202.163.4) by mx0.aculab.com (qpsmtpd/0.28) with ESMTP; Thu, 13 Mar 2014 10:54:00 +0000
Received: from ACUEXCH.Aculab.com ([::1]) by AcuExch.aculab.com ([::1]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Thu, 13 Mar 2014 10:53:04 +0000
From: David Laight <David.Laight@ACULAB.COM>
To: 'Ajay Garg' <ajaygargnsit@gmail.com>, "bidulock@openss7.org" <bidulock@openss7.org>, "sigtran@ietf.org" <sigtran@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Sigtran] Conceptual doubt between an ASP and SGP
Thread-Index: AQHPPqOMfjpMOmKuQ0ONeHU06dUY6Zre1dbw
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2014 10:53:03 +0000
Message-ID: <063D6719AE5E284EB5DD2968C1650D6D0F6DC998@AcuExch.aculab.com>
References: <CAHP4M8VFfMjLXGQ703yL+Ne7Dujf7GmxOjJY+Ndvzn9k5K553Q@mail.gmail.com> <20140313071729.GB15132@openss7.org> <CAHP4M8VbbdprFv-AAfuu43fpwp3fskk4CZ6v2Xfaw_g2=MdfeQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAHP4M8VbbdprFv-AAfuu43fpwp3fskk4CZ6v2Xfaw_g2=MdfeQ@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
x-originating-ip: [10.202.99.200]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_063D6719AE5E284EB5DD2968C1650D6D0F6DC998AcuExchaculabco_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Virus-Scanned: by iCritical at mx0.aculab.com
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sigtran/Yu4prG9SbIZkoU8eeJYTpPzvTzs
Subject: Re: [Sigtran] Conceptual doubt between an ASP and SGP
X-BeenThere: sigtran@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Signaling Transport <sigtran.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/sigtran>, <mailto:sigtran-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sigtran/>
List-Post: <mailto:sigtran@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sigtran-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sigtran>, <mailto:sigtran-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2014 10:54:21 -0000

--_000_063D6719AE5E284EB5DD2968C1650D6D0F6DC998AcuExchaculabco_
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

M3UA can=92t itself transfer your messages directly from N1 to N3.
It is worth remembering that M3UA carries the interface between MTP3 and it=
s user parts
(typically ISUP and SCCP) over IP.
IPSP seems a =91bodge=92 that more or less works and allows the userparts (=
at different pointcodes)
to send message to each other.

In your case the SCCP code at node N2 could forward messages that arrive fr=
om N1 onwards
to N3. Whether the SCCP you have can be configured to do that is another ma=
tter.

                David


From: Sigtran [mailto:sigtran-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ajay Garg
Sent: 13 March 2014 10:05
To: bidulock@openss7.org; sigtran@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Sigtran] Conceptual doubt between an ASP and SGP

Brian,
RFC-2719 seems to be too technical for the use-case we are trying to unders=
tand :)
I would rather present (a simplified version of) our use-case.
*
We have 3 nodes - N1, N2, N3.
*
We need to transfer messages in-between N1 and N3.
*
There is an IPSP-IPSP association each between between N1 <-> N2, and N2 <-=
> N3 (but no IPSP-IPSP association between N1 <-> N3).
*
Also, provisions for GTT are available at each of N1, N2 and N3.


Theoritically/Practically, would the above configuration work? Or is it nec=
essary to have a SGP configured at N2?

Looking forward to clarifications.

Thanks and Regards,
Ajay


On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 12:47 PM, Brian F. G. Bidulock <bidulock@openss7.or=
g<mailto:bidulock@openss7.org>> wrote:
Ajay,

Please see comments below...

Ajay Garg wrote:                              (Thu, 13 Mar 2014 11:48:19)
>    Hi all.
>    I am an absolute newbie in telecom domain, so kindly forgive me if I
>    sound incredibly stupid.
>    From what I understand, an ASP is a process running on an AS, and a SG=
P
>    is a process running on a SG.
Not quite.  See RFC 4666 "1.2 Terminology" for a definition of ASP,
AS, SGP and SG.

>    Each ASP <-> SGP link is a SCTP connection.
>    Also, I understand that SGP is responsible for message-routing, while
>    an ASP is merely an end-point for a SCTP connection.
>    Given that, are there any extra differences between a ASP and SGP (in
>    addition to the routing-capabilities of a SGP)?
>    I will be grateful for any pointers/clarifications.
RFC 4666 describes for 124 pages the differences between ASP and SGP.

BTW, it is not an SGP per se that has routing capabilities, but an
SG, where the SG is made up of some SGP, an SS7 stack and a
interworking function.

See also RFC 2719 "Framework Architecture for Signaling Transport"
for a better overview of what's going on.

--brian

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



--
Regards,
Ajay

=0D=0A
=0D=
--_000_063D6719AE5E284EB5DD2968C1650D6D0F6DC998AcuExchaculabco_
Content-Type: text/html; charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<html xmlns:v=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o=3D"urn:schemas-micr=
osoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" =
xmlns:m=3D"http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns=3D"http:=
//www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv=3D"Content-Type" content=3D"text/html; charset=3DWindows-1=
252">
<meta name=3D"Generator" content=3D"Microsoft Word 12 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
	{font-family:Calibri;
	panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
	{font-family:Tahoma;
	panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
	{margin:0cm;
	margin-bottom:.0001pt;
	font-size:12.0pt;
	font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
	{mso-style-priority:99;
	color:blue;
	text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
	{mso-style-priority:99;
	color:purple;
	text-decoration:underline;}
span.hoenzb
	{mso-style-name:hoenzb;}
span.EmailStyle18
	{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
	font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
	color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
	{mso-style-type:export-only;}
@page WordSection1
	{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
	margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}
div.WordSection1
	{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext=3D"edit" spidmax=3D"1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext=3D"edit">
<o:idmap v:ext=3D"edit" data=3D"1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang=3D"EN-GB" link=3D"blue" vlink=3D"purple">
<div class=3D"WordSection1">
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-size:11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Ca=
libri&quot;,&quot;sans-serif&quot;;color:#1F497D">M3UA can=92t itself trans=
fer your messages directly from N1 to N3.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-size:11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Ca=
libri&quot;,&quot;sans-serif&quot;;color:#1F497D">It is worth remembering t=
hat M3UA carries the interface between MTP3 and its user parts<o:p></o:p></=
span></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-size:11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Ca=
libri&quot;,&quot;sans-serif&quot;;color:#1F497D">(typically ISUP and SCCP)=
 over IP.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-size:11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Ca=
libri&quot;,&quot;sans-serif&quot;;color:#1F497D">IPSP seems a =91bodge=92 =
that more or less works and allows the userparts (at different pointcodes)<=
o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-size:11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Ca=
libri&quot;,&quot;sans-serif&quot;;color:#1F497D">to send message to each o=
ther.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-size:11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Ca=
libri&quot;,&quot;sans-serif&quot;;color:#1F497D"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span><=
/p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-size:11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Ca=
libri&quot;,&quot;sans-serif&quot;;color:#1F497D">In your case the SCCP cod=
e at node N2 could forward messages that arrive from N1 onwards<o:p></o:p><=
/span></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-size:11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Ca=
libri&quot;,&quot;sans-serif&quot;;color:#1F497D">to N3. Whether the SCCP y=
ou have can be configured to do that is another matter.<o:p></o:p></span></=
p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-size:11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Ca=
libri&quot;,&quot;sans-serif&quot;;color:#1F497D"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span><=
/p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-size:11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Ca=
libri&quot;,&quot;sans-serif&quot;;color:#1F497D">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&=
nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; David<o:p=
></o:p></span></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-size:11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Ca=
libri&quot;,&quot;sans-serif&quot;;color:#1F497D"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span><=
/p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-size:11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Ca=
libri&quot;,&quot;sans-serif&quot;;color:#1F497D"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span><=
/p>
<div style=3D"border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm =
4.0pt">
<div>
<div style=3D"border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm =
0cm 0cm">
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><b><span lang=3D"EN-US" style=3D"font-size:10.0pt;fo=
nt-family:&quot;Tahoma&quot;,&quot;sans-serif&quot;">From:</span></b><span =
lang=3D"EN-US" style=3D"font-size:10.0pt;font-family:&quot;Tahoma&quot;,&qu=
ot;sans-serif&quot;"> Sigtran [mailto:sigtran-bounces@ietf.org]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Ajay Garg<br>
<b>Sent:</b> 13 March 2014 10:05<br>
<b>To:</b> bidulock@openss7.org; sigtran@ietf.org<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [Sigtran] Conceptual doubt between an ASP and SGP<o:p><=
/o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal" style=3D"margin-bottom:12.0pt">Brian,<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal">RFC-2719 seems to be too technical for the use-case =
we are trying to understand :)<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal" style=3D"margin-bottom:12.0pt">I would rather presen=
t (a simplified version of) our use-case.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal" style=3D"margin-bottom:12.0pt">*<br>
We have 3 nodes - N1, N2, N3.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal" style=3D"margin-bottom:12.0pt">* <br>
We need to transfer messages in-between N1 and N3.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal" style=3D"margin-bottom:12.0pt">*<br>
There is an IPSP-IPSP association each between between N1 &lt;-&gt; N2, and=
 N2 &lt;-&gt; N3 (but no IPSP-IPSP association between N1 &lt;-&gt; N3).<o:=
p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal" style=3D"margin-bottom:12.0pt">*<br>
Also, provisions for GTT are available at each of N1, N2 and N3.<br>
<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal" style=3D"margin-bottom:12.0pt">Theoritically/Practic=
ally, would the above configuration work? Or is it necessary to have a SGP =
configured at N2?<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal" style=3D"margin-bottom:12.0pt">Looking forward to cl=
arifications.<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal">Thanks and Regards,<br>
Ajay<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal" style=3D"margin-bottom:12.0pt"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p>
<div>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal">On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 12:47 PM, Brian F. G. Bidulo=
ck &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:bidulock@openss7.org" target=3D"_blank">bidulock@o=
penss7.org</a>&gt; wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal">Ajay,<br>
<br>
Please see comments below...<br>
<br>
Ajay Garg wrote: &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &n=
bsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;(Thu, 13 Mar 2014 11:48:19)<o=
:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal" style=3D"margin-bottom:12.0pt">&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp;Hi =
all.<br>
&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp;I am an absolute newbie in telecom domain, so kindly forg=
ive me if I<br>
&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp;sound incredibly stupid.<br>
&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp;From what I understand, an ASP is a process running on an=
 AS, and a SGP<br>
&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp;is a process running on a SG.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal">Not quite. &nbsp;See RFC 4666 &quot;1.2 Terminology&=
quot; for a definition of ASP,<br>
AS, SGP and SG.<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal" style=3D"margin-bottom:12.0pt"><br>
&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp;Each ASP &lt;-&gt; SGP link is a SCTP connection.<br>
&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp;Also, I understand that SGP is responsible for message-ro=
uting, while<br>
&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp;an ASP is merely an end-point for a SCTP connection.<br>
&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp;Given that, are there any extra differences between a ASP=
 and SGP (in<br>
&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp;addition to the routing-capabilities of a SGP)?<br>
&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp;I will be grateful for any pointers/clarifications.<o:p><=
/o:p></p>
</div>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal">RFC 4666 describes for 124 pages the differences bet=
ween ASP and SGP.<br>
<br>
BTW, it is not an SGP per se that has routing capabilities, but an<br>
SG, where the SG is made up of some SGP, an SS7 stack and a<br>
interworking function.<br>
<br>
See also RFC 2719 &quot;Framework Architecture for Signaling Transport&quot=
;<br>
for a better overview of what's going on.<br>
<span style=3D"color:#888888"><br>
<span class=3D"hoenzb">--brian</span><br>
<br>
<span class=3D"hoenzb">--</span><br>
<span class=3D"hoenzb">Brian F. G. Bidulock</span><br>
<span class=3D"hoenzb"><a href=3D"mailto:bidulock@openss7.org">bidulock@ope=
nss7.org</a></span><br>
<span class=3D"hoenzb"><a href=3D"http://www.openss7.org/" target=3D"_blank=
">http://www.openss7.org/</a></span></span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><br>
<br clear=3D"all">
<br>
-- <br>
Regards,<br>
Ajay<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>

<br>=
<FONT face=3DTahoma color=3D#484830 size=3D2></FONT>=0D=0A
<DIV><FONT face=3DTahoma color=3D#484830 size=3D1>Registered Address Lakeside, Br=
amley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1 1PT, UK<BR>Registration No: 13973=
86 (Wales)</FONT></DIV>=0D=0A
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#008000 size=3D2><FONT face=3DWebdings size=3D5>=0D=0A
<P align=3Dcenter><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#008000><FONT size=3D1><FONT face=3DWebd=
ings>P<STRONG> </STRONG></FONT><STRONG>Please consider the environment and d=
on't print this e-mail unless you really need to</STRONG></FONT></FONT></P><=
/FONT></FONT></DIV>
<br>=
</body>
</html>

--_000_063D6719AE5E284EB5DD2968C1650D6D0F6DC998AcuExchaculabco_--


From nobody Thu Mar 13 04:34:51 2014
Return-Path: <ajaygargnsit@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: sigtran@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sigtran@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 991DF1A09DD for <sigtran@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 13 Mar 2014 04:34:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.399
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.399 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_12=0.6, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pJtpSx4-hrdI for <sigtran@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 13 Mar 2014 04:34:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pb0-x229.google.com (mail-pb0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c01::229]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 00A241A095F for <sigtran@ietf.org>; Thu, 13 Mar 2014 04:34:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pb0-f41.google.com with SMTP id jt11so987503pbb.0 for <sigtran@ietf.org>; Thu, 13 Mar 2014 04:34:37 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;  h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=BBJF5IJN6nR0McwYjCr4QtPtpM7VRjepgh0yQG62rNo=; b=WbmPvsK+WAqW8uk/awqJFq5DWklvPzadsE0K8KjGWQooBZGZ+b01+NXPYXqC0gm3ht vQV+fzgZF5tq2w3gmL/6tIPilF54ZJfo/YYSCz2TkE6P+xSlV15wvBKG4qSUeixbY3Jx yot/tDSgyvO8mOmOgOW8+Gf6T7S+H9Bd92GS1uVtOl9pajvLVZD47/W7VQp13LuCD6XA /BSUkYQq97JNDClPwZ1eWpBQj0GqTYqaKZqtLks5IZx6dJUoU4PelvMftzxmPWS8p3U9 2EJ02Gg5aHGrwJjVhldUS6DJHZrbMxJj9FOta/ZXcnSlVTmkMhZ80Gq3PrtW/bvAkyEi TtjQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.68.139.137 with SMTP id qy9mr1661505pbb.11.1394710477638; Thu, 13 Mar 2014 04:34:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.70.92.9 with HTTP; Thu, 13 Mar 2014 04:34:37 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <063D6719AE5E284EB5DD2968C1650D6D0F6DC998@AcuExch.aculab.com>
References: <CAHP4M8VFfMjLXGQ703yL+Ne7Dujf7GmxOjJY+Ndvzn9k5K553Q@mail.gmail.com> <20140313071729.GB15132@openss7.org> <CAHP4M8VbbdprFv-AAfuu43fpwp3fskk4CZ6v2Xfaw_g2=MdfeQ@mail.gmail.com> <063D6719AE5E284EB5DD2968C1650D6D0F6DC998@AcuExch.aculab.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2014 17:04:37 +0530
Message-ID: <CAHP4M8UdY8cLjfr2cyjoNtaOLOUUrMQDu_OG5nHqDiu8wXOHuA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Ajay Garg <ajaygargnsit@gmail.com>
To: David Laight <David.Laight@aculab.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c3c1e49593bc04f47b56d9
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sigtran/ZNAvNB5ALWAVFQbGt0nJ_w1DEWU
Cc: "bidulock@openss7.org" <bidulock@openss7.org>, "sigtran@ietf.org" <sigtran@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Sigtran] Conceptual doubt between an ASP and SGP
X-BeenThere: sigtran@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Signaling Transport <sigtran.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/sigtran>, <mailto:sigtran-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sigtran/>
List-Post: <mailto:sigtran@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sigtran-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sigtran>, <mailto:sigtran-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2014 11:34:46 -0000

--001a11c3c1e49593bc04f47b56d9
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

Thanks a ton David for the clarifications !!


On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 4:23 PM, David Laight <David.Laight@aculab.com>wrote:

>  M3UA can't itself transfer your messages directly from N1 to N3.
>
> It is worth remembering that M3UA carries the interface between MTP3 and
> its user parts
>
> (typically ISUP and SCCP) over IP.
>
> IPSP seems a 'bodge' that more or less works and allows the userparts (at
> different pointcodes)
>
> to send message to each other.
>
>
>
> In your case the SCCP code at node N2 could forward messages that arrive
> from N1 onwards
>
> to N3. Whether the SCCP you have can be configured to do that is another
> matter.
>

Yep, we are in a position to configure Global-Title-Translation (GTT) rules
on N2, which will enable us to "route" messages from N1 -> N3, and N3 -> N1.




However, the above makes us wonder on the following question ::

Assuming all nodes (N1, N2, N3) are pure SIGTRAN-nodes (no SS7 nodes), is
it ever required at all to make N2 a SGP ?
(Of course, that would also mean changing the links between N1 <-> N2, and
N2 <-> N3 to ASP <-> SGP types)


Looking forward to more clarifications !!


Thanks and Regards,
Ajay




>
>
>                 David
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Sigtran [mailto:sigtran-bounces@ietf.org] *On Behalf Of *Ajay Garg
> *Sent:* 13 March 2014 10:05
> *To:* bidulock@openss7.org; sigtran@ietf.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Sigtran] Conceptual doubt between an ASP and SGP
>
>
>
> Brian,
>
> RFC-2719 seems to be too technical for the use-case we are trying to
> understand :)
>
> I would rather present (a simplified version of) our use-case.
>
> *
> We have 3 nodes - N1, N2, N3.
>
> *
> We need to transfer messages in-between N1 and N3.
>
> *
> There is an IPSP-IPSP association each between between N1 <-> N2, and N2
> <-> N3 (but no IPSP-IPSP association between N1 <-> N3).
>
> *
> Also, provisions for GTT are available at each of N1, N2 and N3.
>
>
>   Theoritically/Practically, would the above configuration work? Or is it
> necessary to have a SGP configured at N2?
>
>   Looking forward to clarifications.
>
>   Thanks and Regards,
> Ajay
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 12:47 PM, Brian F. G. Bidulock <
> bidulock@openss7.org> wrote:
>
> Ajay,
>
> Please see comments below...
>
> Ajay Garg wrote:                              (Thu, 13 Mar 2014 11:48:19)
>
> >    Hi all.
> >    I am an absolute newbie in telecom domain, so kindly forgive me if I
> >    sound incredibly stupid.
> >    From what I understand, an ASP is a process running on an AS, and a
> SGP
> >    is a process running on a SG.
>
> Not quite.  See RFC 4666 "1.2 Terminology" for a definition of ASP,
> AS, SGP and SG.
>
>
> >    Each ASP <-> SGP link is a SCTP connection.
> >    Also, I understand that SGP is responsible for message-routing, while
> >    an ASP is merely an end-point for a SCTP connection.
> >    Given that, are there any extra differences between a ASP and SGP (in
> >    addition to the routing-capabilities of a SGP)?
> >    I will be grateful for any pointers/clarifications.
>
> RFC 4666 describes for 124 pages the differences between ASP and SGP.
>
> BTW, it is not an SGP per se that has routing capabilities, but an
> SG, where the SG is made up of some SGP, an SS7 stack and a
> interworking function.
>
> See also RFC 2719 "Framework Architecture for Signaling Transport"
> for a better overview of what's going on.
>
> --brian
>
> --
> Brian F. G. Bidulock
> bidulock@openss7.org
> http://www.openss7.org/
>
>
>
>
> --
> Regards,
> Ajay
>
> Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1
> 1PT, UK
> Registration No: 1397386 (Wales)
>
> P *Please consider the environment and don't print this e-mail unless you
> really need to*
>
>


-- 
Regards,
Ajay

--001a11c3c1e49593bc04f47b56d9
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr">Thanks a ton David for the clarifications !!<br><div class=
=3D"gmail_extra"><br><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at=
 4:23 PM, David Laight <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:David.Laight=
@aculab.com" target=3D"_blank">David.Laight@aculab.com</a>&gt;</span> wrote=
:<br>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1p=
x #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">





<div link=3D"blue" vlink=3D"purple" lang=3D"EN-GB">
<div>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-size:11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Ca=
libri&quot;,&quot;sans-serif&quot;;color:#1f497d">M3UA can&rsquo;t itself t=
ransfer your messages directly from N1 to N3.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-size:11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Ca=
libri&quot;,&quot;sans-serif&quot;;color:#1f497d">It is worth remembering t=
hat M3UA carries the interface between MTP3 and its user parts<u></u><u></u=
></span></p>

<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-size:11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Ca=
libri&quot;,&quot;sans-serif&quot;;color:#1f497d">(typically ISUP and SCCP)=
 over IP.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-size:11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Ca=
libri&quot;,&quot;sans-serif&quot;;color:#1f497d">IPSP seems a &lsquo;bodge=
&rsquo; that more or less works and allows the userparts (at different poin=
tcodes)<u></u><u></u></span></p>

<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-size:11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Ca=
libri&quot;,&quot;sans-serif&quot;;color:#1f497d">to send message to each o=
ther.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-size:11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Ca=
libri&quot;,&quot;sans-serif&quot;;color:#1f497d"><u></u>&nbsp;<u></u></spa=
n></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-size:11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Ca=
libri&quot;,&quot;sans-serif&quot;;color:#1f497d">In your case the SCCP cod=
e at node N2 could forward messages that arrive from N1 onwards<u></u><u></=
u></span></p>

<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-size:11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Ca=
libri&quot;,&quot;sans-serif&quot;;color:#1f497d">to N3. Whether the SCCP y=
ou have can be configured to do that is another matter.</span></p></div></d=
iv>
</blockquote><div><br></div><div>Yep, we are in a position to configure Glo=
bal-Title-Translation (GTT) rules on N2, which will enable us to &quot;rout=
e&quot; messages from N1 -&gt; N3, and N3 -&gt; N1.<br><br><br><br><br>
</div><div>However, the above makes us wonder on the following question :: =
<br><br></div><div>Assuming all nodes (N1, N2, N3) are pure SIGTRAN-nodes (=
no SS7 nodes), is it ever required at all to make N2 a SGP ?<br>(Of course,=
 that would also mean changing the links between N1 &lt;-&gt; N2, and N2 &l=
t;-&gt; N3 to ASP &lt;-&gt; SGP types)<br>
<br><br></div><div>Looking forward to more clarifications !!<br><br><br></d=
iv><div>Thanks and Regards,<br></div><div>Ajay<br></div><div><br></div><div=
><br></div><div>&nbsp;</div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"marg=
in:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div link=3D"blue" vlink=3D"purple" lang=3D"EN-GB"><div><p class=3D"MsoNorm=
al"><span style=3D"font-size:11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;,&quot;s=
ans-serif&quot;;color:#1f497d"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-size:11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Ca=
libri&quot;,&quot;sans-serif&quot;;color:#1f497d"><u></u>&nbsp;<u></u></spa=
n></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-size:11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Ca=
libri&quot;,&quot;sans-serif&quot;;color:#1f497d">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&=
nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; David<u><=
/u><u></u></span></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-size:11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Ca=
libri&quot;,&quot;sans-serif&quot;;color:#1f497d"><u></u>&nbsp;<u></u></spa=
n></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-size:11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Ca=
libri&quot;,&quot;sans-serif&quot;;color:#1f497d"><u></u>&nbsp;<u></u></spa=
n></p>
<div style=3D"border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm =
4.0pt">
<div>
<div style=3D"border:none;border-top:solid #b5c4df 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm =
0cm 0cm">
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><b><span style=3D"font-size:10.0pt;font-family:&quot=
;Tahoma&quot;,&quot;sans-serif&quot;" lang=3D"EN-US">From:</span></b><span =
style=3D"font-size:10.0pt;font-family:&quot;Tahoma&quot;,&quot;sans-serif&q=
uot;" lang=3D"EN-US"> Sigtran [mailto:<a href=3D"mailto:sigtran-bounces@iet=
f.org" target=3D"_blank">sigtran-bounces@ietf.org</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Ajay Garg<br>
<b>Sent:</b> 13 March 2014 10:05<br>
<b>To:</b> <a href=3D"mailto:bidulock@openss7.org" target=3D"_blank">bidulo=
ck@openss7.org</a>; <a href=3D"mailto:sigtran@ietf.org" target=3D"_blank">s=
igtran@ietf.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [Sigtran] Conceptual doubt between an ASP and SGP<u></u=
><u></u></span></p>
</div>
</div><div><div class=3D"h5">
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><u></u>&nbsp;<u></u></p>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal" style=3D"margin-bottom:12.0pt">Brian,<u></u><u></u><=
/p>
</div>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal">RFC-2719 seems to be too technical for the use-case =
we are trying to understand :)<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal" style=3D"margin-bottom:12.0pt">I would rather presen=
t (a simplified version of) our use-case.<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal" style=3D"margin-bottom:12.0pt">*<br>
We have 3 nodes - N1, N2, N3.<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal" style=3D"margin-bottom:12.0pt">* <br>
We need to transfer messages in-between N1 and N3.<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal" style=3D"margin-bottom:12.0pt">*<br>
There is an IPSP-IPSP association each between between N1 &lt;-&gt; N2, and=
 N2 &lt;-&gt; N3 (but no IPSP-IPSP association between N1 &lt;-&gt; N3).<u>=
</u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal" style=3D"margin-bottom:12.0pt">*<br>
Also, provisions for GTT are available at each of N1, N2 and N3.<br>
<br>
<br>
<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal" style=3D"margin-bottom:12.0pt">Theoritically/Practic=
ally, would the above configuration work? Or is it necessary to have a SGP =
configured at N2?<br>
<br>
<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal" style=3D"margin-bottom:12.0pt">Looking forward to cl=
arifications.<br>
<br>
<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal">Thanks and Regards,<br>
Ajay<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><u></u>&nbsp;<u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal" style=3D"margin-bottom:12.0pt"><u></u>&nbsp;<u></u><=
/p>
<div>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal">On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 12:47 PM, Brian F. G. Bidulo=
ck &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:bidulock@openss7.org" target=3D"_blank">bidulock@o=
penss7.org</a>&gt; wrote:<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal">Ajay,<br>
<br>
Please see comments below...<br>
<br>
Ajay Garg wrote: &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &n=
bsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;(Thu, 13 Mar 2014 11:48:19)<u=
></u><u></u></p>
<div>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal" style=3D"margin-bottom:12.0pt">&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp;Hi =
all.<br>
&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp;I am an absolute newbie in telecom domain, so kindly forg=
ive me if I<br>
&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp;sound incredibly stupid.<br>
&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp;From what I understand, an ASP is a process running on an=
 AS, and a SGP<br>
&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp;is a process running on a SG.<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal">Not quite. &nbsp;See RFC 4666 &quot;1.2 Terminology&=
quot; for a definition of ASP,<br>
AS, SGP and SG.<u></u><u></u></p>
<div>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal" style=3D"margin-bottom:12.0pt"><br>
&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp;Each ASP &lt;-&gt; SGP link is a SCTP connection.<br>
&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp;Also, I understand that SGP is responsible for message-ro=
uting, while<br>
&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp;an ASP is merely an end-point for a SCTP connection.<br>
&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp;Given that, are there any extra differences between a ASP=
 and SGP (in<br>
&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp;addition to the routing-capabilities of a SGP)?<br>
&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp;I will be grateful for any pointers/clarifications.<u></u=
><u></u></p>
</div>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal">RFC 4666 describes for 124 pages the differences bet=
ween ASP and SGP.<br>
<br>
BTW, it is not an SGP per se that has routing capabilities, but an<br>
SG, where the SG is made up of some SGP, an SS7 stack and a<br>
interworking function.<br>
<br>
See also RFC 2719 &quot;Framework Architecture for Signaling Transport&quot=
;<br>
for a better overview of what&#39;s going on.<br>
<span style=3D"color:#888888"><br>
<span>--brian</span><br>
<br>
<span>--</span><br>
<span>Brian F. G. Bidulock</span><br>
<span><a href=3D"mailto:bidulock@openss7.org" target=3D"_blank">bidulock@op=
enss7.org</a></span><br>
<span><a href=3D"http://www.openss7.org/" target=3D"_blank">http://www.open=
ss7.org/</a></span></span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><br>
<br clear=3D"all">
<br>
-- <br>
Regards,<br>
Ajay<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
</div></div></div>
</div>

<br><font color=3D"#484830" face=3D"Tahoma"></font>

<div><font size=3D"1" color=3D"#484830" face=3D"Tahoma">Registered Address =
Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1 1PT, UK<br>Registrat=
ion No: 1397386 (Wales)</font></div>

<div><font color=3D"#008000" face=3D"Arial"><font size=3D"5" face=3D"Webdin=
gs">

<p align=3D"center"><font color=3D"#008000" face=3D"Arial"><font size=3D"1"=
><font face=3D"Webdings">P<b> </b></font><b>Please consider the environment=
 and don&#39;t print this e-mail unless you really need to</b></font></font=
></p>
</font></font></div>
<br></div>

</blockquote></div><br><br clear=3D"all"><br>-- <br>Regards,<br>Ajay<br>
</div></div>

--001a11c3c1e49593bc04f47b56d9--


From nobody Thu Mar 13 06:39:20 2014
Return-Path: <bidulock@openss7.org>
X-Original-To: sigtran@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sigtran@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E2E11A094C for <sigtran@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 13 Mar 2014 06:39:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fcvvveFIxLLu for <sigtran@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 13 Mar 2014 06:39:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gw.openss7.com (gw.openss7.com [142.59.210.7]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D94431A0970 for <sigtran@ietf.org>; Thu, 13 Mar 2014 06:39:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wilbur.pigworks.openss7.net (ns5.evil.openss7.net [192.168.9.5]) by gw.openss7.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/Debian-5+lenny1) with ESMTP id s2DDd3KX022481; Thu, 13 Mar 2014 07:39:03 -0600
Received: from wilbur.pigworks.openss7.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by wilbur.pigworks.openss7.net (8.14.3/8.14.3/Debian-5+lenny1) with ESMTP id s2DDd3QD021008; Thu, 13 Mar 2014 07:39:03 -0600
Received: (from brian@localhost) by wilbur.pigworks.openss7.net (8.14.3/8.14.3/Submit) id s2DDd21Y021007; Thu, 13 Mar 2014 07:39:02 -0600
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2014 07:39:02 -0600
From: "Brian F. G. Bidulock" <bidulock@openss7.org>
To: Ajay Garg <ajaygargnsit@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20140313133902.GA20110@openss7.org>
Mail-Followup-To: Ajay Garg <ajaygargnsit@gmail.com>, sigtran@ietf.org
References: <CAHP4M8VFfMjLXGQ703yL+Ne7Dujf7GmxOjJY+Ndvzn9k5K553Q@mail.gmail.com> <20140313071729.GB15132@openss7.org> <CAHP4M8VbbdprFv-AAfuu43fpwp3fskk4CZ6v2Xfaw_g2=MdfeQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAHP4M8VbbdprFv-AAfuu43fpwp3fskk4CZ6v2Xfaw_g2=MdfeQ@mail.gmail.com>
Organization: http://www.openss7.org/
Dsn-Notification-To: <bidulock@openss7.org>
X-Spam-To: <blockme@openss7.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sigtran/YO8EsBMQlB09OzveMCG26Fq7r6c
Cc: sigtran@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Sigtran] Conceptual doubt between an ASP and SGP
X-BeenThere: sigtran@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
Reply-To: bidulock@openss7.org
List-Id: Signaling Transport <sigtran.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/sigtran>, <mailto:sigtran-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sigtran/>
List-Post: <mailto:sigtran@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sigtran-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sigtran>, <mailto:sigtran-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2014 13:39:15 -0000

Ajay,

Please see comments below...

Ajay Garg wrote:                               (Thu, 13 Mar 2014 15:34:38)
>    Brian,
>    RFC-2719 seems to be too technical for the use-case we are trying to
>    understand :)
>    I would rather present (a simplified version of) our use-case.
>    *
>    We have 3 nodes - N1, N2, N3.
>    *
>    We need to transfer messages in-between N1 and N3.
>    *
>    There is an IPSP-IPSP association each between between N1 <-> N2, and
>    N2 <-> N3 (but no IPSP-IPSP association between N1 <-> N3).
>    *
>    Also, provisions for GTT are available at each of N1, N2 and N3.
>    Theoritically/Practically, would the above configuration work? Or is it
>    necessary to have a SGP configured at N2?
>    Looking forward to clarifications.

M3UA IPSP only supports point to point and does not support a transfer
function in the middle.

SUA supports what you are attempting.

--brian

-- 
Brian F. G. Bidulock
bidulock@openss7.org
http://www.openss7.org/


From nobody Thu Mar 13 23:15:31 2014
Return-Path: <ajaygargnsit@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: sigtran@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sigtran@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E45C61A0052 for <sigtran@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 13 Mar 2014 23:15:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.399
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.399 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_12=0.6, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QPYSrUVvDUg2 for <sigtran@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 13 Mar 2014 23:15:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pd0-x22b.google.com (mail-pd0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c02::22b]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6570D1A004A for <sigtran@ietf.org>; Thu, 13 Mar 2014 23:15:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pd0-f171.google.com with SMTP id r10so2111790pdi.30 for <sigtran@ietf.org>; Thu, 13 Mar 2014 23:15:20 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;  h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=hPCK8UfwdJrGABSO8HjJn1PnZYetPZsu2tEFBYK6ZNU=; b=S4+HddDmE2VAaINPb9RQLK+CBhR+7keN3zlHKMwaKJFj3B3sijc58g6j6Spu+19SRQ sLWDb/zAl5Hk0FMAVq6fFtZ4MMKOuBCRbRd6kBxLb5WckUNLWOGvXia5916iD9p6b6S2 +fh0yilwsRU50ga0m5FSlP3v0HkA6Luk9MQPQxnuAH4q+OqCDVyFq5cd2t1IF6n7B2sE AnNMlyYd4UaxQti781VuTR2JtIhYaUgpJ3VjbAQdv+cxz2wuF8XguJP1gcFa7Y2tr9Xq ZLr2dchRTs79bVlTYAr4g6meUByCH4uKKuk1fG63FHJCcYGBFyjqcR0amyidVtSNZoKP 1SFw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.66.136.131 with SMTP id qa3mr7057261pab.77.1394777720791; Thu, 13 Mar 2014 23:15:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.70.92.9 with HTTP; Thu, 13 Mar 2014 23:15:20 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20140313133902.GA20110@openss7.org>
References: <CAHP4M8VFfMjLXGQ703yL+Ne7Dujf7GmxOjJY+Ndvzn9k5K553Q@mail.gmail.com> <20140313071729.GB15132@openss7.org> <CAHP4M8VbbdprFv-AAfuu43fpwp3fskk4CZ6v2Xfaw_g2=MdfeQ@mail.gmail.com> <20140313133902.GA20110@openss7.org>
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2014 11:45:20 +0530
Message-ID: <CAHP4M8WCugtcXembPW1B7qqa_FTDU3Ueyw9f4=ChjAATdBpSfQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Ajay Garg <ajaygargnsit@gmail.com>
To: "bidulock@openss7.org" <bidulock@openss7.org>, "sigtran@ietf.org" <sigtran@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1133769096a75004f48afe08
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sigtran/ELUgw8K_mlaUIsCmTPMkIbntBTM
Subject: Re: [Sigtran] Conceptual doubt between an ASP and SGP
X-BeenThere: sigtran@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Signaling Transport <sigtran.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/sigtran>, <mailto:sigtran-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sigtran/>
List-Post: <mailto:sigtran@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sigtran-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sigtran>, <mailto:sigtran-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2014 06:15:29 -0000

--001a1133769096a75004f48afe08
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

Brian,

I meant that in the scenario all of N1, N2, N3 are pure sigtran-nodes (i.e.
no SS7 nodes in the network), is there any usecase when transferring
messages from N1->N3 in the configuration ::

              * IPSP-IPSP association between N1 <-> N2
              * IPSP-IPSP association between N2 <-> N3
              * GTT at N2

will have ANY different behaviour (from pure end-user point of view)
against the configuration ::

              * ASP-SGP association between N1 <-> N2
              * SGP-ASP association between N2 <-> N3
              * GTT at N2

?





On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 7:09 PM, Brian F. G. Bidulock
<bidulock@openss7.org>wrote:

> Ajay,
>
> Please see comments below...
>
> Ajay Garg wrote:                               (Thu, 13 Mar 2014 15:34:38)
> >    Brian,
> >    RFC-2719 seems to be too technical for the use-case we are trying to
> >    understand :)
> >    I would rather present (a simplified version of) our use-case.
> >    *
> >    We have 3 nodes - N1, N2, N3.
> >    *
> >    We need to transfer messages in-between N1 and N3.
> >    *
> >    There is an IPSP-IPSP association each between between N1 <-> N2, and
> >    N2 <-> N3 (but no IPSP-IPSP association between N1 <-> N3).
> >    *
> >    Also, provisions for GTT are available at each of N1, N2 and N3.
> >    Theoritically/Practically, would the above configuration work? Or is
> it
> >    necessary to have a SGP configured at N2?
> >    Looking forward to clarifications.
>
> M3UA IPSP only supports point to point and does not support a transfer
> function in the middle.
>
> SUA supports what you are attempting.
>
> --brian
>
> --
> Brian F. G. Bidulock
> bidulock@openss7.org
> http://www.openss7.org/
>



-- 
Regards,
Ajay

--001a1133769096a75004f48afe08
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div><div><div><div><div>Brian,<br><br></div>I meant that =
in the scenario all of N1, N2, N3 are pure sigtran-nodes (i.e. no SS7 nodes=
 in the network), is there any usecase when transferring messages from N1-&=
gt;N3 in the configuration ::<br>
<br></div>=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 * IPSP-IPSP association b=
etween N1 &lt;-&gt; N2<br>=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 * IPSP-IP=
SP association between N2 &lt;-&gt; N3<br></div>=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=
=A0=A0=A0=A0 * GTT at N2<br><br></div>will have ANY different behaviour (fr=
om pure end-user point of view) against the configuration ::<br>
<br>=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 * ASP-SGP association between N=
1 &lt;-&gt; N2<br>=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 * SGP-ASP associa=
tion between N2 &lt;-&gt; N3<br></div>=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=
=A0 * GTT at N2<br><br>?<br><br><br><br><div><div><div><div><div><div><div>
<div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Thu, Mar 1=
3, 2014 at 7:09 PM, Brian F. G. Bidulock <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"m=
ailto:bidulock@openss7.org" target=3D"_blank">bidulock@openss7.org</a>&gt;<=
/span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-=
left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div class=3D"">Ajay,<br>
<br>
Please see comments below...<br>
<br>
</div>Ajay Garg wrote: =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =
=A0 =A0 (Thu, 13 Mar 2014 15:34:38)<br>
<div class=3D"">&gt; =A0 =A0Brian,<br>
&gt; =A0 =A0RFC-2719 seems to be too technical for the use-case we are tryi=
ng to<br>
&gt; =A0 =A0understand :)<br>
&gt; =A0 =A0I would rather present (a simplified version of) our use-case.<=
br>
&gt; =A0 =A0*<br>
&gt; =A0 =A0We have 3 nodes - N1, N2, N3.<br>
&gt; =A0 =A0*<br>
&gt; =A0 =A0We need to transfer messages in-between N1 and N3.<br>
&gt; =A0 =A0*<br>
&gt; =A0 =A0There is an IPSP-IPSP association each between between N1 &lt;-=
&gt; N2, and<br>
&gt; =A0 =A0N2 &lt;-&gt; N3 (but no IPSP-IPSP association between N1 &lt;-&=
gt; N3).<br>
&gt; =A0 =A0*<br>
&gt; =A0 =A0Also, provisions for GTT are available at each of N1, N2 and N3=
.<br>
&gt; =A0 =A0Theoritically/Practically, would the above configuration work? =
Or is it<br>
&gt; =A0 =A0necessary to have a SGP configured at N2?<br>
&gt; =A0 =A0Looking forward to clarifications.<br>
<br>
</div>M3UA IPSP only supports point to point and does not support a transfe=
r<br>
function in the middle.<br>
<br>
SUA supports what you are attempting.<br>
<div class=3D""><div class=3D"h5"><br>
--brian<br>
<br>
--<br>
Brian F. G. Bidulock<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:bidulock@openss7.org">bidulock@openss7.org</a><br>
<a href=3D"http://www.openss7.org/" target=3D"_blank">http://www.openss7.or=
g/</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br><br clear=3D"all"><br>-- <br>Regards,<br=
>Ajay<br>
</div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div>

--001a1133769096a75004f48afe08--


From nobody Fri Mar 14 01:37:34 2014
Return-Path: <bidulock@openss7.org>
X-Original-To: sigtran@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sigtran@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C67DC1A00B2 for <sigtran@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 14 Mar 2014 01:37:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.6
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, J_CHICKENPOX_12=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2Hq-0foQ8HGL for <sigtran@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 14 Mar 2014 01:37:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gw.openss7.com (gw.openss7.com [142.59.210.7]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 20E9A1A00AD for <sigtran@ietf.org>; Fri, 14 Mar 2014 01:37:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wilbur.pigworks.openss7.net (ns5.evil.openss7.net [192.168.9.5]) by gw.openss7.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/Debian-5+lenny1) with ESMTP id s2E8bENd027795; Fri, 14 Mar 2014 02:37:14 -0600
Received: from wilbur.pigworks.openss7.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by wilbur.pigworks.openss7.net (8.14.3/8.14.3/Debian-5+lenny1) with ESMTP id s2E8bE13003186; Fri, 14 Mar 2014 02:37:14 -0600
Received: (from brian@localhost) by wilbur.pigworks.openss7.net (8.14.3/8.14.3/Submit) id s2E8bE71003184; Fri, 14 Mar 2014 02:37:14 -0600
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2014 02:37:14 -0600
From: "Brian F. G. Bidulock" <bidulock@openss7.org>
To: Ajay Garg <ajaygargnsit@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20140314083714.GA2579@openss7.org>
Mail-Followup-To: Ajay Garg <ajaygargnsit@gmail.com>, "sigtran@ietf.org" <sigtran@ietf.org>
References: <CAHP4M8VFfMjLXGQ703yL+Ne7Dujf7GmxOjJY+Ndvzn9k5K553Q@mail.gmail.com> <20140313071729.GB15132@openss7.org> <CAHP4M8VbbdprFv-AAfuu43fpwp3fskk4CZ6v2Xfaw_g2=MdfeQ@mail.gmail.com> <20140313133902.GA20110@openss7.org> <CAHP4M8WCugtcXembPW1B7qqa_FTDU3Ueyw9f4=ChjAATdBpSfQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAHP4M8WCugtcXembPW1B7qqa_FTDU3Ueyw9f4=ChjAATdBpSfQ@mail.gmail.com>
Organization: http://www.openss7.org/
Dsn-Notification-To: <bidulock@openss7.org>
X-Spam-To: <blockme@openss7.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sigtran/kgkh83xAZrf3j7p76QWVOTRixdU
Cc: "sigtran@ietf.org" <sigtran@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Sigtran] Conceptual doubt between an ASP and SGP
X-BeenThere: sigtran@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
Reply-To: bidulock@openss7.org
List-Id: Signaling Transport <sigtran.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/sigtran>, <mailto:sigtran-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sigtran/>
List-Post: <mailto:sigtran@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sigtran-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sigtran>, <mailto:sigtran-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2014 08:37:33 -0000

Ajay,

Please see comments below...

Ajay Garg wrote:                             (Fri, 14 Mar 2014 11:45:20)
>    I meant that in the scenario all of N1, N2, N3 are pure sigtran-nodes
>    (i.e. no SS7 nodes in the network), is there any usecase when
>    transferring messages from N1->N3 in the configuration ::
>                  * IPSP-IPSP association between N1 <-> N2
>                  * IPSP-IPSP association between N2 <-> N3
>                  * GTT at N2
>    will have ANY different behaviour (from pure end-user point of view)
>    against the configuration ::
>                  * ASP-SGP association between N1 <-> N2
>                  * SGP-ASP association between N2 <-> N3
>                  * GTT at N2

Yes, I understand, however, the former scenario is explicitly not
supported by the M3UA standard (see some clips below).  We explicitly
only supported IPSP in an end-point to end-point connection with no
intermediate transfer function due to the lack of a satisfactory
interworking of SS7 network management functions.

So, for example, in the AS <-> SG <-> AS configuration, the SG
provides management messages to the one AS on the availability,
restriction and congestion state of the routeset toward the other
AS (not to mention the entire gamut of any necessary rerouting
and MTP restart procedures).

IPSP <-> IPSP does not provide any SS7 network management messages
other than perhaps nodal SCON.

In SS7 terminology, consider the IPSP <-> IPSP connection as an
F-link only.  That is, there cannot be an intermediate transfer
function.  IPSP <-> IPSP is really no more than hardwiring a
restricted subset of two MTP-User interfaces together.

It was not necessary for us to reinvent the entire SS7 network
for IPSP mode, as the AS <-> SG <-> AS configuration was
sufficient.

OTOH, SUA does support GTT and transfer at an intermediate IPSP
node, because SCCP defines its own management and can be (and is)
run over other generic network layers (such as SSCOP).  SCCP
also does not restrict the network location of routing functions.

--brian

RFC 4666

1.2 Terminology

   ...

   IP Server Process (IPSP) - A process instance of an IP-based
   application.  An IPSP is essentially the same as an ASP, except that
   it uses M3UA in a point-to-point fashion.  Conceptually, an IPSP does
   not use the services of a Signalling Gateway node.

   ...

1.3.2.  Services Provided by the M3UA Layer

   ...

   The M3UA layer may also be used for point-to-point signalling between
   two IP Server Processes (IPSPs).  In this case, the M3UA layer
   provides the same set of primitives and services at its upper layer
   as the MTP3.  However, in this case the expected MTP3 services are
   not offered remotely from an SGP.  The MTP3 services are provided,
   but the procedures to support these services are a subset of the MTP3
   procedures, due to the simplified point-to-point nature of the IPSP-
   to-IPSP relationship.

   ...

1.4.3.4.  IPSP Considerations

   Since IPSPs use M3UA in a point-to-point fashion, there is no concept
   of routing of messages beyond the remote end.  Therefore, SS7 and
   M3UA interworking is not necessary for this model.

   ...

4.3.  AS and ASP/IPSP State Maintenance

   The M3UA layer on the SGP maintains the state of each remote ASP, in
   each Application Server that the ASP is configured to receive
   traffic, as input to the M3UA message distribution function.
   Similarly, where IPSPs use M3UA in a point-to-point fashion, the M3UA
   layer in an IPSP maintains the state of remote IPSPs.

   ...

-- 
Brian F. G. Bidulock
bidulock@openss7.org
http://www.openss7.org/


From nobody Fri Mar 14 02:20:47 2014
Return-Path: <David.Laight@ACULAB.COM>
X-Original-To: sigtran@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sigtran@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B24161A00BB for <sigtran@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 14 Mar 2014 02:20:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.849
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.849 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, J_CHICKENPOX_12=0.6, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.547, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qP0biUr3IaNP for <sigtran@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 14 Mar 2014 02:20:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx0.aculab.com (mx0.aculab.com [213.249.233.131]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id DDC471A00D1 for <sigtran@ietf.org>; Fri, 14 Mar 2014 02:20:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 15465 invoked from network); 14 Mar 2014 09:20:31 -0000
Received: from localhost (127.0.0.1) by mx0.aculab.com with SMTP; 14 Mar 2014 09:20:31 -0000
Received: from mx0.aculab.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mx0.aculab.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with SMTP id 01287-09 for <sigtran@ietf.org>; Fri, 14 Mar 2014 09:20:30 +0000 (GMT)
Received: (qmail 15437 invoked by uid 599); 14 Mar 2014 09:20:30 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO AcuExch.aculab.com) (10.202.163.4) by mx0.aculab.com (qpsmtpd/0.28) with ESMTP; Fri, 14 Mar 2014 09:20:30 +0000
Received: from ACUEXCH.Aculab.com ([::1]) by AcuExch.aculab.com ([::1]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Fri, 14 Mar 2014 09:19:32 +0000
From: David Laight <David.Laight@ACULAB.COM>
To: "'bidulock@openss7.org'" <bidulock@openss7.org>, Ajay Garg <ajaygargnsit@gmail.com>
Thread-Topic: [Sigtran] Conceptual doubt between an ASP and SGP
Thread-Index: AQHPP2CZfjpMOmKuQ0ONeHU06dUY6ZrgTS/w
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2014 09:19:31 +0000
Message-ID: <063D6719AE5E284EB5DD2968C1650D6D0F6DD757@AcuExch.aculab.com>
References: <CAHP4M8VFfMjLXGQ703yL+Ne7Dujf7GmxOjJY+Ndvzn9k5K553Q@mail.gmail.com> <20140313071729.GB15132@openss7.org> <CAHP4M8VbbdprFv-AAfuu43fpwp3fskk4CZ6v2Xfaw_g2=MdfeQ@mail.gmail.com> <20140313133902.GA20110@openss7.org> <CAHP4M8WCugtcXembPW1B7qqa_FTDU3Ueyw9f4=ChjAATdBpSfQ@mail.gmail.com> <20140314083714.GA2579@openss7.org>
In-Reply-To: <20140314083714.GA2579@openss7.org>
Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
x-originating-ip: [10.202.99.200]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Virus-Scanned: by iCritical at mx0.aculab.com
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sigtran/UVJTKFJ0AWCj_JScU1uzhrIzP2w
Cc: "sigtran@ietf.org" <sigtran@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Sigtran] Conceptual doubt between an ASP and SGP
X-BeenThere: sigtran@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Signaling Transport <sigtran.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/sigtran>, <mailto:sigtran-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sigtran/>
List-Post: <mailto:sigtran@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sigtran-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sigtran>, <mailto:sigtran-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2014 09:20:45 -0000

From: Brian F. G. Bidulock
> Ajay,
>=20
> Please see comments below...
>=20
> Ajay Garg wrote:                             (Fri, 14 Mar 2014 11:45:20)
> >    I meant that in the scenario all of N1, N2, N3 are pure sigtran-node=
s
> >    (i.e. no SS7 nodes in the network), is there any usecase when
> >    transferring messages from N1->N3 in the configuration ::
> >                  * IPSP-IPSP association between N1 <-> N2
> >                  * IPSP-IPSP association between N2 <-> N3
> >                  * GTT at N2
> >    will have ANY different behaviour (from pure end-user point of view)
> >    against the configuration ::
> >                  * ASP-SGP association between N1 <-> N2
> >                  * SGP-ASP association between N2 <-> N3
> >                  * GTT at N2
>=20
> Yes, I understand, however, the former scenario is explicitly not
> supported by the M3UA standard (see some clips below).  We explicitly
> only supported IPSP in an end-point to end-point connection with no
> intermediate transfer function due to the lack of a satisfactory
> interworking of SS7 network management functions.
>=20
> So, for example, in the AS <-> SG <-> AS configuration, the SG
> provides management messages to the one AS on the availability,
> restriction and congestion state of the routeset toward the other
> AS (not to mention the entire gamut of any necessary rerouting
> and MTP restart procedures).

But once the message arrives at SCCP in N2, the global title translation
tables can indicate that the message needs to be forwarded to N3
(possibly with a re-written GT).

So although the SS7 message doesn't get transferred from N1 to N3
a TCAP request can be forwarded.

	David





From nobody Fri Mar 14 02:28:06 2014
Return-Path: <bidulock@openss7.org>
X-Original-To: sigtran@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sigtran@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 435531A00CB for <sigtran@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 14 Mar 2014 02:28:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.6
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, J_CHICKENPOX_12=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id h-GfEUaGHuB1 for <sigtran@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 14 Mar 2014 02:28:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gw.openss7.com (gw.openss7.com [142.59.210.7]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F4E71A00BB for <sigtran@ietf.org>; Fri, 14 Mar 2014 02:28:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wilbur.pigworks.openss7.net (ns5.evil.openss7.net [192.168.9.5]) by gw.openss7.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/Debian-5+lenny1) with ESMTP id s2E9RVSD028021; Fri, 14 Mar 2014 03:27:31 -0600
Received: from wilbur.pigworks.openss7.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by wilbur.pigworks.openss7.net (8.14.3/8.14.3/Debian-5+lenny1) with ESMTP id s2E9RV6e003849; Fri, 14 Mar 2014 03:27:31 -0600
Received: (from brian@localhost) by wilbur.pigworks.openss7.net (8.14.3/8.14.3/Submit) id s2E9RVvD003848; Fri, 14 Mar 2014 03:27:31 -0600
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2014 03:27:31 -0600
From: "Brian F. G. Bidulock" <bidulock@openss7.org>
To: David Laight <David.Laight@ACULAB.COM>
Message-ID: <20140314092731.GB2579@openss7.org>
Mail-Followup-To: David Laight <David.Laight@ACULAB.COM>, Ajay Garg <ajaygargnsit@gmail.com>, "sigtran@ietf.org" <sigtran@ietf.org>
References: <CAHP4M8VFfMjLXGQ703yL+Ne7Dujf7GmxOjJY+Ndvzn9k5K553Q@mail.gmail.com> <20140313071729.GB15132@openss7.org> <CAHP4M8VbbdprFv-AAfuu43fpwp3fskk4CZ6v2Xfaw_g2=MdfeQ@mail.gmail.com> <20140313133902.GA20110@openss7.org> <CAHP4M8WCugtcXembPW1B7qqa_FTDU3Ueyw9f4=ChjAATdBpSfQ@mail.gmail.com> <20140314083714.GA2579@openss7.org> <063D6719AE5E284EB5DD2968C1650D6D0F6DD757@AcuExch.aculab.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <063D6719AE5E284EB5DD2968C1650D6D0F6DD757@AcuExch.aculab.com>
Organization: http://www.openss7.org/
Dsn-Notification-To: <bidulock@openss7.org>
X-Spam-To: <blockme@openss7.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sigtran/EsvG_Xe0xQKNsugZuF0TSQwtUKs
Cc: "sigtran@ietf.org" <sigtran@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Sigtran] Conceptual doubt between an ASP and SGP
X-BeenThere: sigtran@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
Reply-To: bidulock@openss7.org
List-Id: Signaling Transport <sigtran.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/sigtran>, <mailto:sigtran-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sigtran/>
List-Post: <mailto:sigtran@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sigtran-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sigtran>, <mailto:sigtran-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2014 09:28:05 -0000

David,

David Laight wrote:                                                                                                            (Fri, 14 Mar 2014 09:19:31)
> From: Brian F. G. Bidulock
> > Ajay,
> > 
> > Please see comments below...
> > 
> > Ajay Garg wrote:                             (Fri, 14 Mar 2014 11:45:20)
> > >    I meant that in the scenario all of N1, N2, N3 are pure sigtran-nodes
> > >    (i.e. no SS7 nodes in the network), is there any usecase when
> > >    transferring messages from N1->N3 in the configuration ::
> > >                  * IPSP-IPSP association between N1 <-> N2
> > >                  * IPSP-IPSP association between N2 <-> N3
> > >                  * GTT at N2
> > >    will have ANY different behaviour (from pure end-user point of view)
> > >    against the configuration ::
> > >                  * ASP-SGP association between N1 <-> N2
> > >                  * SGP-ASP association between N2 <-> N3
> > >                  * GTT at N2
> > 
> > Yes, I understand, however, the former scenario is explicitly not
> > supported by the M3UA standard (see some clips below).  We explicitly
> > only supported IPSP in an end-point to end-point connection with no
> > intermediate transfer function due to the lack of a satisfactory
> > interworking of SS7 network management functions.
> > 
> > So, for example, in the AS <-> SG <-> AS configuration, the SG
> > provides management messages to the one AS on the availability,
> > restriction and congestion state of the routeset toward the other
> > AS (not to mention the entire gamut of any necessary rerouting
> > and MTP restart procedures).
> 
> But once the message arrives at SCCP in N2, the global title translation
> tables can indicate that the message needs to be forwarded to N3
> (possibly with a re-written GT).
> 
> So although the SS7 message doesn't get transferred from N1 to N3
> a TCAP request can be forwarded.

The response (from N3 to N1) relies on an MTP transfer function at N2,
making it an SG by definition.

--brian

-- 
Brian F. G. Bidulock
bidulock@openss7.org
http://www.openss7.org/


From nobody Fri Mar 14 02:47:27 2014
Return-Path: <David.Laight@ACULAB.COM>
X-Original-To: sigtran@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sigtran@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6FE491A00DB for <sigtran@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 14 Mar 2014 02:47:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.449
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.449 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.547, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vAE_qhMN62jI for <sigtran@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 14 Mar 2014 02:47:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx0.aculab.com (mx0.aculab.com [213.249.233.131]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id E16C51A00AD for <sigtran@ietf.org>; Fri, 14 Mar 2014 02:47:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 22857 invoked from network); 14 Mar 2014 09:47:16 -0000
Received: from localhost (127.0.0.1) by mx0.aculab.com with SMTP; 14 Mar 2014 09:47:16 -0000
Received: from mx0.aculab.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mx0.aculab.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with SMTP id 17285-10 for <sigtran@ietf.org>; Fri, 14 Mar 2014 09:47:15 +0000 (GMT)
Received: (qmail 22841 invoked by uid 599); 14 Mar 2014 09:47:15 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO AcuExch.aculab.com) (10.202.163.4) by mx0.aculab.com (qpsmtpd/0.28) with ESMTP; Fri, 14 Mar 2014 09:47:15 +0000
Received: from ACUEXCH.Aculab.com ([::1]) by AcuExch.aculab.com ([::1]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Fri, 14 Mar 2014 09:46:16 +0000
From: David Laight <David.Laight@ACULAB.COM>
To: "'bidulock@openss7.org'" <bidulock@openss7.org>
Thread-Topic: [Sigtran] Conceptual doubt between an ASP and SGP
Thread-Index: AQHPP2CZfjpMOmKuQ0ONeHU06dUY6ZrgTS/wgAADT4CAAARAAA==
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2014 09:46:14 +0000
Message-ID: <063D6719AE5E284EB5DD2968C1650D6D0F6DD7C4@AcuExch.aculab.com>
References: <CAHP4M8VFfMjLXGQ703yL+Ne7Dujf7GmxOjJY+Ndvzn9k5K553Q@mail.gmail.com> <20140313071729.GB15132@openss7.org> <CAHP4M8VbbdprFv-AAfuu43fpwp3fskk4CZ6v2Xfaw_g2=MdfeQ@mail.gmail.com> <20140313133902.GA20110@openss7.org> <CAHP4M8WCugtcXembPW1B7qqa_FTDU3Ueyw9f4=ChjAATdBpSfQ@mail.gmail.com> <20140314083714.GA2579@openss7.org> <063D6719AE5E284EB5DD2968C1650D6D0F6DD757@AcuExch.aculab.com> <20140314092731.GB2579@openss7.org>
In-Reply-To: <20140314092731.GB2579@openss7.org>
Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
x-originating-ip: [10.202.99.200]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Virus-Scanned: by iCritical at mx0.aculab.com
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sigtran/uUp949jmiTBxW7bNa-Xt1NZEckc
Cc: "sigtran@ietf.org" <sigtran@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Sigtran] Conceptual doubt between an ASP and SGP
X-BeenThere: sigtran@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Signaling Transport <sigtran.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/sigtran>, <mailto:sigtran-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sigtran/>
List-Post: <mailto:sigtran@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sigtran-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sigtran>, <mailto:sigtran-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2014 09:47:25 -0000

From: Brian F. G. Bidulock [mailto:bidulock@openss7.org]
> David,
>=20
> David Laight wrote:
...
> > But once the message arrives at SCCP in N2, the global title translatio=
n
> > tables can indicate that the message needs to be forwarded to N3
> > (possibly with a re-written GT).
> >
> > So although the SS7 message doesn't get transferred from N1 to N3
> > a TCAP request can be forwarded.
>=20
> The response (from N3 to N1) relies on an MTP transfer function at N2,
> making it an SG by definition.

The return message can also be routed on GT.
So can be returned via the SCCP code on N2 (or via some other
entirely different route).

Remember there is no need for the sender and receiver of TCAP
messages to be on the same ss7 network.

	David




From nobody Fri Mar 14 02:51:23 2014
Return-Path: <bidulock@openss7.org>
X-Original-To: sigtran@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sigtran@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C88621A00DD for <sigtran@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 14 Mar 2014 02:51:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Xnw9KRDyoahk for <sigtran@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 14 Mar 2014 02:51:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gw.openss7.com (gw.openss7.com [142.59.210.7]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3FC921A00D3 for <sigtran@ietf.org>; Fri, 14 Mar 2014 02:51:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wilbur.pigworks.openss7.net (ns5.evil.openss7.net [192.168.9.5]) by gw.openss7.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/Debian-5+lenny1) with ESMTP id s2E9p7L8028120; Fri, 14 Mar 2014 03:51:07 -0600
Received: from wilbur.pigworks.openss7.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by wilbur.pigworks.openss7.net (8.14.3/8.14.3/Debian-5+lenny1) with ESMTP id s2E9p7Ir004292; Fri, 14 Mar 2014 03:51:07 -0600
Received: (from brian@localhost) by wilbur.pigworks.openss7.net (8.14.3/8.14.3/Submit) id s2E9p7wY004291; Fri, 14 Mar 2014 03:51:07 -0600
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2014 03:51:07 -0600
From: "Brian F. G. Bidulock" <bidulock@openss7.org>
To: David Laight <David.Laight@ACULAB.COM>
Message-ID: <20140314095107.GC2579@openss7.org>
Mail-Followup-To: David Laight <David.Laight@ACULAB.COM>, Ajay Garg <ajaygargnsit@gmail.com>, "sigtran@ietf.org" <sigtran@ietf.org>
References: <CAHP4M8VFfMjLXGQ703yL+Ne7Dujf7GmxOjJY+Ndvzn9k5K553Q@mail.gmail.com> <20140313071729.GB15132@openss7.org> <CAHP4M8VbbdprFv-AAfuu43fpwp3fskk4CZ6v2Xfaw_g2=MdfeQ@mail.gmail.com> <20140313133902.GA20110@openss7.org> <CAHP4M8WCugtcXembPW1B7qqa_FTDU3Ueyw9f4=ChjAATdBpSfQ@mail.gmail.com> <20140314083714.GA2579@openss7.org> <063D6719AE5E284EB5DD2968C1650D6D0F6DD757@AcuExch.aculab.com> <20140314092731.GB2579@openss7.org> <063D6719AE5E284EB5DD2968C1650D6D0F6DD7C4@AcuExch.aculab.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <063D6719AE5E284EB5DD2968C1650D6D0F6DD7C4@AcuExch.aculab.com>
Organization: http://www.openss7.org/
Dsn-Notification-To: <bidulock@openss7.org>
X-Spam-To: <blockme@openss7.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sigtran/Oo600pw8ilO1UjYrngmSB8rJQC0
Cc: "sigtran@ietf.org" <sigtran@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Sigtran] Conceptual doubt between an ASP and SGP
X-BeenThere: sigtran@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
Reply-To: bidulock@openss7.org
List-Id: Signaling Transport <sigtran.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/sigtran>, <mailto:sigtran-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sigtran/>
List-Post: <mailto:sigtran@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sigtran-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sigtran>, <mailto:sigtran-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2014 09:51:23 -0000

David,

David Laight wrote:                    (Fri, 14 Mar 2014 09:46:14)
> 
> The return message can also be routed on GT.

Theoretically, but not in practice.

--brian

-- 
Brian F. G. Bidulock
bidulock@openss7.org
http://www.openss7.org/


From nobody Fri Mar 14 03:03:56 2014
Return-Path: <David.Laight@ACULAB.COM>
X-Original-To: sigtran@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sigtran@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E10BD1A0100 for <sigtran@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 14 Mar 2014 03:03:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.449
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.449 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.547, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WMhzi8rLeFte for <sigtran@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 14 Mar 2014 03:03:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx0.aculab.com (mx0.aculab.com [213.249.233.131]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 776371A00F8 for <sigtran@ietf.org>; Fri, 14 Mar 2014 03:03:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 27106 invoked from network); 14 Mar 2014 10:03:44 -0000
Received: from localhost (127.0.0.1) by mx0.aculab.com with SMTP; 14 Mar 2014 10:03:44 -0000
Received: from mx0.aculab.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mx0.aculab.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with SMTP id 25188-09 for <sigtran@ietf.org>; Fri, 14 Mar 2014 10:03:43 +0000 (GMT)
Received: (qmail 27087 invoked by uid 599); 14 Mar 2014 10:03:43 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO AcuExch.aculab.com) (10.202.163.4) by mx0.aculab.com (qpsmtpd/0.28) with ESMTP; Fri, 14 Mar 2014 10:03:43 +0000
Received: from ACUEXCH.Aculab.com ([::1]) by AcuExch.aculab.com ([::1]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Fri, 14 Mar 2014 10:02:45 +0000
From: David Laight <David.Laight@ACULAB.COM>
To: "'bidulock@openss7.org'" <bidulock@openss7.org>
Thread-Topic: [Sigtran] Conceptual doubt between an ASP and SGP
Thread-Index: AQHPP2CZfjpMOmKuQ0ONeHU06dUY6ZrgTS/wgAADT4CAAARAAIAAAliAgAABaUA=
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2014 10:02:43 +0000
Message-ID: <063D6719AE5E284EB5DD2968C1650D6D0F6DD8BC@AcuExch.aculab.com>
References: <CAHP4M8VFfMjLXGQ703yL+Ne7Dujf7GmxOjJY+Ndvzn9k5K553Q@mail.gmail.com> <20140313071729.GB15132@openss7.org> <CAHP4M8VbbdprFv-AAfuu43fpwp3fskk4CZ6v2Xfaw_g2=MdfeQ@mail.gmail.com> <20140313133902.GA20110@openss7.org> <CAHP4M8WCugtcXembPW1B7qqa_FTDU3Ueyw9f4=ChjAATdBpSfQ@mail.gmail.com> <20140314083714.GA2579@openss7.org> <063D6719AE5E284EB5DD2968C1650D6D0F6DD757@AcuExch.aculab.com> <20140314092731.GB2579@openss7.org> <063D6719AE5E284EB5DD2968C1650D6D0F6DD7C4@AcuExch.aculab.com> <20140314095107.GC2579@openss7.org>
In-Reply-To: <20140314095107.GC2579@openss7.org>
Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
x-originating-ip: [10.202.99.200]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Virus-Scanned: by iCritical at mx0.aculab.com
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sigtran/MXudDcnEI4XweSo0NlFTr3Cgb2I
Cc: "sigtran@ietf.org" <sigtran@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Sigtran] Conceptual doubt between an ASP and SGP
X-BeenThere: sigtran@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Signaling Transport <sigtran.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/sigtran>, <mailto:sigtran-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sigtran/>
List-Post: <mailto:sigtran@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sigtran-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sigtran>, <mailto:sigtran-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2014 10:03:55 -0000

From: Brian F. G. Bidulock=20
> David,
>=20
> David Laight wrote:                    (Fri, 14 Mar 2014 09:46:14)
> >
> > The return message can also be routed on GT.
>=20
> Theoretically, but not in practice.

I'll find some customer traces out...
I really don't remember seeing one where the source address
had 'route on pointcode and ssn' set.

I'm pretty sure that most of the TCAP messages we see are
routed by GT in both directions.
It might be useful to send the response back to system the
request came from (ie assuming symmetric routing), but that
uses the pointcode from the routing label - N2 in this case.

	David




From nobody Fri Mar 14 03:15:46 2014
Return-Path: <bidulock@openss7.org>
X-Original-To: sigtran@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sigtran@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 81CB41A00ED for <sigtran@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 14 Mar 2014 03:15:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.6
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, J_CHICKENPOX_12=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PDzxq1-eMION for <sigtran@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 14 Mar 2014 03:15:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gw.openss7.com (gw.openss7.com [142.59.210.7]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E02A1A00EA for <sigtran@ietf.org>; Fri, 14 Mar 2014 03:15:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wilbur.pigworks.openss7.net (ns5.evil.openss7.net [192.168.9.5]) by gw.openss7.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/Debian-5+lenny1) with ESMTP id s2EAFT1w028231; Fri, 14 Mar 2014 04:15:29 -0600
Received: from wilbur.pigworks.openss7.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by wilbur.pigworks.openss7.net (8.14.3/8.14.3/Debian-5+lenny1) with ESMTP id s2EAFTkb004610; Fri, 14 Mar 2014 04:15:29 -0600
Received: (from brian@localhost) by wilbur.pigworks.openss7.net (8.14.3/8.14.3/Submit) id s2EAFTJO004609; Fri, 14 Mar 2014 04:15:29 -0600
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2014 04:15:29 -0600
From: "Brian F. G. Bidulock" <bidulock@openss7.org>
To: David Laight <David.Laight@ACULAB.COM>
Message-ID: <20140314101529.GD2579@openss7.org>
Mail-Followup-To: David Laight <David.Laight@ACULAB.COM>, Ajay Garg <ajaygargnsit@gmail.com>, "sigtran@ietf.org" <sigtran@ietf.org>
References: <20140313071729.GB15132@openss7.org> <CAHP4M8VbbdprFv-AAfuu43fpwp3fskk4CZ6v2Xfaw_g2=MdfeQ@mail.gmail.com> <20140313133902.GA20110@openss7.org> <CAHP4M8WCugtcXembPW1B7qqa_FTDU3Ueyw9f4=ChjAATdBpSfQ@mail.gmail.com> <20140314083714.GA2579@openss7.org> <063D6719AE5E284EB5DD2968C1650D6D0F6DD757@AcuExch.aculab.com> <20140314092731.GB2579@openss7.org> <063D6719AE5E284EB5DD2968C1650D6D0F6DD7C4@AcuExch.aculab.com> <20140314095107.GC2579@openss7.org> <063D6719AE5E284EB5DD2968C1650D6D0F6DD8BC@AcuExch.aculab.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <063D6719AE5E284EB5DD2968C1650D6D0F6DD8BC@AcuExch.aculab.com>
Organization: http://www.openss7.org/
Dsn-Notification-To: <bidulock@openss7.org>
X-Spam-To: <blockme@openss7.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sigtran/TPOmLMZHZsMuGIWfiBQh8ZInDSo
Cc: "sigtran@ietf.org" <sigtran@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Sigtran] Conceptual doubt between an ASP and SGP
X-BeenThere: sigtran@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
Reply-To: bidulock@openss7.org
List-Id: Signaling Transport <sigtran.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/sigtran>, <mailto:sigtran-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sigtran/>
List-Post: <mailto:sigtran@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sigtran-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sigtran>, <mailto:sigtran-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2014 10:15:43 -0000

David,

David Laight wrote:                            (Fri, 14 Mar 2014 10:02:43)
> From: Brian F. G. Bidulock 
> > David,
> > 
> > David Laight wrote:                    (Fri, 14 Mar 2014 09:46:14)
> > >
> > > The return message can also be routed on GT.
> > 
> > Theoretically, but not in practice.
> 
> I'll find some customer traces out...
> I really don't remember seeing one where the source address
> had 'route on pointcode and ssn' set.
> 
> I'm pretty sure that most of the TCAP messages we see are
> routed by GT in both directions.
> It might be useful to send the response back to system the
> request came from (ie assuming symmetric routing), but that
> uses the pointcode from the routing label - N2 in this case.

GTT does not alter the OPC of the original message.

Calling Party Address is only used to identify the caller for
transaction processing and is not used for reverse routing.

GTT can only exist at an intermediate node in the SS7 network
that has the transfer function.  That is the definition of
intermediate node in SS7.

And regardless, IPSP is defined in M3UA as point to point.
Labelling N2 an IPSP is incorrect.  Why do you wish to label
it an IPSP?

It needs follow the protocol behaviour specified for an SG and
anything connecting to it needs follow the protocol behaviour
of an ASP.  Are you trying to side-step those requirements by
mislabelling it?

--brian

-- 
Brian F. G. Bidulock
bidulock@openss7.org
http://www.openss7.org/


From nobody Fri Mar 14 04:03:28 2014
Return-Path: <David.Laight@ACULAB.COM>
X-Original-To: sigtran@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sigtran@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC86E1A0119 for <sigtran@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 14 Mar 2014 04:03:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.449
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.449 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.547, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ArLdthljFHlo for <sigtran@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 14 Mar 2014 04:03:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx0.aculab.com (mx0.aculab.com [213.249.233.131]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id C34721A0110 for <sigtran@ietf.org>; Fri, 14 Mar 2014 04:03:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 9906 invoked from network); 14 Mar 2014 11:03:09 -0000
Received: from localhost (127.0.0.1) by mx0.aculab.com with SMTP; 14 Mar 2014 11:03:09 -0000
Received: from mx0.aculab.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mx0.aculab.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with SMTP id 02023-10 for <sigtran@ietf.org>; Fri, 14 Mar 2014 11:03:08 +0000 (GMT)
Received: (qmail 9877 invoked by uid 599); 14 Mar 2014 11:03:08 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO AcuExch.aculab.com) (10.202.163.4) by mx0.aculab.com (qpsmtpd/0.28) with ESMTP; Fri, 14 Mar 2014 11:03:08 +0000
Received: from ACUEXCH.Aculab.com ([::1]) by AcuExch.aculab.com ([::1]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Fri, 14 Mar 2014 11:02:09 +0000
From: David Laight <David.Laight@ACULAB.COM>
To: "'bidulock@openss7.org'" <bidulock@openss7.org>
Thread-Topic: [Sigtran] Conceptual doubt between an ASP and SGP
Thread-Index: AQHPP2CZfjpMOmKuQ0ONeHU06dUY6ZrgTS/wgAADT4CAAARAAIAAAliAgAABaUCAAAVlgIAACnvQ
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2014 11:02:08 +0000
Message-ID: <063D6719AE5E284EB5DD2968C1650D6D0F6DD91E@AcuExch.aculab.com>
References: <20140313071729.GB15132@openss7.org> <CAHP4M8VbbdprFv-AAfuu43fpwp3fskk4CZ6v2Xfaw_g2=MdfeQ@mail.gmail.com> <20140313133902.GA20110@openss7.org> <CAHP4M8WCugtcXembPW1B7qqa_FTDU3Ueyw9f4=ChjAATdBpSfQ@mail.gmail.com> <20140314083714.GA2579@openss7.org> <063D6719AE5E284EB5DD2968C1650D6D0F6DD757@AcuExch.aculab.com> <20140314092731.GB2579@openss7.org> <063D6719AE5E284EB5DD2968C1650D6D0F6DD7C4@AcuExch.aculab.com> <20140314095107.GC2579@openss7.org> <063D6719AE5E284EB5DD2968C1650D6D0F6DD8BC@AcuExch.aculab.com> <20140314101529.GD2579@openss7.org>
In-Reply-To: <20140314101529.GD2579@openss7.org>
Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
x-originating-ip: [10.202.99.200]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Virus-Scanned: by iCritical at mx0.aculab.com
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sigtran/_TuKF2AFj_p4fYlrX0UtFtU8xzw
Cc: "sigtran@ietf.org" <sigtran@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Sigtran] Conceptual doubt between an ASP and SGP
X-BeenThere: sigtran@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Signaling Transport <sigtran.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/sigtran>, <mailto:sigtran-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sigtran/>
List-Post: <mailto:sigtran@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sigtran-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sigtran>, <mailto:sigtran-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2014 11:03:21 -0000

From: Brian F. G.=20
> David Laight wrote:                            (Fri, 14 Mar 2014 10:02:43=
)
> > From: Brian F. G. Bidulock
> > > David,
> > >
> > > David Laight wrote:                    (Fri, 14 Mar 2014 09:46:14)
> > > >
> > > > The return message can also be routed on GT.
> > >
> > > Theoretically, but not in practice.
> >
> > I'll find some customer traces out...
> > I really don't remember seeing one where the source address
> > had 'route on pointcode and ssn' set.
> >
> > I'm pretty sure that most of the TCAP messages we see are
> > routed by GT in both directions.
> > It might be useful to send the response back to system the
> > request came from (ie assuming symmetric routing), but that
> > uses the pointcode from the routing label - N2 in this case.
>=20
> GTT does not alter the OPC of the original message.
>=20
> Calling Party Address is only used to identify the caller for
> transaction processing and is not used for reverse routing.
>=20
> GTT can only exist at an intermediate node in the SS7 network
> that has the transfer function.  That is the definition of
> intermediate node in SS7.

You seem to be confusing the MTP3 STP functionality (which forwards
messages based on the routing label - and doesn't modify the label)
with SCCP forwarding based on GT lookup.
If SCCP forwards a messages (with or without rewriting either GT)
then MTP3 will put the local pointcode in the routing label.

SCCP can forward messages in a node that doesn't have MTP3 STP
functionality. Indeed it can forward the message into an entirely
different SS7 network. It could, for example, forward a message
from an ITU network into an ANSI one (leaving you with ITU TCAP
embedded in ANSI SCCP).

	David




From nobody Fri Mar 14 04:16:26 2014
Return-Path: <bidulock@openss7.org>
X-Original-To: sigtran@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sigtran@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C8031A0106 for <sigtran@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 14 Mar 2014 04:16:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RG_ngReP5j-1 for <sigtran@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 14 Mar 2014 04:16:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gw.openss7.com (gw.openss7.com [142.59.210.7]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D37261A0118 for <sigtran@ietf.org>; Fri, 14 Mar 2014 04:16:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wilbur.pigworks.openss7.net (ns5.evil.openss7.net [192.168.9.5]) by gw.openss7.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/Debian-5+lenny1) with ESMTP id s2EBG5RF028483; Fri, 14 Mar 2014 05:16:05 -0600
Received: from wilbur.pigworks.openss7.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by wilbur.pigworks.openss7.net (8.14.3/8.14.3/Debian-5+lenny1) with ESMTP id s2EBG5nC005469; Fri, 14 Mar 2014 05:16:05 -0600
Received: (from brian@localhost) by wilbur.pigworks.openss7.net (8.14.3/8.14.3/Submit) id s2EBG5aM005468; Fri, 14 Mar 2014 05:16:05 -0600
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2014 05:16:05 -0600
From: "Brian F. G. Bidulock" <bidulock@openss7.org>
To: David Laight <David.Laight@ACULAB.COM>
Message-ID: <20140314111605.GE2579@openss7.org>
Mail-Followup-To: David Laight <David.Laight@ACULAB.COM>, Ajay Garg <ajaygargnsit@gmail.com>, "sigtran@ietf.org" <sigtran@ietf.org>
References: <20140313133902.GA20110@openss7.org> <CAHP4M8WCugtcXembPW1B7qqa_FTDU3Ueyw9f4=ChjAATdBpSfQ@mail.gmail.com> <20140314083714.GA2579@openss7.org> <063D6719AE5E284EB5DD2968C1650D6D0F6DD757@AcuExch.aculab.com> <20140314092731.GB2579@openss7.org> <063D6719AE5E284EB5DD2968C1650D6D0F6DD7C4@AcuExch.aculab.com> <20140314095107.GC2579@openss7.org> <063D6719AE5E284EB5DD2968C1650D6D0F6DD8BC@AcuExch.aculab.com> <20140314101529.GD2579@openss7.org> <063D6719AE5E284EB5DD2968C1650D6D0F6DD91E@AcuExch.aculab.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <063D6719AE5E284EB5DD2968C1650D6D0F6DD91E@AcuExch.aculab.com>
Organization: http://www.openss7.org/
Dsn-Notification-To: <bidulock@openss7.org>
X-Spam-To: <blockme@openss7.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sigtran/JO-WWD36ZsifqRuhMC6GHdYGisM
Cc: "sigtran@ietf.org" <sigtran@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Sigtran] Conceptual doubt between an ASP and SGP
X-BeenThere: sigtran@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
Reply-To: bidulock@openss7.org
List-Id: Signaling Transport <sigtran.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/sigtran>, <mailto:sigtran-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sigtran/>
List-Post: <mailto:sigtran@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sigtran-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sigtran>, <mailto:sigtran-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2014 11:16:25 -0000

David,

David Laight wrote:                         (Fri, 14 Mar 2014 11:02:08)
> > 
> > GTT does not alter the OPC of the original message.
> > 
> > Calling Party Address is only used to identify the caller for
> > transaction processing and is not used for reverse routing.
> > 
> > GTT can only exist at an intermediate node in the SS7 network
> > that has the transfer function.  That is the definition of
> > intermediate node in SS7.
> 
> You seem to be confusing the MTP3 STP functionality (which forwards
> messages based on the routing label - and doesn't modify the label)
> with SCCP forwarding based on GT lookup.
> If SCCP forwards a messages (with or without rewriting either GT)
> then MTP3 will put the local pointcode in the routing label.
> 
> SCCP can forward messages in a node that doesn't have MTP3 STP
> functionality. Indeed it can forward the message into an entirely
> different SS7 network. It could, for example, forward a message
> from an ITU network into an ANSI one (leaving you with ITU TCAP
> embedded in ANSI SCCP).


Not confused: read Q.714/2.7.5.

But you didn't answer my question: why would you want to mislabel it?

--brian

-- 
Brian F. G. Bidulock
bidulock@openss7.org
http://www.openss7.org/


From nobody Fri Mar 14 04:28:55 2014
Return-Path: <ajaygargnsit@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: sigtran@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sigtran@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 308001A0111 for <sigtran@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 14 Mar 2014 04:28:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Hnpfx6_Dpy9l for <sigtran@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 14 Mar 2014 04:28:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pd0-x230.google.com (mail-pd0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c02::230]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 27FFA1A0108 for <sigtran@ietf.org>; Fri, 14 Mar 2014 04:28:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pd0-f176.google.com with SMTP id r10so2417986pdi.21 for <sigtran@ietf.org>; Fri, 14 Mar 2014 04:28:45 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;  h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=0X677tRTrvSJyk3wYAcMoO/zjEsdZnh+i2wOrf4BJZ8=; b=QPP499cCpJKSM7z9AzkfFP/S6bane5kK+JPLXRgntT15lLjB73oPXztKY/vz1xNJZg V482yamE1ggwXB1i7vNnCH8Cl5TEUI1uUfHft19VhP72yol7IQ1/xfpiFBpfOAcTDKPm dqQH2+UoFnhIpQ/yVr5luhBlP6qXoLa1IiqnZgIjR71m0Q2tpWpbjkyaTLw5kSrjyfI3 ZE1v5GGCGKpIDT3MSK+/uN+Jb7tzcoKRgdoNLPHYqt3RJ/YykKHDGkNcJut1sVlGiAMS dSzK0j8uMQgjQJmQb2ueWYtXdDMgbDSyELMFS3uQFbIww9iQVdsL/Dtyzo6lq+85w1uh zbjw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.66.142.42 with SMTP id rt10mr8715240pab.1.1394796525470; Fri, 14 Mar 2014 04:28:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.70.92.9 with HTTP; Fri, 14 Mar 2014 04:28:45 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20140314111605.GE2579@openss7.org>
References: <20140313133902.GA20110@openss7.org> <CAHP4M8WCugtcXembPW1B7qqa_FTDU3Ueyw9f4=ChjAATdBpSfQ@mail.gmail.com> <20140314083714.GA2579@openss7.org> <063D6719AE5E284EB5DD2968C1650D6D0F6DD757@AcuExch.aculab.com> <20140314092731.GB2579@openss7.org> <063D6719AE5E284EB5DD2968C1650D6D0F6DD7C4@AcuExch.aculab.com> <20140314095107.GC2579@openss7.org> <063D6719AE5E284EB5DD2968C1650D6D0F6DD8BC@AcuExch.aculab.com> <20140314101529.GD2579@openss7.org> <063D6719AE5E284EB5DD2968C1650D6D0F6DD91E@AcuExch.aculab.com> <20140314111605.GE2579@openss7.org>
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2014 16:58:45 +0530
Message-ID: <CAHP4M8UD9QxH6LApwXFJCO7TSEqK8Qq5W=8Fwh2p2Y0LLf2+GQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Ajay Garg <ajaygargnsit@gmail.com>
To: "bidulock@openss7.org" <bidulock@openss7.org>, David Laight <David.Laight@aculab.com>,  "sigtran@ietf.org" <sigtran@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1133048a6f469d04f48f5f98
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sigtran/C-il7fbItA3Ho2bAiHFIB2HUwKw
Subject: Re: [Sigtran] Conceptual doubt between an ASP and SGP
X-BeenThere: sigtran@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Signaling Transport <sigtran.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/sigtran>, <mailto:sigtran-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sigtran/>
List-Post: <mailto:sigtran@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sigtran-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sigtran>, <mailto:sigtran-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2014 11:28:54 -0000

--001a1133048a6f469d04f48f5f98
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

Hi Guys,

I am thankful to all of you for helping us clear our queries.

We were just investigating the different scenarios possible, and my
original motive of starting this thread was to obtain clarifications on
what is theoritically feasible/not-feasible, and practically
feasible/not-feasible (as I said, I am an absolute newbie in telecom
domain).

I understand that ASP <-> SGP <-> ASP  is the general preferred
configuration (unless a mesh-configuration is possible, with an IPSP-IPSP
association between EACH pair of IPSPs).


Thanks again for all the help !!!


On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 4:46 PM, Brian F. G. Bidulock
<bidulock@openss7.org>wrote:

> David,
>
> David Laight wrote:                         (Fri, 14 Mar 2014 11:02:08)
> > >
> > > GTT does not alter the OPC of the original message.
> > >
> > > Calling Party Address is only used to identify the caller for
> > > transaction processing and is not used for reverse routing.
> > >
> > > GTT can only exist at an intermediate node in the SS7 network
> > > that has the transfer function.  That is the definition of
> > > intermediate node in SS7.
> >
> > You seem to be confusing the MTP3 STP functionality (which forwards
> > messages based on the routing label - and doesn't modify the label)
> > with SCCP forwarding based on GT lookup.
> > If SCCP forwards a messages (with or without rewriting either GT)
> > then MTP3 will put the local pointcode in the routing label.
> >
> > SCCP can forward messages in a node that doesn't have MTP3 STP
> > functionality. Indeed it can forward the message into an entirely
> > different SS7 network. It could, for example, forward a message
> > from an ITU network into an ANSI one (leaving you with ITU TCAP
> > embedded in ANSI SCCP).
>
>
> Not confused: read Q.714/2.7.5.
>
> But you didn't answer my question: why would you want to mislabel it?
>
> --brian
>
> --
> Brian F. G. Bidulock
> bidulock@openss7.org
> http://www.openss7.org/
>



-- 
Regards,
Ajay

--001a1133048a6f469d04f48f5f98
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div><div><div>Hi Guys, <br><br></div>I am thankful to all=
 of you for helping us clear our queries.<br><br></div>We were just investi=
gating the different scenarios possible, and my original motive of starting=
 this thread was to obtain clarifications on what is theoritically feasible=
/not-feasible, and practically feasible/not-feasible (as I said, I am an ab=
solute newbie in telecom domain).<br>
<br></div><div>I understand that ASP &lt;-&gt; SGP &lt;-&gt; ASP=A0 is the =
general preferred configuration (unless a mesh-configuration is possible, w=
ith an IPSP-IPSP association between EACH pair of IPSPs).<br><br><br></div>
<div>Thanks again for all the help !!!<br></div><div><div><div><div><div cl=
ass=3D"gmail_extra"><br><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Fri, Mar 14, 2014=
 at 4:46 PM, Brian F. G. Bidulock <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:b=
idulock@openss7.org" target=3D"_blank">bidulock@openss7.org</a>&gt;</span> =
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1p=
x #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">David,<br>
<br>
David Laight wrote: =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 (Fri, 1=
4 Mar 2014 11:02:08)<br>
<div class=3D"">&gt; &gt;<br>
&gt; &gt; GTT does not alter the OPC of the original message.<br>
&gt; &gt;<br>
&gt; &gt; Calling Party Address is only used to identify the caller for<br>
&gt; &gt; transaction processing and is not used for reverse routing.<br>
&gt; &gt;<br>
&gt; &gt; GTT can only exist at an intermediate node in the SS7 network<br>
&gt; &gt; that has the transfer function. =A0That is the definition of<br>
&gt; &gt; intermediate node in SS7.<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; You seem to be confusing the MTP3 STP functionality (which forwards<br=
>
&gt; messages based on the routing label - and doesn&#39;t modify the label=
)<br>
&gt; with SCCP forwarding based on GT lookup.<br>
&gt; If SCCP forwards a messages (with or without rewriting either GT)<br>
&gt; then MTP3 will put the local pointcode in the routing label.<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; SCCP can forward messages in a node that doesn&#39;t have MTP3 STP<br>
&gt; functionality. Indeed it can forward the message into an entirely<br>
&gt; different SS7 network. It could, for example, forward a message<br>
&gt; from an ITU network into an ANSI one (leaving you with ITU TCAP<br>
&gt; embedded in ANSI SCCP).<br>
<br>
<br>
</div>Not confused: read Q.714/<a href=3D"http://2.7.5." target=3D"_blank">=
2.7.5.</a><br>
<br>
But you didn&#39;t answer my question: why would you want to mislabel it?<b=
r>
<div class=3D"HOEnZb"><div class=3D"h5"><br>
--brian<br>
<br>
--<br>
Brian F. G. Bidulock<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:bidulock@openss7.org">bidulock@openss7.org</a><br>
<a href=3D"http://www.openss7.org/" target=3D"_blank">http://www.openss7.or=
g/</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br><br clear=3D"all"><br>-- <br>Regards,<br=
>Ajay<br>
</div></div></div></div></div></div>

--001a1133048a6f469d04f48f5f98--


From nobody Fri Mar 14 04:42:04 2014
Return-Path: <David.Laight@ACULAB.COM>
X-Original-To: sigtran@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sigtran@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB0721A0114 for <sigtran@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 14 Mar 2014 04:42:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.449
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.449 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.547, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id leQd5jzBcXTx for <sigtran@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 14 Mar 2014 04:42:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx0.aculab.com (mx0.aculab.com [213.249.233.131]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id E10991A012C for <sigtran@ietf.org>; Fri, 14 Mar 2014 04:41:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 19576 invoked from network); 14 Mar 2014 11:41:49 -0000
Received: from localhost (127.0.0.1) by mx0.aculab.com with SMTP; 14 Mar 2014 11:41:49 -0000
Received: from mx0.aculab.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mx0.aculab.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with SMTP id 12501-10 for <sigtran@ietf.org>; Fri, 14 Mar 2014 11:41:47 +0000 (GMT)
Received: (qmail 19548 invoked by uid 599); 14 Mar 2014 11:41:47 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO AcuExch.aculab.com) (10.202.163.4) by mx0.aculab.com (qpsmtpd/0.28) with ESMTP; Fri, 14 Mar 2014 11:41:47 +0000
Received: from ACUEXCH.Aculab.com ([::1]) by AcuExch.aculab.com ([::1]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Fri, 14 Mar 2014 11:40:49 +0000
From: David Laight <David.Laight@ACULAB.COM>
To: "'bidulock@openss7.org'" <bidulock@openss7.org>
Thread-Topic: [Sigtran] Conceptual doubt between an ASP and SGP
Thread-Index: AQHPP2CZfjpMOmKuQ0ONeHU06dUY6ZrgTS/wgAADT4CAAARAAIAAAliAgAABaUCAAAVlgIAACnvQgAAGdICAAAR4gA==
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2014 11:40:47 +0000
Message-ID: <063D6719AE5E284EB5DD2968C1650D6D0F6DD9AA@AcuExch.aculab.com>
References: <20140313133902.GA20110@openss7.org> <CAHP4M8WCugtcXembPW1B7qqa_FTDU3Ueyw9f4=ChjAATdBpSfQ@mail.gmail.com> <20140314083714.GA2579@openss7.org> <063D6719AE5E284EB5DD2968C1650D6D0F6DD757@AcuExch.aculab.com> <20140314092731.GB2579@openss7.org> <063D6719AE5E284EB5DD2968C1650D6D0F6DD7C4@AcuExch.aculab.com> <20140314095107.GC2579@openss7.org> <063D6719AE5E284EB5DD2968C1650D6D0F6DD8BC@AcuExch.aculab.com> <20140314101529.GD2579@openss7.org> <063D6719AE5E284EB5DD2968C1650D6D0F6DD91E@AcuExch.aculab.com> <20140314111605.GE2579@openss7.org>
In-Reply-To: <20140314111605.GE2579@openss7.org>
Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
x-originating-ip: [10.202.99.200]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Virus-Scanned: by iCritical at mx0.aculab.com
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sigtran/-Wa5hEcsyokzKRVLungKo_ZMxRw
Cc: "sigtran@ietf.org" <sigtran@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Sigtran] Conceptual doubt between an ASP and SGP
X-BeenThere: sigtran@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Signaling Transport <sigtran.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/sigtran>, <mailto:sigtran-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sigtran/>
List-Post: <mailto:sigtran@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sigtran-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sigtran>, <mailto:sigtran-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2014 11:42:03 -0000

From: Brian F. G. Bidulock=20
> David,
>=20
> David Laight wrote:                         (Fri, 14 Mar 2014 11:02:08)
> > >
> > > GTT does not alter the OPC of the original message.
> > >
> > > Calling Party Address is only used to identify the caller for
> > > transaction processing and is not used for reverse routing.
> > >
> > > GTT can only exist at an intermediate node in the SS7 network
> > > that has the transfer function.  That is the definition of
> > > intermediate node in SS7.
> >
> > You seem to be confusing the MTP3 STP functionality (which forwards
> > messages based on the routing label - and doesn't modify the label)
> > with SCCP forwarding based on GT lookup.
> > If SCCP forwards a messages (with or without rewriting either GT)
> > then MTP3 will put the local pointcode in the routing label.
> >
> > SCCP can forward messages in a node that doesn't have MTP3 STP
> > functionality. Indeed it can forward the message into an entirely
> > different SS7 network. It could, for example, forward a message
> > from an ITU network into an ANSI one (leaving you with ITU TCAP
> > embedded in ANSI SCCP).
>=20
>=20
> Not confused: read Q.714/2.7.5.

Yes, but what has that to do with the colour of sliced bread?
Section 2.7.5.1 is all about ensuring that the original opc
is available when the calling party address is 'route on pc+ssn'.

> But you didn't answer my question: why would you want to mislabel it?

It would be mislabelled if the routing label contained anything other than
the pointcode of the last SCCP node that processed the message.

Indeed the MTP3 should ensure that all messages from userparts contain
the local pointcode (or a known alias pointcode) as the originating pointco=
de
in the routing label. The only messages it should send with any
other originating pointcode are those forwarded by the MTP3 STP code.

SCCP can relay messages in a system that doesn't have MTP3 STP
functionality.

	David




From nobody Fri Mar 14 23:02:06 2014
Return-Path: <bidulock@openss7.org>
X-Original-To: sigtran@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sigtran@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 500F91A0045 for <sigtran@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 14 Mar 2014 23:02:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.6
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, J_CHICKENPOX_12=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PWKs8LtxyEUb for <sigtran@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 14 Mar 2014 23:02:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gw.openss7.com (gw.openss7.com [142.59.210.7]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 924D41A0039 for <sigtran@ietf.org>; Fri, 14 Mar 2014 23:02:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wilbur.pigworks.openss7.net (ns5.evil.openss7.net [192.168.9.5]) by gw.openss7.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/Debian-5+lenny1) with ESMTP id s2F61msF001315; Sat, 15 Mar 2014 00:01:48 -0600
Received: from wilbur.pigworks.openss7.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by wilbur.pigworks.openss7.net (8.14.3/8.14.3/Debian-5+lenny1) with ESMTP id s2F61lll019800; Sat, 15 Mar 2014 00:01:47 -0600
Received: (from brian@localhost) by wilbur.pigworks.openss7.net (8.14.3/8.14.3/Submit) id s2F61l3u019799; Sat, 15 Mar 2014 00:01:47 -0600
Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2014 00:01:47 -0600
From: "Brian F. G. Bidulock" <bidulock@openss7.org>
To: David Laight <David.Laight@ACULAB.COM>
Message-ID: <20140315060147.GA19141@openss7.org>
Mail-Followup-To: David Laight <David.Laight@ACULAB.COM>, Ajay Garg <ajaygargnsit@gmail.com>, "sigtran@ietf.org" <sigtran@ietf.org>
References: <20140314083714.GA2579@openss7.org> <063D6719AE5E284EB5DD2968C1650D6D0F6DD757@AcuExch.aculab.com> <20140314092731.GB2579@openss7.org> <063D6719AE5E284EB5DD2968C1650D6D0F6DD7C4@AcuExch.aculab.com> <20140314095107.GC2579@openss7.org> <063D6719AE5E284EB5DD2968C1650D6D0F6DD8BC@AcuExch.aculab.com> <20140314101529.GD2579@openss7.org> <063D6719AE5E284EB5DD2968C1650D6D0F6DD91E@AcuExch.aculab.com> <20140314111605.GE2579@openss7.org> <063D6719AE5E284EB5DD2968C1650D6D0F6DD9AA@AcuExch.aculab.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <063D6719AE5E284EB5DD2968C1650D6D0F6DD9AA@AcuExch.aculab.com>
Organization: http://www.openss7.org/
Dsn-Notification-To: <bidulock@openss7.org>
X-Spam-To: <blockme@openss7.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sigtran/gK7Mb7IU4zb3b8rTbcAvR2wS-pw
Cc: "sigtran@ietf.org" <sigtran@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Sigtran] Conceptual doubt between an ASP and SGP
X-BeenThere: sigtran@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
Reply-To: bidulock@openss7.org
List-Id: Signaling Transport <sigtran.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/sigtran>, <mailto:sigtran-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sigtran/>
List-Post: <mailto:sigtran@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sigtran-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sigtran>, <mailto:sigtran-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2014 06:02:04 -0000

David,

David Laight wrote:                           (Fri, 14 Mar 2014 11:40:47)
> > 
> > Not confused: read Q.714/2.7.5.
> 
> Yes, but what has that to do with the colour of sliced bread?
> Section 2.7.5.1 is all about ensuring that the original opc
> is available when the calling party address is 'route on pc+ssn'.
> 
> > But you didn't answer my question: why would you want to mislabel it?
> 
> It would be mislabelled if the routing label contained anything other than
> the pointcode of the last SCCP node that processed the message.

Following are two frames from a simple TCAP query/response pair.

In the query, following Q.714/2.7.5, as the sender of the TCAP query
wants a response, it needs to set the routing indicator in the calling
party address to Route on SSN.  In this case, the originating SSP
places its OPC in the calling party address as well.  The message is
sent from the SSP 5-2-181 to the STP GTT alias point code 249-150-253.
This is not the point code of the STP.  It is an alias shared between
STP pairs.  The STP point codes are actually 249-40-0 and 249-41-0.

Frame 651: 91 bytes on wire (728 bits), 91 bytes captured (728 bits)
Message Transfer Part Level 2
Message Transfer Part Level 3
    Service information octet
        10.. .... = Network indicator: National network (0x02)
        ..01 .... = ANSI Priority: 1
        .... 0011 = Service indicator: SCCP (0x03)
    Routing label
        DPC: 249-150-253 (16357117) (0xf996fd)
            1111 1001 .... .... .... .... = DPC Network: 249
            .... .... 1001 0110 .... .... = DPC Cluster: 150
            .... .... .... .... 1111 1101 = DPC Member: 253
        OPC: 5-2-181 (328373) (0x502b5)
            0000 0101 .... .... .... .... = OPC Network: 5
            .... .... 0000 0010 .... .... = OPC Cluster: 2
            .... .... .... .... 1011 0101 = OPC Member: 181
        0000 1011 = Signalling Link Selector: 11
Signalling Connection Control Part
    Message Type: Unitdata (0x09)
    .... 0000 = Class: 0x00
    0000 .... = Message handling: No special options (0x00)
    Pointer to first Mandatory Variable parameter: 3
    Pointer to second Mandatory Variable parameter: 9
    Pointer to third Mandatory Variable parameter: 14
    Called Party address (6 bytes)
        Address Indicator
            1... .... = National Indicator: Address coded to National standard (0x01)
            .0.. .... = Routing Indicator: Route on GT (0x00)
            ..00 10.. = Global Title Indicator: Translation Type only (0x02)
            .... ..0. = Point Code Indicator: Point Code not present (0x00)
            .... ...1 = SubSystem Number Indicator: SSN present (0x01)
        SubSystem Number: SSN not known/not used (0)
        Global Title 0x2 (4 bytes)
            Translation Type: 0xfe
            Called Party Digits: 800572
                Called or Calling GT Digits: 800572
                Number of Called Party Digits: 6
    Calling Party address (5 bytes)
        Address Indicator
            1... .... = National Indicator: Address coded to National standard (0x01)
            .1.. .... = Routing Indicator: Route on SSN (0x01)
            ..00 00.. = Global Title Indicator: No Global Title (0x00)
            .... ..1. = Point Code Indicator: Point Code present (0x01)
            .... ...1 = SubSystem Number Indicator: SSN present (0x01)
        SubSystem Number: BSSAP/BSAP (254)
        PC: 5-2-181 (328373) (0x502b5)
            0000 0101 .... .... .... .... = PC Network: 5
            .... .... 0000 0010 .... .... = PC Cluster: 2
            .... .... .... .... 1011 0101 = PC Member: 181
ANSI Transaction Capabilities Application Part

The STP (and we can only tell which one by looking at the link upon which
the message was sent) performs GTT and sends the message on to SCP without
altering the OPC (in the Calling Party Address).  In this case the query
was forwarded to one of 4 SCPs in a pool: the SCP with point code 249-150-29.

In frame 654, the SSP receives the TCAP response directly from the SCP as
you can see from the OPC and DPC in the MTP label and thus utilizes the
transfer function of some STP in the network (again, only the incoming link
can identify which one).

Frame 654: 71 bytes on wire (568 bits), 71 bytes captured (568 bits)
Message Transfer Part Level 2
Message Transfer Part Level 3
    Service information octet
        10.. .... = Network indicator: National network (0x02)
        ..01 .... = ANSI Priority: 1
        .... 0011 = Service indicator: SCCP (0x03)
    Routing label
        DPC: 5-2-181 (328373) (0x502b5)
            0000 0101 .... .... .... .... = DPC Network: 5
            .... .... 0000 0010 .... .... = DPC Cluster: 2
            .... .... .... .... 1011 0101 = DPC Member: 181
        OPC: 249-150-29 (16356893) (0xf9961d)
            1111 1001 .... .... .... .... = OPC Network: 249
            .... .... 1001 0110 .... .... = OPC Cluster: 150
            .... .... .... .... 0001 1101 = OPC Member: 29
        0100 1000 = Signalling Link Selector: 72
Signalling Connection Control Part
    Message Type: Unitdata (0x09)
    .... 0000 = Class: 0x00
    0000 .... = Message handling: No special options (0x00)
    Pointer to first Mandatory Variable parameter: 3
    Pointer to second Mandatory Variable parameter: 5
    Pointer to third Mandatory Variable parameter: 7
    Called Party address (2 bytes)
        Address Indicator
            1... .... = National Indicator: Address coded to National standard (0x01)
            .1.. .... = Routing Indicator: Route on SSN (0x01)
            ..00 00.. = Global Title Indicator: No Global Title (0x00)
            .... ..0. = Point Code Indicator: Point Code not present (0x00)
            .... ...1 = SubSystem Number Indicator: SSN present (0x01)
        SubSystem Number: BSSAP/BSAP (254)
    Calling Party address (2 bytes)
        Address Indicator
            1... .... = National Indicator: Address coded to National standard (0x01)
            .1.. .... = Routing Indicator: Route on SSN (0x01)
            ..00 00.. = Global Title Indicator: No Global Title (0x00)
            .... ..0. = Point Code Indicator: Point Code not present (0x00)
            .... ...1 = SubSystem Number Indicator: SSN present (0x01)
        SubSystem Number: BSSAP/BSAP (254)
ANSI Transaction Capabilities Application Part

MSC/HLR location query/response pairs function the same.

So, you are incorrect: SCCP cannot function in even the simplest of
query/response pairs without using the transfer function capability
of an intermediate node in the network.

Nevertheless, I and a few others defined the point-to-point IPSP
behaviour for M3UA and it is not the definition you seem to want
to overlay over the standard, which sounds more like hop-to-hop.

--brian

-- 
Brian F. G. Bidulock
bidulock@openss7.org
http://www.openss7.org/


From nobody Sun Mar 16 08:42:00 2014
Return-Path: <ajaygargnsit@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: sigtran@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sigtran@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 189E61A01E9 for <sigtran@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 16 Mar 2014 08:41:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EMETSHV2SS4M for <sigtran@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 16 Mar 2014 08:41:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pd0-x22a.google.com (mail-pd0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c02::22a]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47A4E1A0211 for <sigtran@ietf.org>; Sun, 16 Mar 2014 08:41:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pd0-f170.google.com with SMTP id v10so4589959pde.1 for <sigtran@ietf.org>; Sun, 16 Mar 2014 08:41:47 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;  h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=z5w4PH9SyrR8Zx+o2K0GwL//lz+QAc5hyM9KGDs496E=; b=mIBj4oLefmuJzLVXu/8yETuc5vWOeE5vRwqVGp+P4KGDvp3zhrz2uaj5qVPbpIkAMe 4VKGIDa0lHn8JkyqaBjWwDaOiVFwcw5W/cB5FE+9o6yYVkFGR2EUaolHeXgvNhXC0nsY fD6gMHado/26MDfyebzrWDhpVqCeeQntodkj3zttN2W/X4xaZ01J7hNjdi0PokosLnI4 s587PsS9wvdjIbLPm+OsT2xS0QpubDtvCg71qkhJlEEK4/CA6FrsKJdvCNxZawtiWbau NpFWLawBjgUvxRuUa18WbFiIcIar4zP4sPx52QMuX1hTw+v6PVELIMIHkVyv6zSVQKIJ QFzQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.68.229.68 with SMTP id so4mr20738752pbc.110.1394984507632; Sun, 16 Mar 2014 08:41:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.70.92.9 with HTTP; Sun, 16 Mar 2014 08:41:47 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2014 21:11:47 +0530
Message-ID: <CAHP4M8W7PqvwNo2axK0GF2efMY4AvuJPepRQyWi7OQYovNR4rQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Ajay Garg <ajaygargnsit@gmail.com>
To: "sigtran@ietf.org" <sigtran@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b162fd50b746304f4bb24ef
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sigtran/dpwBI4YLEVJ2ulA7FYeeGvadKQ8
Subject: [Sigtran] Query for "Routing Context"
X-BeenThere: sigtran@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Signaling Transport <sigtran.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/sigtran>, <mailto:sigtran-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sigtran/>
List-Post: <mailto:sigtran@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sigtran-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sigtran>, <mailto:sigtran-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2014 15:41:58 -0000

--047d7b162fd50b746304f4bb24ef
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

Hi all.

I have exactly the same query as asked already at
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sigtran/current/msg08662.html.

In particular, where is the mapping/indexing for Routing-Key <->
Routing-Context kept? At the AS?  At the SG?  Both?
A Hello-worldish state-machine diagram will be highly appreciated !! :)


Thanks and Regards,
Ajay

--047d7b162fd50b746304f4bb24ef
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div>Hi all.<br><br></div><div>I have exactly the same que=
ry as asked already at <a href=3D"http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sigt=
ran/current/msg08662.html">http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sigtran/cur=
rent/msg08662.html</a>.<br>
<br></div><div>In particular, where is the mapping/indexing for Routing-Key=
 &lt;-&gt; Routing-Context kept? At the AS?=A0 At the SG?=A0 Both?<br></div=
><div>A Hello-worldish state-machine diagram will be highly appreciated !! =
:)<br>
<br><br></div><div>Thanks and Regards,<br>Ajay<br></div>
</div>

--047d7b162fd50b746304f4bb24ef--


From nobody Sun Mar 16 14:27:01 2014
Return-Path: <bidulock@openss7.org>
X-Original-To: sigtran@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sigtran@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B35001A0312 for <sigtran@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 16 Mar 2014 14:27:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wjgf8l9Nf7gX for <sigtran@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 16 Mar 2014 14:26:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gw.openss7.com (gw.openss7.com [142.59.210.7]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BEE371A0310 for <sigtran@ietf.org>; Sun, 16 Mar 2014 14:26:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wilbur.pigworks.openss7.net (ns5.evil.openss7.net [192.168.9.5]) by gw.openss7.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/Debian-5+lenny1) with ESMTP id s2GLQmAn012423; Sun, 16 Mar 2014 15:26:48 -0600
Received: from wilbur.pigworks.openss7.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by wilbur.pigworks.openss7.net (8.14.3/8.14.3/Debian-5+lenny1) with ESMTP id s2GLQmr9017402; Sun, 16 Mar 2014 15:26:48 -0600
Received: (from brian@localhost) by wilbur.pigworks.openss7.net (8.14.3/8.14.3/Submit) id s2GLQmAW017401; Sun, 16 Mar 2014 15:26:48 -0600
Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2014 15:26:48 -0600
From: "Brian F. G. Bidulock" <bidulock@openss7.org>
To: Ajay Garg <ajaygargnsit@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20140316212648.GA17004@openss7.org>
Mail-Followup-To: Ajay Garg <ajaygargnsit@gmail.com>, "sigtran@ietf.org" <sigtran@ietf.org>
References: <CAHP4M8W7PqvwNo2axK0GF2efMY4AvuJPepRQyWi7OQYovNR4rQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAHP4M8W7PqvwNo2axK0GF2efMY4AvuJPepRQyWi7OQYovNR4rQ@mail.gmail.com>
Organization: http://www.openss7.org/
Dsn-Notification-To: <bidulock@openss7.org>
X-Spam-To: <blockme@openss7.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sigtran/2RPPizs4dedV_Y2_bDGVYwzjKTA
Cc: "sigtran@ietf.org" <sigtran@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Sigtran] Query for "Routing Context"
X-BeenThere: sigtran@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
Reply-To: bidulock@openss7.org
List-Id: Signaling Transport <sigtran.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/sigtran>, <mailto:sigtran-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sigtran/>
List-Post: <mailto:sigtran@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sigtran-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sigtran>, <mailto:sigtran-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2014 21:27:01 -0000

Ajay,

Please see comments below...

Ajay Garg wrote:                                 (Sun, 16 Mar 2014 21:11:47)
>    Hi all.
>    I have exactly the same query as asked already at
>    [1]http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sigtran/current/msg08662.html.

The answer to exactly that same query is already at
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sigtran/current/msg08664.html

>    In particular, where is the mapping/indexing for Routing-Key <->
>    Routing-Context kept? At the AS?  At the SG?  Both?

At the SG.  An ASP can discover a mapping using the dynamic registration
procedure.  If an ASP is statically configured it will need to be
statically configured.

>    A Hello-worldish state-machine diagram will be highly appreciated !! :)

  Table State        Action
  -----------        ------
  Empty ---------------+
                       |
                       v
                You fill it out
                       |
  Full <---------------+

  ;)

-- 
Brian F. G. Bidulock
bidulock@openss7.org
http://www.openss7.org/


From nobody Sun Mar 16 21:12:07 2014
Return-Path: <bidulock@openss7.org>
X-Original-To: sigtran@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sigtran@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A66F1A036D for <sigtran@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 16 Mar 2014 21:12:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.6
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, J_CHICKENPOX_12=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hS24kVVxdJeu for <sigtran@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 16 Mar 2014 21:12:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gw.openss7.com (gw.openss7.com [142.59.210.7]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 30A311A02BC for <sigtran@ietf.org>; Sun, 16 Mar 2014 21:12:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wilbur.pigworks.openss7.net (ns5.evil.openss7.net [192.168.9.5]) by gw.openss7.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/Debian-5+lenny1) with ESMTP id s2H4Bmku014122; Sun, 16 Mar 2014 22:11:48 -0600
Received: from wilbur.pigworks.openss7.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by wilbur.pigworks.openss7.net (8.14.3/8.14.3/Debian-5+lenny1) with ESMTP id s2H4BmnU022634; Sun, 16 Mar 2014 22:11:48 -0600
Received: (from brian@localhost) by wilbur.pigworks.openss7.net (8.14.3/8.14.3/Submit) id s2H4BkTC022633; Sun, 16 Mar 2014 22:11:46 -0600
Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2014 22:11:46 -0600
From: "Brian F. G. Bidulock" <bidulock@openss7.org>
To: Ajay Garg <ajaygargnsit@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20140317041146.GA22199@openss7.org>
Mail-Followup-To: Ajay Garg <ajaygargnsit@gmail.com>, "sigtran@ietf.org" <sigtran@ietf.org>
References: <CAHP4M8W7PqvwNo2axK0GF2efMY4AvuJPepRQyWi7OQYovNR4rQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAHP4M8W7PqvwNo2axK0GF2efMY4AvuJPepRQyWi7OQYovNR4rQ@mail.gmail.com>
Organization: http://www.openss7.org/
Dsn-Notification-To: <bidulock@openss7.org>
X-Spam-To: <blockme@openss7.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sigtran/kTHF9g02RhyLJ7nrwqVQiy0mSgs
Cc: "sigtran@ietf.org" <sigtran@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Sigtran] Query for "Routing Context"
X-BeenThere: sigtran@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
Reply-To: bidulock@openss7.org
List-Id: Signaling Transport <sigtran.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/sigtran>, <mailto:sigtran-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sigtran/>
List-Post: <mailto:sigtran@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sigtran-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sigtran>, <mailto:sigtran-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2014 04:12:05 -0000

Ajay,

You might want to take a look at a couple of MIBS for M3UA
that I wrote years ago.  These are not standardized
(unfortunately, the WG did not finalize an M3UA MIB before
shutting down); however, if you are used to reading SNMP mibs
they might be of some use to you in understanding the
provisioning challenges of the protocol.  You can view them
here:

  http://www.openss7.org/docs/OPENSS7-M3UA-TC.mib
  http://www.openss7.org/docs/OPENSS7-M3UA-ASP-MIB.mib
  http://www.openss7.org/docs/OPENSS7-M3UA-SGP-MIB.mib

They are named a little funny: the ASP-MIB handles
provisining of ASP information at an SG; the SGP-MIB,
SGP and SG information at an ASP.  You will find the
RC table in the m3uaAspRcTable element in the ASP-MIB.

Hope that helps...

-- 
Brian F. G. Bidulock
bidulock@openss7.org
http://www.openss7.org/


From nobody Sun Mar 16 22:54:13 2014
Return-Path: <ajaygargnsit@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: sigtran@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sigtran@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A11921A038E for <sigtran@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 16 Mar 2014 22:54:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5mCcyVf1uab5 for <sigtran@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 16 Mar 2014 22:54:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pb0-x22e.google.com (mail-pb0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c01::22e]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B2AE1A02CC for <sigtran@ietf.org>; Sun, 16 Mar 2014 22:54:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pb0-f46.google.com with SMTP id rq2so5219804pbb.19 for <sigtran@ietf.org>; Sun, 16 Mar 2014 22:54:00 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;  h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=uWxb8soeoNe9zhgUjX+cqKyKHxwwuvhVtJ9Rl2eTCDA=; b=L4zxaFNtmlgvLkuMJ2C8ZwZR/qFWoWt6JIuB0m3kM8bRwW9sGcrukuyQ+NooF7SyTK WKwX0TyceRF5lg55B/GT/uiic/wCBSF7T/1vTK3blMnJ2ngjHZdMRvmsmcholZPpca3a HIaHh/h3p1icv2MsuQlOwqL+ugjvPESWnX96abJoACJYTIokPLoLHIDq9KV2tDObgxgV WBA+tI65IZ0P9+ll3DPb5T0DtMstgs++LPwy0klCqLAVrC9A2HnVOTtcFJdfsargiUvF gpRZDb499Nb8RavWDXkSUpzFWiRZQwcmtIwtZInH8AWkz4HKNj3688NIrMaWkbRUl96+ +uTw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.66.118.71 with SMTP id kk7mr23507190pab.14.1395035640559; Sun, 16 Mar 2014 22:54:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.70.92.9 with HTTP; Sun, 16 Mar 2014 22:54:00 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20140316212648.GA17004@openss7.org>
References: <CAHP4M8W7PqvwNo2axK0GF2efMY4AvuJPepRQyWi7OQYovNR4rQ@mail.gmail.com> <20140316212648.GA17004@openss7.org>
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2014 11:24:00 +0530
Message-ID: <CAHP4M8Ud+Rsr-8qfcw92daCFJtYvPU9wQXkmxsekkUGYS3pCsA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Ajay Garg <ajaygargnsit@gmail.com>
To: "bidulock@openss7.org" <bidulock@openss7.org>, "sigtran@ietf.org" <sigtran@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=e89a8ffbad05cdfe1204f4c70b7d
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sigtran/oVQpqT4VVAqsz8Hv_F_MWOEeHEw
Subject: Re: [Sigtran] Query for "Routing Context"
X-BeenThere: sigtran@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Signaling Transport <sigtran.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/sigtran>, <mailto:sigtran-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sigtran/>
List-Post: <mailto:sigtran@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sigtran-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sigtran>, <mailto:sigtran-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2014 05:54:10 -0000

--e89a8ffbad05cdfe1204f4c70b7d
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

Thanks Brian !!


One query ::
=========

As per 5.1.1.1 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4666#section-5.1.1.1>.
"Single ASP in an Application Server ("1+0" Sparing), No Registration", the
Routing-Context is initially sent from the ASP to SGP. Let's say, the ASP
fills in "RC_ASP".

In this case, is "RC_ASP" ANY integer, which the ASP and SGP then use? Or
"RC_ASP" needs to be "defined" in some way at the ASP (before being sent to
the SGP in the "ASP Active" message)?


Thanks and Regards,
Ajay


On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 2:56 AM, Brian F. G. Bidulock
<bidulock@openss7.org>wrote:

> Ajay,
>
> Please see comments below...
>
> Ajay Garg wrote:                                 (Sun, 16 Mar 2014
> 21:11:47)
> >    Hi all.
> >    I have exactly the same query as asked already at
> >    [1]http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sigtran/current/msg08662.html
> .
>
> The answer to exactly that same query is already at
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sigtran/current/msg08664.html
>
> >    In particular, where is the mapping/indexing for Routing-Key <->
> >    Routing-Context kept? At the AS?  At the SG?  Both?
>
> At the SG.  An ASP can discover a mapping using the dynamic registration
> procedure.  If an ASP is statically configured it will need to be
> statically configured.
>
> >    A Hello-worldish state-machine diagram will be highly appreciated !!
> :)
>
>   Table State        Action
>   -----------        ------
>   Empty ---------------+
>                        |
>                        v
>                 You fill it out
>                        |
>   Full <---------------+
>
>   ;)
>
> --
> Brian F. G. Bidulock
> bidulock@openss7.org
> http://www.openss7.org/
>

--e89a8ffbad05cdfe1204f4c70b7d
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div><div><div><div>Thanks Brian !!<br><br><br></div>One q=
uery ::<br>=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D<br><br></div>As per<a class=3D"" nam=
e=3D"section-5.1.1.1" href=3D"https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4666#section-5=
.1.1.1"> 5.1.1.1</a>.  &quot;Single ASP in an Application Server (&quot;1+0=
&quot; Sparing), No Registration<span class=3D"h5"></span>&quot;, the Routi=
ng-Context is initially sent from the ASP to SGP. Let&#39;s say, the ASP fi=
lls in &quot;RC_ASP&quot;.<br>
<br>In this case, is &quot;RC_ASP&quot; ANY integer, which the ASP and SGP =
then use? Or &quot;RC_ASP&quot; needs to be &quot;defined&quot; in some way=
 at the ASP (before being sent to the SGP in the &quot;ASP Active&quot; mes=
sage)?<br>
<br><br></div>Thanks and Regards,<br></div>Ajay<br><div class=3D"gmail_extr=
a"><br><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 2:56 AM, Bria=
n F. G. Bidulock <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:bidulock@openss7.o=
rg" target=3D"_blank">bidulock@openss7.org</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1p=
x #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Ajay,<br>
<br>
Please see comments below...<br>
<br>
Ajay Garg wrote: =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =
=A0 =A0 (Sun, 16 Mar 2014 21:11:47)<br>
<div class=3D"">&gt; =A0 =A0Hi all.<br>
&gt; =A0 =A0I have exactly the same query as asked already at<br>
</div>&gt; =A0 =A0[1]<a href=3D"http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sigtra=
n/current/msg08662.html" target=3D"_blank">http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive=
/web/sigtran/current/msg08662.html</a>.<br>
<br>
The answer to exactly that same query is already at<br>
<a href=3D"http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sigtran/current/msg08664.ht=
ml" target=3D"_blank">http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sigtran/current/=
msg08664.html</a><br>
<div class=3D""><br>
&gt; =A0 =A0In particular, where is the mapping/indexing for Routing-Key &l=
t;-&gt;<br>
&gt; =A0 =A0Routing-Context kept? At the AS? =A0At the SG? =A0Both?<br>
<br>
</div>At the SG. =A0An ASP can discover a mapping using the dynamic registr=
ation<br>
procedure. =A0If an ASP is statically configured it will need to be<br>
statically configured.<br>
<div class=3D""><br>
&gt; =A0 =A0A Hello-worldish state-machine diagram will be highly appreciat=
ed !! :)<br>
<br>
</div>=A0 Table State =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Action<br>
=A0 ----------- =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0------<br>
=A0 Empty ---------------+<br>
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0|<br>
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0v<br>
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 You fill it out<br>
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0|<br>
=A0 Full &lt;---------------+<br>
<br>
=A0 ;)<br>
<span class=3D"HOEnZb"><font color=3D"#888888"><br>
--<br>
Brian F. G. Bidulock<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:bidulock@openss7.org">bidulock@openss7.org</a><br>
<a href=3D"http://www.openss7.org/" target=3D"_blank">http://www.openss7.or=
g/</a><br>
</font></span></blockquote></div><br><br clear=3D"all"><br>
</div></div>

--e89a8ffbad05cdfe1204f4c70b7d--


From nobody Sun Mar 16 23:00:38 2014
Return-Path: <ajaygargnsit@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: sigtran@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sigtran@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 547271A038E for <sigtran@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 16 Mar 2014 23:00:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3JuotlyLv7Dr for <sigtran@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 16 Mar 2014 23:00:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pb0-x22f.google.com (mail-pb0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c01::22f]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 25EA91A02CC for <sigtran@ietf.org>; Sun, 16 Mar 2014 23:00:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pb0-f47.google.com with SMTP id up15so5253623pbc.20 for <sigtran@ietf.org>; Sun, 16 Mar 2014 23:00:25 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;  h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=Ma94pudYrSVw42nZ5as7wmsIeTuyyWtB+ffKj6eMhtA=; b=z25phfea/YLjJqq0A7mqDTGzrp69jMt1XNHYThkIX4taaIvi3sY7wE8CxOhauF3mA4 QmnFD2KfHtC0NQbw87riBtL0DTinjL+0u7JrQidaecOnkhIGG4hLyZzMXAnD2d0BG8gR oJK+B2VARI4HBEMAkhVZjc/4xRBffdQrXBh5PleYcnTtKEHreStorbdvuRF2wueNG6l6 Mgu5O80yfEvem9DYXxNt+WxVqvYPHKP5jSXQwWUDq8CGRCNyeIWEYEU0gc8HAVda8+ck ZHltYo4fFrbajJhA2CF9/j2I4wod8/AJaJyfOzziAe7+wkdTogJ5WkPO2Kg9fho9pCH/ kMBA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.66.142.42 with SMTP id rt10mr24280022pab.1.1395036025408; Sun, 16 Mar 2014 23:00:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.70.92.9 with HTTP; Sun, 16 Mar 2014 23:00:25 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAHP4M8Ud+Rsr-8qfcw92daCFJtYvPU9wQXkmxsekkUGYS3pCsA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAHP4M8W7PqvwNo2axK0GF2efMY4AvuJPepRQyWi7OQYovNR4rQ@mail.gmail.com> <20140316212648.GA17004@openss7.org> <CAHP4M8Ud+Rsr-8qfcw92daCFJtYvPU9wQXkmxsekkUGYS3pCsA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2014 11:30:25 +0530
Message-ID: <CAHP4M8XwhB24HpmwHCJPTZnYaz+MJiUp5fDtD23TuGz1fULubQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Ajay Garg <ajaygargnsit@gmail.com>
To: "bidulock@openss7.org" <bidulock@openss7.org>, "sigtran@ietf.org" <sigtran@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1133048abe512304f4c722c9
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sigtran/tAjKOpvX3LnFksHuSe9rI3fFxFg
Subject: Re: [Sigtran] Query for "Routing Context"
X-BeenThere: sigtran@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Signaling Transport <sigtran.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/sigtran>, <mailto:sigtran-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sigtran/>
List-Post: <mailto:sigtran@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sigtran-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sigtran>, <mailto:sigtran-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2014 06:00:35 -0000

--001a1133048abe512304f4c722c9
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

Brian.

Oops.. just saw your other mail.. guess
http://www.openss7.org/docs/OPENSS7-M3UA-ASP-MIB.mib is what I need !!
Sorry for the noise :-\


Sorry, Thanks and Regards,
Ajay


On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 11:24 AM, Ajay Garg <ajaygargnsit@gmail.com> wrote:

> Thanks Brian !!
>
>
> One query ::
> =========
>
> As per 5.1.1.1 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4666#section-5.1.1.1>.
> "Single ASP in an Application Server ("1+0" Sparing), No Registration",
> the Routing-Context is initially sent from the ASP to SGP. Let's say, the
> ASP fills in "RC_ASP".
>
> In this case, is "RC_ASP" ANY integer, which the ASP and SGP then use? Or
> "RC_ASP" needs to be "defined" in some way at the ASP (before being sent to
> the SGP in the "ASP Active" message)?
>
>
> Thanks and Regards,
> Ajay
>
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 2:56 AM, Brian F. G. Bidulock <
> bidulock@openss7.org> wrote:
>
>> Ajay,
>>
>> Please see comments below...
>>
>> Ajay Garg wrote:                                 (Sun, 16 Mar 2014
>> 21:11:47)
>> >    Hi all.
>> >    I have exactly the same query as asked already at
>> >    [1]
>> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sigtran/current/msg08662.html.
>>
>> The answer to exactly that same query is already at
>> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sigtran/current/msg08664.html
>>
>> >    In particular, where is the mapping/indexing for Routing-Key <->
>> >    Routing-Context kept? At the AS?  At the SG?  Both?
>>
>> At the SG.  An ASP can discover a mapping using the dynamic registration
>> procedure.  If an ASP is statically configured it will need to be
>> statically configured.
>>
>> >    A Hello-worldish state-machine diagram will be highly appreciated !!
>> :)
>>
>>   Table State        Action
>>   -----------        ------
>>   Empty ---------------+
>>                        |
>>                        v
>>                 You fill it out
>>                        |
>>   Full <---------------+
>>
>>   ;)
>>
>> --
>> Brian F. G. Bidulock
>> bidulock@openss7.org
>> http://www.openss7.org/
>>
>
>
>
>


-- 
Regards,
Ajay

--001a1133048abe512304f4c722c9
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div><div><div>Brian.<br><br>Oops.. just saw your other ma=
il.. guess <a href=3D"http://www.openss7.org/docs/OPENSS7-M3UA-ASP-MIB.mib"=
>http://www.openss7.org/docs/OPENSS7-M3UA-ASP-MIB.mib</a> is what I need !!=
<br>
</div>Sorry for the noise :-\<br><br><br></div>Sorry, Thanks and Regards,<b=
r></div>Ajay<br></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><br><div class=3D"gmai=
l_quote">On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 11:24 AM, Ajay Garg <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;=
<a href=3D"mailto:ajaygargnsit@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">ajaygargnsit@gm=
ail.com</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1p=
x #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div><div><div><div>Thanks =
Brian !!<br><br><br></div>One query ::<br>=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D<br><b=
r></div>As per<a name=3D"144ce9a92a421b0a_section-5.1.1.1" href=3D"https://=
tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4666#section-5.1.1.1" target=3D"_blank"> 5.1.1.1</a>=
.  &quot;Single ASP in an Application Server (&quot;1+0&quot; Sparing), No =
Registration<span></span>&quot;, the Routing-Context is initially sent from=
 the ASP to SGP. Let&#39;s say, the ASP fills in &quot;RC_ASP&quot;.<br>

<br>In this case, is &quot;RC_ASP&quot; ANY integer, which the ASP and SGP =
then use? Or &quot;RC_ASP&quot; needs to be &quot;defined&quot; in some way=
 at the ASP (before being sent to the SGP in the &quot;ASP Active&quot; mes=
sage)?<br>

<br><br></div>Thanks and Regards,<br></div>Ajay<div><div class=3D"h5"><br><=
div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Mon, Mar 17=
, 2014 at 2:56 AM, Brian F. G. Bidulock <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"ma=
ilto:bidulock@openss7.org" target=3D"_blank">bidulock@openss7.org</a>&gt;</=
span> wrote:<br>

<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1p=
x #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Ajay,<br>
<br>
Please see comments below...<br>
<br>
Ajay Garg wrote: =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =
=A0 =A0 (Sun, 16 Mar 2014 21:11:47)<br>
<div>&gt; =A0 =A0Hi all.<br>
&gt; =A0 =A0I have exactly the same query as asked already at<br>
</div>&gt; =A0 =A0[1]<a href=3D"http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sigtra=
n/current/msg08662.html" target=3D"_blank">http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive=
/web/sigtran/current/msg08662.html</a>.<br>
<br>
The answer to exactly that same query is already at<br>
<a href=3D"http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sigtran/current/msg08664.ht=
ml" target=3D"_blank">http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sigtran/current/=
msg08664.html</a><br>
<div><br>
&gt; =A0 =A0In particular, where is the mapping/indexing for Routing-Key &l=
t;-&gt;<br>
&gt; =A0 =A0Routing-Context kept? At the AS? =A0At the SG? =A0Both?<br>
<br>
</div>At the SG. =A0An ASP can discover a mapping using the dynamic registr=
ation<br>
procedure. =A0If an ASP is statically configured it will need to be<br>
statically configured.<br>
<div><br>
&gt; =A0 =A0A Hello-worldish state-machine diagram will be highly appreciat=
ed !! :)<br>
<br>
</div>=A0 Table State =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Action<br>
=A0 ----------- =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0------<br>
=A0 Empty ---------------+<br>
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0|<br>
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0v<br>
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 You fill it out<br>
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0|<br>
=A0 Full &lt;---------------+<br>
<br>
=A0 ;)<br>
<span><font color=3D"#888888"><br>
--<br>
Brian F. G. Bidulock<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:bidulock@openss7.org" target=3D"_blank">bidulock@openss7.=
org</a><br>
<a href=3D"http://www.openss7.org/" target=3D"_blank">http://www.openss7.or=
g/</a><br>
</font></span></blockquote></div><br><br clear=3D"all"><br>
</div></div></div></div>
</blockquote></div><br><br clear=3D"all"><br>-- <br>Regards,<br>Ajay<br>
</div>

--001a1133048abe512304f4c722c9--


From nobody Wed Mar 26 21:18:38 2014
Return-Path: <bidulock@openss7.org>
X-Original-To: sigtran@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sigtran@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D6FB1A043F for <sigtran@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 26 Mar 2014 21:18:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qRgFqs7FaRA6 for <sigtran@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 26 Mar 2014 21:18:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gw.openss7.com (gw.openss7.com [142.59.210.7]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B3741A043E for <sigtran@ietf.org>; Wed, 26 Mar 2014 21:18:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wilbur.pigworks.openss7.net (ns5.evil.openss7.net [192.168.9.5]) by gw.openss7.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/Debian-5+lenny1) with ESMTP id s2R4Gi8x016313; Wed, 26 Mar 2014 22:16:44 -0600
Received: from wilbur.pigworks.openss7.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by wilbur.pigworks.openss7.net (8.14.3/8.14.3/Debian-5+lenny1) with ESMTP id s2R4GilR013558; Wed, 26 Mar 2014 22:16:44 -0600
Received: (from brian@localhost) by wilbur.pigworks.openss7.net (8.14.3/8.14.3/Submit) id s2R4GhuH013557; Wed, 26 Mar 2014 22:16:43 -0600
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2014 22:16:43 -0600
From: "Brian F. G. Bidulock" <bidulock@openss7.org>
To: Nagesh shamnur <nagesh.shamnur@huawei.com>
Message-ID: <20140327041643.GA13426@openss7.org>
Mail-Followup-To: Nagesh shamnur <nagesh.shamnur@huawei.com>, "sigtran@ietf.org" <sigtran@ietf.org>, Rajith Raveendranath <rajith.raveendranath@huawei.com>
References: <4AC96705FB868F42B2075BA50F806DEB3789230B@szxeml512-mbs.china.huawei.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <4AC96705FB868F42B2075BA50F806DEB3789230B@szxeml512-mbs.china.huawei.com>
Organization: http://www.openss7.org/
Dsn-Notification-To: <bidulock@openss7.org>
X-Spam-To: <blockme@openss7.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sigtran/PTQvnqlpMSjH3kSEW-Eo6df6dSQ
Cc: "sigtran@ietf.org" <sigtran@ietf.org>, Rajith Raveendranath <rajith.raveendranath@huawei.com>
Subject: Re: [Sigtran] Query Regarding RC parameter
X-BeenThere: sigtran@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
Reply-To: bidulock@openss7.org
List-Id: Signaling Transport <sigtran.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/sigtran>, <mailto:sigtran-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sigtran/>
List-Post: <mailto:sigtran@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sigtran-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sigtran>, <mailto:sigtran-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2014 04:18:37 -0000

Nagesh,

Per the RFC the RC is a 32-bit unsigned integer.  Every value from
0x00000000 to 0xffffffff is a valid 32-bit unsigned integer.  Why
would you not consider it valid?

--brian

Nagesh shamnur wrote:                                (Thu, 27 Mar 2014 01:54:05)
>    Hi Group,
> 
>                    I have a query about the parameter RC as per the RFC
>    4666. As per that, should we consider 0xFFFFFFFF as a valid routing
>    context.
> 
> 
>    Thanks and Regards,
> 
>    Nagesh.

-- 
Brian F. G. Bidulock
bidulock@openss7.org
http://www.openss7.org/


From nobody Fri Mar 28 04:49:27 2014
Return-Path: <ajaygargnsit@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: sigtran@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sigtran@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7BECC1A0535 for <sigtran@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 28 Mar 2014 04:49:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nZV50AOrLY-i for <sigtran@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 28 Mar 2014 04:49:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pb0-x22b.google.com (mail-pb0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c01::22b]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 52F731A050E for <sigtran@ietf.org>; Fri, 28 Mar 2014 04:49:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pb0-f43.google.com with SMTP id um1so4889469pbc.16 for <sigtran@ietf.org>; Fri, 28 Mar 2014 04:49:23 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;  h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=cheNPnh5grkgXuFWaYrI6yjIJv+J08glLSghq90DdDc=; b=MCwwKISUgojABde167AE6ULxPAUVhSIPLKF9caPis0hhQHoi7nVFlD9wGGf2ZuJrre M5coO4utndSMQHNN3Kf8CWisNuv5zMjntrv9geakM/Eqlb+S0AsWP4YTubBTutcATyfQ 4DMiDOT7QmqfsXKd2ANHxWUJM1oZTSIYXVdvJYXUg3ETyeFdoIellLgBYO9jBsAxRUrT 6iySLslzYlkMrnl/nVfkB34XHYwxkBxUkhKFs/QueumMXj5oir/7vDMnFNfgXViEV82q tZlU86FX3jV4zQen9MT/5MWSGM7OHfPQmdfX2VGceA94vGrlGLW1lD+o/a/oTTJKwafL YD7g==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.66.142.42 with SMTP id rt10mr8248935pab.1.1396007363315; Fri, 28 Mar 2014 04:49:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.70.92.9 with HTTP; Fri, 28 Mar 2014 04:49:23 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2014 17:19:23 +0530
Message-ID: <CAHP4M8UQeDtPf43a4cTWNd-3=JTPA=RpZ9QeH6gRABtdTwywvA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Ajay Garg <ajaygargnsit@gmail.com>
To: "sigtran@ietf.org" <sigtran@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1133048afe8c8404f5a94aff
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sigtran/RnYkKhJtADOXXZvli1_nq3RbDZM
Subject: [Sigtran] Query regarding SLC
X-BeenThere: sigtran@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Signaling Transport <sigtran.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/sigtran>, <mailto:sigtran-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sigtran/>
List-Post: <mailto:sigtran@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sigtran-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sigtran>, <mailto:sigtran-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2014 11:49:26 -0000

--001a1133048afe8c8404f5a94aff
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

Hi all.

Does SLC select a "SCTP-link" within a "SCTP-linkset", or a "stream" within
a "SCTP-link", or both?


Will be grateful for clarifications.


Thanks and Regards,
Ajay

--001a1133048afe8c8404f5a94aff
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div><div><div>Hi all.<br><br></div><div>Does SLC select a=
 &quot;SCTP-link&quot; within a &quot;SCTP-linkset&quot;, or a &quot;stream=
&quot; within a &quot;SCTP-link&quot;, or both?<br><br><br></div><div>Will =
be grateful for clarifications.<br>
<br></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><br>Thanks and Regards,<br>A=
jay<br>
</div></div></div></div></div></div>

--001a1133048afe8c8404f5a94aff--


From nobody Fri Mar 28 04:52:26 2014
Return-Path: <ajaygargnsit@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: sigtran@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sigtran@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7522D1A0549 for <sigtran@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 28 Mar 2014 04:52:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id b2qBz-5nva8C for <sigtran@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 28 Mar 2014 04:52:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pb0-x230.google.com (mail-pb0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c01::230]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 209D31A050E for <sigtran@ietf.org>; Fri, 28 Mar 2014 04:52:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pb0-f48.google.com with SMTP id md12so4913567pbc.35 for <sigtran@ietf.org>; Fri, 28 Mar 2014 04:52:22 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;  h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=T9v4GAw0tWHtYj6/jDys2B4ECProXwel6um+7pWy6TQ=; b=WX8mz3m/hK8gNZc1oMCrPL5vyx1P7EA7+Ol3umckDx8GhWxR3E5PbsmCKWbevrbU4r TsRnnkIFHdjfCaX3nGkYact4GafQRs7uJz0pUa9irL3etgDCfjYjeWWCJKZQKkYWOvUy qg/0iswJnpbqNIx1QvWF48V0UjLp1Fp/CwfuJGtcl0/ccCHZRorL9l5s7gcOM2P3gDHB CM0UyUiCilHO0fNx+gnECYpMDoFew9ududxjJTxWQycclEH2kN/6YiuDZM0LZ3h9K84S TY8Ta6TXWv9QukbAkjT6ENiIFeW0J80D1TGny+BCv3/Wawdoo8DprJB4DDVGAWUvNseq 3YXA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.66.163.164 with SMTP id yj4mr8168187pab.91.1396007542059; Fri, 28 Mar 2014 04:52:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.70.92.9 with HTTP; Fri, 28 Mar 2014 04:52:22 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAHP4M8UQeDtPf43a4cTWNd-3=JTPA=RpZ9QeH6gRABtdTwywvA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAHP4M8UQeDtPf43a4cTWNd-3=JTPA=RpZ9QeH6gRABtdTwywvA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2014 17:22:22 +0530
Message-ID: <CAHP4M8Vwbb+r4om1kQWPeO+oo9tHYB+Q7i409nipYed9b0qaHA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Ajay Garg <ajaygargnsit@gmail.com>
To: "sigtran@ietf.org" <sigtran@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b86ec5ea5f69704f5a95554
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sigtran/JpY4wxpjasBwWD9IUBEHYNuQtAA
Subject: Re: [Sigtran] Query regarding SLC
X-BeenThere: sigtran@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Signaling Transport <sigtran.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/sigtran>, <mailto:sigtran-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sigtran/>
List-Post: <mailto:sigtran@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sigtran-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sigtran>, <mailto:sigtran-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2014 11:52:25 -0000

--047d7b86ec5ea5f69704f5a95554
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

Pardon me.. I meant "SLS".


On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 5:19 PM, Ajay Garg <ajaygargnsit@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi all.
>
> Does SLC select a "SCTP-link" within a "SCTP-linkset", or a "stream"
> within a "SCTP-link", or both?
>
>
> Will be grateful for clarifications.
>
>
> Thanks and Regards,
> Ajay
>



-- 
Regards,
Ajay

--047d7b86ec5ea5f69704f5a95554
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr">Pardon me.. I meant &quot;SLS&quot;.<br></div><div class=
=3D"gmail_extra"><br><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at=
 5:19 PM, Ajay Garg <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:ajaygargnsit@gm=
ail.com" target=3D"_blank">ajaygargnsit@gmail.com</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1p=
x #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div><div><div>Hi all.<br><=
br></div><div>Does SLC select a &quot;SCTP-link&quot; within a &quot;SCTP-l=
inkset&quot;, or a &quot;stream&quot; within a &quot;SCTP-link&quot;, or bo=
th?<br>
<br><br></div><div>Will be grateful for clarifications.<br>
<br></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><br>Thanks and Regards,<br>A=
jay<br>
</div></div></div></div></div></div>
</blockquote></div><br><br clear=3D"all"><br>-- <br>Regards,<br>Ajay<br>
</div>

--047d7b86ec5ea5f69704f5a95554--


From nobody Fri Mar 28 05:02:40 2014
Return-Path: <David.Laight@ACULAB.COM>
X-Original-To: sigtran@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sigtran@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1231B1A04E9 for <sigtran@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 28 Mar 2014 05:02:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.29
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.29 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_BAD_LINEBREAK=0.5, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mSPsTUezKqbe for <sigtran@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 28 Mar 2014 05:02:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx0.aculab.com (mx0.aculab.com [213.249.233.131]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 9DE3F1A031E for <sigtran@ietf.org>; Fri, 28 Mar 2014 05:02:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 13034 invoked from network); 28 Mar 2014 12:02:32 -0000
Received: from localhost (127.0.0.1) by mx0.aculab.com with SMTP; 28 Mar 2014 12:02:32 -0000
Received: from mx0.aculab.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mx0.aculab.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with SMTP id 09058-08 for <sigtran@ietf.org>; Fri, 28 Mar 2014 12:02:31 +0000 (GMT)
Received: (qmail 13013 invoked by uid 599); 28 Mar 2014 12:02:31 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO AcuExch.aculab.com) (10.202.163.4) by mx0.aculab.com (qpsmtpd/0.28) with ESMTP; Fri, 28 Mar 2014 12:02:31 +0000
Received: from ACUEXCH.Aculab.com ([::1]) by AcuExch.aculab.com ([::1]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Fri, 28 Mar 2014 12:01:41 +0000
From: David Laight <David.Laight@ACULAB.COM>
To: 'Ajay Garg' <ajaygargnsit@gmail.com>, "sigtran@ietf.org" <sigtran@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Sigtran] Query regarding SLC
Thread-Index: AQHPSnwW1lZuThHFi0WyS5rfzWWMxZr2ZXIQ
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2014 12:01:40 +0000
Message-ID: <063D6719AE5E284EB5DD2968C1650D6D0F6EB878@AcuExch.aculab.com>
References: <CAHP4M8UQeDtPf43a4cTWNd-3=JTPA=RpZ9QeH6gRABtdTwywvA@mail.gmail.com> <CAHP4M8Vwbb+r4om1kQWPeO+oo9tHYB+Q7i409nipYed9b0qaHA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAHP4M8Vwbb+r4om1kQWPeO+oo9tHYB+Q7i409nipYed9b0qaHA@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
x-originating-ip: [10.202.99.200]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_063D6719AE5E284EB5DD2968C1650D6D0F6EB878AcuExchaculabco_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Virus-Scanned: by iCritical at mx0.aculab.com
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sigtran/tL3b_O-VymWSkZ74rf3PiPti0cc
Subject: Re: [Sigtran] Query regarding SLC
X-BeenThere: sigtran@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Signaling Transport <sigtran.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/sigtran>, <mailto:sigtran-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sigtran/>
List-Post: <mailto:sigtran@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sigtran-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sigtran>, <mailto:sigtran-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2014 12:02:38 -0000

--_000_063D6719AE5E284EB5DD2968C1650D6D0F6EB878AcuExchaculabco_
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Messages sent by a userpart with the same sls must take the same route
through the network so that they arrive at the destination in the same orde=
r
as they were sent.

                David

From: Sigtran [mailto:sigtran-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ajay Garg
Sent: 28 March 2014 11:52
To: sigtran@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Sigtran] Query regarding SLC

Pardon me.. I meant "SLS".

On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 5:19 PM, Ajay Garg <ajaygargnsit@gmail.com<mailto:a=
jaygargnsit@gmail.com>> wrote:
Hi all.
Does SLC select a "SCTP-link" within a "SCTP-linkset", or a "stream" within=
 a "SCTP-link", or both?

Will be grateful for clarifications.

Thanks and Regards,
Ajay



--
Regards,
Ajay

=0D=0A
=0D=
--_000_063D6719AE5E284EB5DD2968C1650D6D0F6EB878AcuExchaculabco_
Content-Type: text/html; charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<html xmlns:v=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o=3D"urn:schemas-micr=
osoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" =
xmlns:m=3D"http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns=3D"http:=
//www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv=3D"Content-Type" content=3D"text/html; charset=3DWindows-1=
252">
<meta name=3D"Generator" content=3D"Microsoft Word 12 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
	{font-family:Calibri;
	panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
	{font-family:Tahoma;
	panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
	{margin:0cm;
	margin-bottom:.0001pt;
	font-size:12.0pt;
	font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
	{mso-style-priority:99;
	color:blue;
	text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
	{mso-style-priority:99;
	color:purple;
	text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
	{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
	font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
	color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
	{mso-style-type:export-only;}
@page WordSection1
	{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
	margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}
div.WordSection1
	{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext=3D"edit" spidmax=3D"1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext=3D"edit">
<o:idmap v:ext=3D"edit" data=3D"1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang=3D"EN-GB" link=3D"blue" vlink=3D"purple">
<div class=3D"WordSection1">
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-size:11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Ca=
libri&quot;,&quot;sans-serif&quot;;color:#1F497D">Messages sent by a userpa=
rt with the same sls must take the same route<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-size:11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Ca=
libri&quot;,&quot;sans-serif&quot;;color:#1F497D">through the network so th=
at they arrive at the destination in the same order<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-size:11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Ca=
libri&quot;,&quot;sans-serif&quot;;color:#1F497D">as they were sent.<o:p></=
o:p></span></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-size:11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Ca=
libri&quot;,&quot;sans-serif&quot;;color:#1F497D"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span><=
/p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-size:11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Ca=
libri&quot;,&quot;sans-serif&quot;;color:#1F497D">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&=
nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; David<o:p=
></o:p></span></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-size:11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Ca=
libri&quot;,&quot;sans-serif&quot;;color:#1F497D"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span><=
/p>
<div style=3D"border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm =
4.0pt">
<div>
<div style=3D"border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm =
0cm 0cm">
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><b><span lang=3D"EN-US" style=3D"font-size:10.0pt;fo=
nt-family:&quot;Tahoma&quot;,&quot;sans-serif&quot;">From:</span></b><span =
lang=3D"EN-US" style=3D"font-size:10.0pt;font-family:&quot;Tahoma&quot;,&qu=
ot;sans-serif&quot;"> Sigtran [mailto:sigtran-bounces@ietf.org]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Ajay Garg<br>
<b>Sent:</b> 28 March 2014 11:52<br>
<b>To:</b> sigtran@ietf.org<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [Sigtran] Query regarding SLC<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p>
<div>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal">Pardon me.. I meant &quot;SLS&quot;.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal" style=3D"margin-bottom:12.0pt"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p>
<div>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal">On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 5:19 PM, Ajay Garg &lt;<a hr=
ef=3D"mailto:ajaygargnsit@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">ajaygargnsit@gmail.c=
om</a>&gt; wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal" style=3D"margin-bottom:12.0pt">Hi all.<o:p></o:p></p=
>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal" style=3D"margin-bottom:12.0pt">Does SLC select a &qu=
ot;SCTP-link&quot; within a &quot;SCTP-linkset&quot;, or a &quot;stream&quo=
t; within a &quot;SCTP-link&quot;, or both?<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal" style=3D"margin-bottom:12.0pt">Will be grateful for =
clarifications.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><br>
Thanks and Regards,<br>
Ajay<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><br>
<br clear=3D"all">
<br>
-- <br>
Regards,<br>
Ajay<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>

<br>=
<FONT face=3DTahoma color=3D#484830 size=3D2></FONT>=0D=0A
<DIV><FONT face=3DTahoma color=3D#484830 size=3D1>Registered Address Lakeside, Br=
amley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1 1PT, UK<BR>Registration No: 13973=
86 (Wales)</FONT></DIV>=0D=0A
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#008000 size=3D2><FONT face=3DWebdings size=3D5>=0D=0A
<P align=3Dcenter><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#008000><FONT size=3D1><FONT face=3DWebd=
ings>P<STRONG> </STRONG></FONT><STRONG>Please consider the environment and d=
on't print this e-mail unless you really need to</STRONG></FONT></FONT></P><=
/FONT></FONT></DIV>
<br>=
</body>
</html>

--_000_063D6719AE5E284EB5DD2968C1650D6D0F6EB878AcuExchaculabco_--


From nobody Fri Mar 28 05:12:13 2014
Return-Path: <ajaygargnsit@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: sigtran@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sigtran@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D8D621A050E for <sigtran@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 28 Mar 2014 05:12:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.1
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.1 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BTubIsCThJj4 for <sigtran@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 28 Mar 2014 05:12:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pd0-x236.google.com (mail-pd0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c02::236]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF0761A031B for <sigtran@ietf.org>; Fri, 28 Mar 2014 05:12:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pd0-f182.google.com with SMTP id y10so4734806pdj.41 for <sigtran@ietf.org>; Fri, 28 Mar 2014 05:12:06 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;  h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=+TkDNKh0m/e4BQILQa/9aqe8N3K7C9LHD+vzUDf2N6s=; b=Twy20C3UI6/XKLKzqVMnMnQ970UbNum+47qkPN4Met//Nxy2kodt7u2XoS0ej1S9Z+ e1tEmNSdezLcI82PLAcQ9kQj49Q9rBtUXrw3VYhvTt1rUdIwgmEd63TJRUlmPgEtszKY JeVDlspWU+Eh3BrDLYXJ5PKj8lP0bpmYgVEXMiyXR+T3SeS3uloktdeeP0VpsgTu4PsA EMtlEBXfvdjunuROrxg2CCnd9YANM68iCmv9bOrnzu/DJovz5WPIP5N1XfnBjOLyaFy1 9qdiN0q6fxPVRJfj0i3V0CymbDG6sAXOrfV5Rj3mDshiXkztEbQKe9Hd81V6uqNS5BMq B6wg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.66.142.201 with SMTP id ry9mr8296525pab.14.1396008724785; Fri, 28 Mar 2014 05:12:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.70.92.9 with HTTP; Fri, 28 Mar 2014 05:12:04 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <063D6719AE5E284EB5DD2968C1650D6D0F6EB878@AcuExch.aculab.com>
References: <CAHP4M8UQeDtPf43a4cTWNd-3=JTPA=RpZ9QeH6gRABtdTwywvA@mail.gmail.com> <CAHP4M8Vwbb+r4om1kQWPeO+oo9tHYB+Q7i409nipYed9b0qaHA@mail.gmail.com> <063D6719AE5E284EB5DD2968C1650D6D0F6EB878@AcuExch.aculab.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2014 17:42:04 +0530
Message-ID: <CAHP4M8Vk5ZeXpfFL1hpAAHjzyGXomU01U9ZOqNYYy_3++azb1g@mail.gmail.com>
From: Ajay Garg <ajaygargnsit@gmail.com>
To: David Laight <David.Laight@aculab.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1134412624ef6404f5a99c37
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sigtran/gkCUP995tikfJ9CsP9eNzCf1adE
Cc: "sigtran@ietf.org" <sigtran@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Sigtran] Query regarding SLC
X-BeenThere: sigtran@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Signaling Transport <sigtran.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/sigtran>, <mailto:sigtran-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sigtran/>
List-Post: <mailto:sigtran@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sigtran-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sigtran>, <mailto:sigtran-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2014 12:12:11 -0000

--001a1134412624ef6404f5a99c37
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

Thanks David for the reply.


But I am still unclear about following points ::
===============================

1)
Is there a one-to-one mapping between a SLS and a SCTP-link? Or a
one-to-many mapping between a SLS and SCTP-links?


2)
Assuming there is a one-to-one mapping, still there might be chances of
sequencing-failures, *IF* different "streams" are selected within the same
SCTP-link?



Thanks and Regards,
Ajay


On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 5:31 PM, David Laight <David.Laight@aculab.com>wrote:

>  Messages sent by a userpart with the same sls must take the same route
>
> through the network so that they arrive at the destination in the same
> order
>
> as they were sent.
>
>
>
>                 David
>
>
>
> *From:* Sigtran [mailto:sigtran-bounces@ietf.org] *On Behalf Of *Ajay Garg
> *Sent:* 28 March 2014 11:52
> *To:* sigtran@ietf.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Sigtran] Query regarding SLC
>
>
>
> Pardon me.. I meant "SLS".
>
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 5:19 PM, Ajay Garg <ajaygargnsit@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi all.
>
> Does SLC select a "SCTP-link" within a "SCTP-linkset", or a "stream"
> within a "SCTP-link", or both?
>
>   Will be grateful for clarifications.
>
>
> Thanks and Regards,
> Ajay
>
>
>
>
> --
> Regards,
> Ajay
>
> Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1
> 1PT, UK
> Registration No: 1397386 (Wales)
>
> P *Please consider the environment and don't print this e-mail unless you
> really need to*
>
>


-- 
Regards,
Ajay

--001a1134412624ef6404f5a99c37
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div><div><div><div><div>Thanks David for the reply.<br><b=
r><br></div>But I am still unclear about following points :: <br>=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D<br><br>1)<br></div>Is there a one-to-one mapping between a SLS an=
d a SCTP-link? Or a one-to-many mapping between a SLS and SCTP-links?<br>
<br><br>2)<br></div>Assuming there is a one-to-one mapping, still there mig=
ht be chances of sequencing-failures, <u><i><b>IF</b></i></u> different &qu=
ot;streams&quot; are selected within the same SCTP-link?<br><br><br><br>
</div>Thanks and Regards,<br></div>Ajay<br><div><div><div><div><div><div><d=
iv class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Fri, Mar 28,=
 2014 at 5:31 PM, David Laight <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:Davi=
d.Laight@aculab.com" target=3D"_blank">David.Laight@aculab.com</a>&gt;</spa=
n> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1p=
x #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">





<div link=3D"blue" vlink=3D"purple" lang=3D"EN-GB">
<div>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-size:11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Ca=
libri&quot;,&quot;sans-serif&quot;;color:#1f497d">Messages sent by a userpa=
rt with the same sls must take the same route<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-size:11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Ca=
libri&quot;,&quot;sans-serif&quot;;color:#1f497d">through the network so th=
at they arrive at the destination in the same order<u></u><u></u></span></p=
>

<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-size:11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Ca=
libri&quot;,&quot;sans-serif&quot;;color:#1f497d">as they were sent.<u></u>=
<u></u></span></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-size:11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Ca=
libri&quot;,&quot;sans-serif&quot;;color:#1f497d"><u></u>=A0<u></u></span><=
/p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-size:11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Ca=
libri&quot;,&quot;sans-serif&quot;;color:#1f497d">=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 David<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-size:11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Ca=
libri&quot;,&quot;sans-serif&quot;;color:#1f497d"><u></u>=A0<u></u></span><=
/p>
<div style=3D"border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm =
4.0pt">
<div>
<div style=3D"border:none;border-top:solid #b5c4df 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm =
0cm 0cm">
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><b><span style=3D"font-size:10.0pt;font-family:&quot=
;Tahoma&quot;,&quot;sans-serif&quot;" lang=3D"EN-US">From:</span></b><span =
style=3D"font-size:10.0pt;font-family:&quot;Tahoma&quot;,&quot;sans-serif&q=
uot;" lang=3D"EN-US"> Sigtran [mailto:<a href=3D"mailto:sigtran-bounces@iet=
f.org" target=3D"_blank">sigtran-bounces@ietf.org</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Ajay Garg<br>
<b>Sent:</b> 28 March 2014 11:52<br>
<b>To:</b> <a href=3D"mailto:sigtran@ietf.org" target=3D"_blank">sigtran@ie=
tf.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [Sigtran] Query regarding SLC<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
</div><div><div class=3D"h5">
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><u></u>=A0<u></u></p>
<div>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal">Pardon me.. I meant &quot;SLS&quot;.<u></u><u></u></=
p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal" style=3D"margin-bottom:12.0pt"><u></u>=A0<u></u></p>
<div>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal">On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 5:19 PM, Ajay Garg &lt;<a hr=
ef=3D"mailto:ajaygargnsit@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">ajaygargnsit@gmail.c=
om</a>&gt; wrote:<u></u><u></u></p>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal" style=3D"margin-bottom:12.0pt">Hi all.<u></u><u></u>=
</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal" style=3D"margin-bottom:12.0pt">Does SLC select a &qu=
ot;SCTP-link&quot; within a &quot;SCTP-linkset&quot;, or a &quot;stream&quo=
t; within a &quot;SCTP-link&quot;, or both?<br>
<br>
<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal" style=3D"margin-bottom:12.0pt">Will be grateful for =
clarifications.<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><br>
Thanks and Regards,<br>
Ajay<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><br>
<br clear=3D"all">
<br>
-- <br>
Regards,<br>
Ajay<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</div></div></div>
</div>

<br><font color=3D"#484830" face=3D"Tahoma"></font>

<div><font size=3D"1" color=3D"#484830" face=3D"Tahoma">Registered Address =
Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1 1PT, UK<br>Registrat=
ion No: 1397386 (Wales)</font></div>

<div><font color=3D"#008000" face=3D"Arial"><font size=3D"5" face=3D"Webdin=
gs">

<p align=3D"center"><font color=3D"#008000" face=3D"Arial"><font size=3D"1"=
><font face=3D"Webdings">P<b> </b></font><b>Please consider the environment=
 and don&#39;t print this e-mail unless you really need to</b></font></font=
></p>
</font></font></div>
<br></div>

</blockquote></div><br><br clear=3D"all"><br>-- <br>Regards,<br>Ajay<br>
</div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div>

--001a1134412624ef6404f5a99c37--


From nobody Fri Mar 28 06:15:56 2014
Return-Path: <David.Laight@ACULAB.COM>
X-Original-To: sigtran@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sigtran@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 753821A0924 for <sigtran@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 28 Mar 2014 06:15:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.41
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.41 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_BAD_LINEBREAK=0.5, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uM6FHOuPm0HE for <sigtran@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 28 Mar 2014 06:15:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx0.aculab.com (mx0.aculab.com [213.249.233.131]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 7D7161A0926 for <sigtran@ietf.org>; Fri, 28 Mar 2014 06:15:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 30797 invoked from network); 28 Mar 2014 13:15:43 -0000
Received: from localhost (127.0.0.1) by mx0.aculab.com with SMTP; 28 Mar 2014 13:15:43 -0000
Received: from mx0.aculab.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mx0.aculab.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with SMTP id 25558-05 for <sigtran@ietf.org>; Fri, 28 Mar 2014 13:15:41 +0000 (GMT)
Received: (qmail 30787 invoked by uid 599); 28 Mar 2014 13:15:41 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO AcuExch.aculab.com) (10.202.163.4) by mx0.aculab.com (qpsmtpd/0.28) with ESMTP; Fri, 28 Mar 2014 13:15:41 +0000
Received: from ACUEXCH.Aculab.com ([::1]) by AcuExch.aculab.com ([::1]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Fri, 28 Mar 2014 13:14:51 +0000
From: David Laight <David.Laight@ACULAB.COM>
To: 'Ajay Garg' <ajaygargnsit@gmail.com>
Thread-Topic: [Sigtran] Query regarding SLC
Thread-Index: AQHPSnwW1lZuThHFi0WyS5rfzWWMxZr2ZXIQgAADcgCAABB6cA==
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2014 13:14:50 +0000
Message-ID: <063D6719AE5E284EB5DD2968C1650D6D0F6EB8E3@AcuExch.aculab.com>
References: <CAHP4M8UQeDtPf43a4cTWNd-3=JTPA=RpZ9QeH6gRABtdTwywvA@mail.gmail.com> <CAHP4M8Vwbb+r4om1kQWPeO+oo9tHYB+Q7i409nipYed9b0qaHA@mail.gmail.com> <063D6719AE5E284EB5DD2968C1650D6D0F6EB878@AcuExch.aculab.com> <CAHP4M8Vk5ZeXpfFL1hpAAHjzyGXomU01U9ZOqNYYy_3++azb1g@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAHP4M8Vk5ZeXpfFL1hpAAHjzyGXomU01U9ZOqNYYy_3++azb1g@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
x-originating-ip: [10.202.99.200]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_063D6719AE5E284EB5DD2968C1650D6D0F6EB8E3AcuExchaculabco_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Virus-Scanned: by iCritical at mx0.aculab.com
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sigtran/7IXKCF23LC1h8X4Od-9aIq2iQUQ
Cc: "sigtran@ietf.org" <sigtran@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Sigtran] Query regarding SLC
X-BeenThere: sigtran@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Signaling Transport <sigtran.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/sigtran>, <mailto:sigtran-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sigtran/>
List-Post: <mailto:sigtran@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sigtran-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sigtran>, <mailto:sigtran-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2014 13:15:51 -0000

--_000_063D6719AE5E284EB5DD2968C1650D6D0F6EB8E3AcuExchaculabco_
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Read what I wrote ...
The route through the network has to depend on the sls.
So the =91stream=92 on an sctp link has to depend on the sls.

Unless you know by some other means that the ordering of the traffic doesn=
=92t matter.
Which can be arranged to be true for locally generated TCAP traffic that th=
at doesn=92t
request =91sequential delivery=92 from SCCP, and has not been fragmented.

                David

From: Ajay Garg [mailto:ajaygargnsit@gmail.com]
Sent: 28 March 2014 12:12
To: David Laight
Cc: sigtran@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Sigtran] Query regarding SLC

Thanks David for the reply.

But I am still unclear about following points ::
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

1)
Is there a one-to-one mapping between a SLS and a SCTP-link? Or a one-to-ma=
ny mapping between a SLS and SCTP-links?


2)
Assuming there is a one-to-one mapping, still there might be chances of seq=
uencing-failures, IF different "streams" are selected within the same SCTP-=
link?


Thanks and Regards,
Ajay

On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 5:31 PM, David Laight <David.Laight@aculab.com<mail=
to:David.Laight@aculab.com>> wrote:
Messages sent by a userpart with the same sls must take the same route
through the network so that they arrive at the destination in the same orde=
r
as they were sent.

                David

From: Sigtran [mailto:sigtran-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:sigtran-bounces@ietf.=
org>] On Behalf Of Ajay Garg
Sent: 28 March 2014 11:52
To: sigtran@ietf.org<mailto:sigtran@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Sigtran] Query regarding SLC

Pardon me.. I meant "SLS".

On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 5:19 PM, Ajay Garg <ajaygargnsit@gmail.com<mailto:a=
jaygargnsit@gmail.com>> wrote:
Hi all.
Does SLC select a "SCTP-link" within a "SCTP-linkset", or a "stream" within=
 a "SCTP-link", or both?
Will be grateful for clarifications.

Thanks and Regards,
Ajay



--
Regards,
Ajay

Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1 1=
PT, UK
Registration No: 1397386 (Wales)

P Please consider the environment and don't print this e-mail unless you re=
ally need to




--
Regards,
Ajay

=0D=0A
=0D=
--_000_063D6719AE5E284EB5DD2968C1650D6D0F6EB8E3AcuExchaculabco_
Content-Type: text/html; charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<html xmlns:v=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o=3D"urn:schemas-micr=
osoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" =
xmlns:m=3D"http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns=3D"http:=
//www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv=3D"Content-Type" content=3D"text/html; charset=3DWindows-1=
252">
<meta name=3D"Generator" content=3D"Microsoft Word 12 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
	{font-family:Calibri;
	panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
	{font-family:Tahoma;
	panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
@font-face
	{font-family:Webdings;
	panose-1:5 3 1 2 1 5 9 6 7 3;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
	{margin:0cm;
	margin-bottom:.0001pt;
	font-size:12.0pt;
	font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
	{mso-style-priority:99;
	color:blue;
	text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
	{mso-style-priority:99;
	color:purple;
	text-decoration:underline;}
p
	{mso-style-priority:99;
	mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
	margin-right:0cm;
	mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
	margin-left:0cm;
	font-size:12.0pt;
	font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
span.EmailStyle18
	{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
	font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
	color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
	{mso-style-type:export-only;}
@page WordSection1
	{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
	margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}
div.WordSection1
	{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext=3D"edit" spidmax=3D"1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext=3D"edit">
<o:idmap v:ext=3D"edit" data=3D"1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang=3D"EN-GB" link=3D"blue" vlink=3D"purple">
<div class=3D"WordSection1">
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-size:11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Ca=
libri&quot;,&quot;sans-serif&quot;;color:#1F497D">Read what I wrote ...<o:p=
></o:p></span></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-size:11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Ca=
libri&quot;,&quot;sans-serif&quot;;color:#1F497D">The route through the net=
work has to depend on the sls.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-size:11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Ca=
libri&quot;,&quot;sans-serif&quot;;color:#1F497D">So the =91stream=92 on an=
 sctp link has to depend on the sls.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-size:11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Ca=
libri&quot;,&quot;sans-serif&quot;;color:#1F497D"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span><=
/p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-size:11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Ca=
libri&quot;,&quot;sans-serif&quot;;color:#1F497D">Unless you know by some o=
ther means that the ordering of the traffic doesn=92t matter.<o:p></o:p></s=
pan></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-size:11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Ca=
libri&quot;,&quot;sans-serif&quot;;color:#1F497D">Which can be arranged to =
be true for locally generated TCAP traffic that that doesn=92t<o:p></o:p></=
span></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-size:11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Ca=
libri&quot;,&quot;sans-serif&quot;;color:#1F497D">request =91sequential del=
ivery=92 from SCCP, and has not been fragmented.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-size:11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Ca=
libri&quot;,&quot;sans-serif&quot;;color:#1F497D"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span><=
/p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-size:11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Ca=
libri&quot;,&quot;sans-serif&quot;;color:#1F497D">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&=
nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; David<o:p=
></o:p></span></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-size:11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Ca=
libri&quot;,&quot;sans-serif&quot;;color:#1F497D"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span><=
/p>
<div style=3D"border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm =
4.0pt">
<div>
<div style=3D"border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm =
0cm 0cm">
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><b><span lang=3D"EN-US" style=3D"font-size:10.0pt;fo=
nt-family:&quot;Tahoma&quot;,&quot;sans-serif&quot;">From:</span></b><span =
lang=3D"EN-US" style=3D"font-size:10.0pt;font-family:&quot;Tahoma&quot;,&qu=
ot;sans-serif&quot;"> Ajay Garg [mailto:ajaygargnsit@gmail.com]
<br>
<b>Sent:</b> 28 March 2014 12:12<br>
<b>To:</b> David Laight<br>
<b>Cc:</b> sigtran@ietf.org<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [Sigtran] Query regarding SLC<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal" style=3D"margin-bottom:12.0pt">Thanks David for the =
reply.<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal">But I am still unclear about following points :: <br=
>
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D<br>
<br>
1)<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal">Is there a one-to-one mapping between a SLS and a SC=
TP-link? Or a one-to-many mapping between a SLS and SCTP-links?<br>
<br>
<br>
2)<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal" style=3D"margin-bottom:12.0pt">Assuming there is a o=
ne-to-one mapping, still there might be chances of sequencing-failures,
<b><i><u>IF</u></i></b> different &quot;streams&quot; are selected within t=
he same SCTP-link?<br>
<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal">Thanks and Regards,<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal">Ajay<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal" style=3D"margin-bottom:12.0pt"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p>
<div>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal">On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 5:31 PM, David Laight &lt;<a=
 href=3D"mailto:David.Laight@aculab.com" target=3D"_blank">David.Laight@acu=
lab.com</a>&gt; wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal" style=3D"mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-a=
lt:auto"><span style=3D"font-size:11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;,&q=
uot;sans-serif&quot;;color:#1F497D">Messages sent by a userpart with the sa=
me sls must take the same route</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal" style=3D"mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-a=
lt:auto"><span style=3D"font-size:11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;,&q=
uot;sans-serif&quot;;color:#1F497D">through the network so that they arrive=
 at the destination in the same order</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal" style=3D"mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-a=
lt:auto"><span style=3D"font-size:11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;,&q=
uot;sans-serif&quot;;color:#1F497D">as they were sent.</span><o:p></o:p></p=
>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal" style=3D"mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-a=
lt:auto"><span style=3D"font-size:11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;,&q=
uot;sans-serif&quot;;color:#1F497D">&nbsp;</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal" style=3D"mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-a=
lt:auto"><span style=3D"font-size:11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;,&q=
uot;sans-serif&quot;;color:#1F497D">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nb=
sp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; David</span><o:p></o:p>=
</p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal" style=3D"mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-a=
lt:auto"><span style=3D"font-size:11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;,&q=
uot;sans-serif&quot;;color:#1F497D">&nbsp;</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<div style=3D"border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm =
4.0pt">
<div>
<div style=3D"border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm =
0cm 0cm">
<p class=3D"MsoNormal" style=3D"mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-a=
lt:auto"><b><span lang=3D"EN-US" style=3D"font-size:10.0pt;font-family:&quo=
t;Tahoma&quot;,&quot;sans-serif&quot;">From:</span></b><span lang=3D"EN-US"=
 style=3D"font-size:10.0pt;font-family:&quot;Tahoma&quot;,&quot;sans-serif&=
quot;"> Sigtran
 [mailto:<a href=3D"mailto:sigtran-bounces@ietf.org" target=3D"_blank">sigt=
ran-bounces@ietf.org</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Ajay Garg<br>
<b>Sent:</b> 28 March 2014 11:52<br>
<b>To:</b> <a href=3D"mailto:sigtran@ietf.org" target=3D"_blank">sigtran@ie=
tf.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [Sigtran] Query regarding SLC</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal" style=3D"mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-a=
lt:auto">&nbsp;<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal" style=3D"mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-a=
lt:auto">Pardon me.. I meant &quot;SLS&quot;.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal" style=3D"mso-margin-top-alt:auto;margin-bottom:12.0p=
t">&nbsp;<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal" style=3D"mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-a=
lt:auto">On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 5:19 PM, Ajay Garg &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:a=
jaygargnsit@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">ajaygargnsit@gmail.com</a>&gt; wro=
te:<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal" style=3D"mso-margin-top-alt:auto;margin-bottom:12.0p=
t">Hi all.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal" style=3D"mso-margin-top-alt:auto;margin-bottom:12.0p=
t">Does SLC select a &quot;SCTP-link&quot; within a &quot;SCTP-linkset&quot=
;, or a &quot;stream&quot; within a &quot;SCTP-link&quot;, or both?<o:p></o=
:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal" style=3D"mso-margin-top-alt:auto;margin-bottom:12.0p=
t">Will be grateful for clarifications.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal" style=3D"mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-a=
lt:auto"><br>
Thanks and Regards,<br>
Ajay<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal" style=3D"mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-a=
lt:auto"><br>
<br clear=3D"all">
<br>
-- <br>
Regards,<br>
Ajay<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p>
<div>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-size:7.5pt;font-family:&quot;Tah=
oma&quot;,&quot;sans-serif&quot;;color:#484830">Registered Address Lakeside=
, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1 1PT, UK<br>
Registration No: 1397386 (Wales)</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p align=3D"center" style=3D"text-align:center"><span style=3D"font-size:7.=
5pt;font-family:Webdings;color:green">P<b>
</b></span><b><span style=3D"font-size:7.5pt;font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,=
&quot;sans-serif&quot;;color:green">Please consider the environment and don=
't print this e-mail unless you really need to</span></b><span style=3D"fon=
t-size:18.0pt;font-family:Webdings;color:green"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><br>
<br clear=3D"all">
<br>
-- <br>
Regards,<br>
Ajay<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>

<br>=
<FONT face=3DTahoma color=3D#484830 size=3D2></FONT>=0D=0A
<DIV><FONT face=3DTahoma color=3D#484830 size=3D1>Registered Address Lakeside, Br=
amley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1 1PT, UK<BR>Registration No: 13973=
86 (Wales)</FONT></DIV>=0D=0A
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#008000 size=3D2><FONT face=3DWebdings size=3D5>=0D=0A
<P align=3Dcenter><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#008000><FONT size=3D1><FONT face=3DWebd=
ings>P<STRONG> </STRONG></FONT><STRONG>Please consider the environment and d=
on't print this e-mail unless you really need to</STRONG></FONT></FONT></P><=
/FONT></FONT></DIV>
<br>=
</body>
</html>

--_000_063D6719AE5E284EB5DD2968C1650D6D0F6EB8E3AcuExchaculabco_--