Subject: [Megaco] Reply: Megaco Digest, Vol 2, Issue 19

From: 杨先波 <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 08:58:02 +0800

MGC will use the old MID in servicechange responce command with new servicechange address,
MG should identify the MGC with old mid which was used in servicechange req command ,or how 
does MG know the responsing MGC is the MGC it just send serviechchange req to ? Only after this
process, then MG knows  MGC's new Address.

发件人: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]代表 [email-masked]
发送时间: 2004年6月27日 0:12
收件人: [email-masked]
主题: Megaco Digest, Vol 2, Issue 19

Send Megaco mailing list submissions to
	[email-masked]

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/megaco
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
	[email-masked]

You can reach the person managing the list at
	[email-masked]

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

Today's Topics:

   1. Re: MID used to identify sender (Tom Taylor)

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

Message: 1
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2004 13:55:27 -0400
From: Tom Taylor <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [Megaco] MID used to identify sender
To: Christian Groves <[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked]
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed

Let's go one further on this.  If you identify errors, please notify the author. 
It's time we got this document cleaned up and posted as an Informational RFC.

Christian Groves wrote:
> Hello Inger,
> 
> Where there are differences between the Call Flows and the H.248.1
> recommendation, H.248.1 takes precedence.
> 
> A note for everyone: DO NOT BASE AN IMPLEMENTATION on the
> <draft-ietf-megaco-callflows-03.txt> draft. These flows have quite a few 
> errors
> and misassumptions and do not represent a definitive guide to the use of 
> H.248.1.
> 
> Regards, Christian
> 
> Inger Bohlbro wrote:
> 
>  > Hi
>  >
>  > I have a question regarding the Message Identifier (MID).
>  >
>  > H.248.1 states
>  > "A H.248.1 entity (MG/MGC) must consistently use the same MID
>  > in all messages it originates for the duration of control
>  > association with the peer (MGC/MG)".
>  >
>  > Is it allowed for a MG to use the MID to check if the message
>  > is received from the MGC with which contol association is
>  > obtained, i.e. compare MID in received messages with the
>  > MID received in the ServiceChange response ?
>  >
>  > This could be especially relevant when running over UDP, in
>  > order to discard messages received from "old" associations.
>  >
>  > It could also be relevant during a failover situation
>  > to be able to distinguish between messages from an "old"
>  > MGC and messages from the MGC at which a ServiceChange request
>  > is outstanding. Requests received from the "new" MGC should
>  > be answered with error code 505 if received before the
>  > ServiceChange response.
>  >
>  > However, in draft-ietf-megaco-callflows-03.txt there is an
>  > example in section 3.1.1 where the MID used in ServiceChange
>  > response is [216.33.33.61]:2944 and in all following messages
>  > it is [216.33.33.61]:25000. The ServiceChange response contains
>  > the ServiceChangeAddress = 25000 parameter, but never the less
>  > the two MID's are not identical.
>  >
>  >
>  > Regards
>  > Inger Bohlbro
>  >
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Megaco mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/megaco
> 

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

_______________________________________________
Megaco mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/megaco

End of Megaco Digest, Vol 2, Issue 19
*************************************
_______________________________________________
Megaco mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/megaco