Subject: [Megaco] TPKT value for H.248 over TCP

From: "Sampath Komanduri" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2004 20:16:20 -0800

Hi List,
I am not sure if this question was already raised in the list. If it
was, pls. point me to the discussion and the consensus.

According to ANNEX D of H.248.1 protocol, "TPKT, according to
<http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1006.html> RFC 1006, SHALL be used to
delineate messages within the TCP stream". RFC 1006 limits the size of
TPDU to 65524. Replicating the relevant text here for convenience:
 
***************************************************
     "A TPKT consists of two parts:  a packet-header and a TPDU.  
      The format of the header is constant regardless of the type of
packet.
      The format of the packet-header is as follows:

        0                   1                   2                   3
        0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |      vrsn     |    reserved   |          packet length        |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

      where:

      vrsn                         8 bits

      This field is always 3 for the version of the protocol described
in this memo.

      packet length                16 bits (min=7, max=65535)

      This field contains the length of entire packet in octets,
including packet-header.
      This permits a maximum TPDU size of 65531 octets.
      Based on the size of the data transfer (DT) TPDU, this permits a
maximum 
      TSDU size of 65524 octets."
*********************************************************
 
This causes an issue. Based on the wildcard level of Audit and the
descriptors involved, this size could easily exceed 64K size (especially
if MG and MGC are using Long text format and white spaces in the
messages). In few cases, it is possible to return an error code (533:
Response exceeds maximum transport PDU size).
However, in some cases returning 533 is not an option. 
Consider for example the following scenario: After an association is
DISCONNECTED, MGC may want to want to get the list of non-null contexts
on the gateway using the following command (pls. ignore if there is any
mistake in the message and reply construct):
 
!/1 [10.102.2.201]:4000 T=3700003{C=*{AV=ROOT{AT{}}}}
!/1 ABCD_MG P=3700003{C=1{AV=C{*}},C=2{AV=C{*}},C=3{AV=C{*}}, ....and so
on}

In the best case (i.e. no white-space, no audit descriptor and short
format), this allows for an MG to have only 5000 active contexts on the
card. Anything more (or any variation in the audit command) will reduce
the number of active contexts that an MG can have even with TCP as the
transport option.
Responding with 533 is not an option here since that would leave MG-MGC
in state from where there is no elegant way out (at least from H.248
protocol).
 
How do the gurus' on list suggest we solve this issue? Couple of ideas
that come to mind are:

1.	Define a Bulk-Audit Package/scheme: As was done for MGCP, define
a Bulk-Audit package/scheme especially with support for       
    RangeWildcard = "[" NumericalRange *( "," NumericalRange ) "]" and
    NumericalRange     = 1*(DIGIT) [ "-" 1*(DIGIT) ].
    This will certainly reduce the cases and scenarios when MG/MGC will
run into the issue under discussion but may not eliminate it.
2.	Add more information on W- Audit support in the protocol.
3.	Introduce RFC 1006 modification (with version field 4) such that
"packet length" of packet header in TPKT is 32 bits as opposed to 16
bits.
4.	Combination of the above schemes.
5.	Anything else?

Pls. advice on how this problem can be solved?

Thanks,
Sampath

---

From: "Sampath Komanduri" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 09:24:39 -0800

Could the author of Annex D pls. respond?
 
Thanks,
Sampath

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
Sampath Komanduri
Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2004 8:16 PM
To: 'MEGACO list'
Subject: [Megaco] TPKT value for H.248 over TCP
Importance: High

Hi List,

        0                   1                   2                   3

      where:

      vrsn                         8 bits

 
This causes an issue. Based on the wildcard level of Audit and the
descriptors involved, this size could easily exceed 64K size (especially
if MG and MGC are using Long text format and white spaces in the
messages). In few cases, it is possible to return an error code (533:
Response exceeds maximum transport PDU size).
However, in some cases returning 533 is not an option. 
Consider for example the following scenario: After an association is
DISCONNECTED, MGC may want to get the list of non-null contexts on the
gateway using the following command (pls. ignore if there is any mistake
in the message and reply construct):

 

5.	Anything else?

Thanks,
Sampath

---

From: "Sampath Komanduri" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 09:24:39 -0800

Thanks,
Sampath

-----Original Message-----

Hi List,

        0                   1                   2                   3

      where:

      vrsn                         8 bits

 

 

5.	Anything else?

Thanks,
Sampath