Subject: [Sigtran] M3UA outstanding issues

From: Ken Morneault <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 05 Apr 2002 10:41:10 -0500

All:

The following are open issues that have not been fully discussed
on the list.  Please provide feedback so that we can bring them
to conclusion.

Also, if you favorite open issue has been forgotten, please resend
it to the list.

Regards,

Ken

------------------------------------open issues---------------------------------------

1)  use of broadcast mode not fully specified (use of correlation id 
not fully specified either)

This concern was addressed by Brian on the list.  If there is still 
discontent, could some specific complaints be listed or additional 
text proposed.

2)  REG msg only has Service Indicator.  There is interest in also 
allowing Network Indicator (i.e. change Service Indicator field to SIO or
add NI parameter to message).

Comment on the list that NA is sufficient.  Is there a need for NI in 
REG message?

3)  There was a long thread about the use of ASP ID.  Do some folks
still feel additional explanatory text is required or can we close this issue?

4) Handling traffic flow (i.e. destination) based Changeback (reference
ITU Q.704  Clause 6.2.1 b (i))

5) For SSNM with multiple Affected Point Code fields and with multiple 
RC fields, it should be described, how to correlate RC values to the Affected 
Point Codes.

6)  Discrepancy between implementations regarding uniqueness
of Routing Context

Scenario  ASP sends REG Routing Key request to each SGP 
per M3UA.

   Issue 1:  Can each SGP respond with different Routing Context
                 to REG request for the same Routing Key.

   Issue 2:  Why does ASP need to send REG RK to each
                 SGP when AS/Routing Key is across SG?

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

---

From: "Tolga Asveren" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2002 13:21:56 -0400

Here is my proposal:

3.4.1 Destination Unavailable (DUNA)
Old Text:   None

New Text:
In case there are multiple Route Context parameters are present in the DUNA
message, each Route Context parameter MUST be followed by the corresponding
Affected PC parameters. A new Route Context field MUST be placed after the
Affected PC list corresponding to the previous Route Context parameter.

Old Text:

    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
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |         Tag = 0x0200          |          Length = 8           |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                      Network Appearance                       |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |        Tag = 0x0006           |             Length            |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   \                                                               \
   /                       Routing Context                         /
   \                                                               \
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |         Tag = 0x0012          |             Length            |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |     Mask      |                 Affected PC 1                 |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   \                                                               \
   /                              ...                              /
   \                                                               \
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |     Mask      |                 Affected PC n                 |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |          Tag = 0x0004         |             Length            |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   \                                                               \
   /                          INFO String                          /
   \                                                               \
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

New Text:

    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
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |         Tag = 0x0200          |          Length = 8           |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                      Network Appearance                       |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |        Tag = 0x0006           |             Length = 8        |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   \                                                               \
   /                       Routing Context 1                       /
   \                                                               \
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |         Tag = 0x0012          |             Length            |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |     Mask      |                 Affected PC 1                 |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   \                                                               \
   /                              ...                              /
   \                                                               \
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |     Mask      |                 Affected PC n                 |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |        Tag = 0x0006           |             Length = 8        |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   \                                                               \
   /                       Routing Context  k                      /
   \                                                               \
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |         Tag = 0x0012          |             Length            |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |     Mask      |                 Affected PC 1                 |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   \                                                               \
   /                              ...                              /
   \                                                               \
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |     Mask      |                 Affected PC m                 |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |          Tag = 0x0004         |             Length            |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   \                                                               \
   /                          INFO String                          /
   \                                                               \
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

The other SSNM are referring to DUNA for the meaning of parameters but still
it might be useful to update the figures showing their message structures
accordingly, to avoid a confusion.

     Tolga

---

From: "Tolga Asveren" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2002 16:02:11 -0400

Brian,

Yes, sending separate DUNA is also an option, and in fact personally I might
prefer it. But this was proposed before and as far as I remember, there was
some disagreement about it. But if now everybody agrees, why not? Then we
just need to indicate, that there is only one Riuting Context field in SSNM.
BTW, you pointed out an interesting issue, should SSNM have a "all RC" flag
to decrease number of necessary messages (or not including RC means, for all
RCs, which are ACTIVE(also for INACTIVE?) for this association )? In such a
case, some extra explanation is needed to clarify this.

   Tolga

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brian F. G. Bidulock [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Monday, April 08, 2002 3:38 PM
> To: Tolga Asveren
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [Sigtran] M3UA outstanding issues -correlating multiple
> RC-APC in SSNM
>
>
> Tolga,
>
> Why not just send separate DUNA messages?  One for each Routing
> Context and let SCTP worry about efficient bundling?
>
> I don't think that there is a need for all this, particularly as
> SSNM are normally sent to all RC's or just one.
>
> --brian
>
> Tolga Asveren wrote:                         (Mon, 08 Apr 2002 13:21:56)
> > Here is my proposal:
> >
> >
> --
> Brian F. G. Bidulock
> [email-masked]
> http://www.openss7.org/

---

From: "Brian F. G. Bidulock" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2002 14:38:25 -0500

Tolga,

--brian

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

---

From: "Brian F. G. Bidulock" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2002 16:21:43 -0500

Tolga,

Tolga Asveren wrote:                         (Mon, 08 Apr 2002 16:02:11)
> just need to indicate, that there is only one Riuting Context field in SSNM.

No, no.  Multiple Routing Context and Multiple APC, it is just that the entire
list of APC apply to each of the Routing Contexts.  If a different list of
APCs is required for a given set of Routing Contexts, use a separate SSNM
message.  This is how it works now.

> case, some extra explanation is needed to clarify this.

To indicate "all RC," just do not include RC in the SSNM.  This works for
M3UA (RC optional), but not for SUA (RC mandatory).

--brian

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

---

From: "Tolga Asveren" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2002 18:07:46 -0400

Brian,

What you describe sounds nice to me. And as you pointed out, it seems the
current draft says it in that way. So, it is better not to touch anything.
According to the current draft, not sending RC to indicate all RC won't
work. Because RC is mandatory in case of multiple RCs over an association
for SSNM. Do we really need a change for this or are we happy by listing all
RCs in the SSNM in such a situation?

    Tolga

> Sent: Monday, April 08, 2002 5:22 PM
> To: Tolga Asveren
> Cc: [email-masked]

---

From: "Brian F. G. Bidulock" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2002 18:00:47 -0500

Tolga,

I don't think we need a change.
Perhaps a clarifying statement in the IG?

--brian

Tolga Asveren wrote:                                        (Mon, 08 Apr 2002 18:07:46)

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