Subject: Re: [Sigtran] m2pa v6: Recovering from a processor outage

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 16:19:29 -0500

Brian,

I don't think that it is "normal MTP behavior" that m2pa v6 is unclear. I 
am not asking what should mtp3 do. I am pointing out that there is a 
contradiction in m2pa v6.

Section 4.2.4, by using the word "and", says that M2PA _must_ receive 
either FLUSH_BUFFERS or CONTINUE from mtp3 before it may resume 
transmitting data.

Section 4.1.4 suggests that traffic can resume even in the absence of 
FLUSH_BUFFERS or CONTINUE from mtp3.

We have to resolve this contradiction.

I think that the entire existance of section 4.2.4  (Flush Buffers, Continue) is redundant and confusing. It is referenced by, and applicable to, only 
section 4.1.4 (Processor Outage). It should simply be merged into section 
4.1.4.

Barry Nagelberg

"Brian F. G. Bidulock" <[email-masked]>
 10/31/2002 04:24 PM
 Please respond to bidulock

        To:     [email-masked]
        cc:     [email-masked]
        Subject:        Re: [Sigtran] m2pa v6: Recovering from a processor outage

Barry.Nagelberg,

This is normal MTP behavior.  If processor outage has been of a short
duration, then traffic can be immediately restarted.  If processor outage
has been of a long duration, then buffers are flushed before restarting
traffic.  MTP3 decides.  See Q.704.

---brian

[email-masked] wrote: (Thu, 31 Oct 2002 10:07:13)
> M2pa v6 draft is very unclear about how to recover from a processor 
> outage. 
> 
> Section 4.1.4 suggests (but does not implicitly state) that once the PO 
> outage ceases, the local M2PA may resume sending and receiving data 
msgs, 
> and that the peer M2PA may resume sending data. 
> 
> However, section 4.2.4 states that "If M2PA receives either a Flush 
> Buffers or Continue command from MTP3, _and_ the processor outage 
condition ceases, M2PA shall resume receiving and 
> transmitting messages", meaning that either a Flush Buffers or Continue 
> command is a necessary prerequisite for data traffic to restart.
> 
> Barry Nagelberg
> 

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

---

From: "Brian F. G. Bidulock" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 15:01:37 -0700

Barry.Nagelberg,

Logically it says that it is a sufficient condition, not a necessary
condition which is quite clear.

--brian

[email-masked] wrote:                                         (Thu, 31 Oct 2002 16:19:29)

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