RE: SAR

Hi Damir,

You're right, this thing is not implemented, 
but the implementation is coming soon

Igor

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Damir Salantic [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2002 12:06 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: SAR
> 
> 
> Hi to all.
> 
> I started to work with kannel recently, so excuse me for my 
> ignorance, if
> I'm wrong.
> I'm refering to "SAR" thread one month ago.
> 
> Denzel wrote on Nov. 13.:
> "Here's a SAR patch we made ( diffrent to Igore's). We tested 
> this with =
> an earlier CVS ( may be in sync with gateway1.2.0 ). Nack's are =
> implemented.  And we had a problem with igore's patch, cause 
> sometimes =
> the nacks failed ."
> 
> Igor wrote on Nov. 13.:
> "Nack reaction was not implemented in early version of sar.patch. But
> version
> that's come to cvs has this feature."
> 
> Now I'm looking on both versions: one with Denzel's patch and 
> the one from
> CVS.
> What I see is that in CVS version there is implemented only 
> response to NACK
> and not a NACK request. In another words, CVS Kannel doesn't 
> take care about
> lost wtp segments and never sends NACK to the sender, but only ACK.
> This can be seen in following code:
> 
> wtp_resp.c line 722:
> 
>         if (orig_event->u.RcvSegInvoke.gtr == 1) { /* Need to 
> acknowledge */
>             e = wtp_pack_sar_ack(ACKNOWLEDGEMENT, machine->tid,
> machine->addr_tuple,
>                                  orig_event->u.RcvSegInvoke.psn);
>             dispatch_to_wdp(e);
>         }
> 
> and when receives incomplete packet it just reports debug info:
> 
> wtp_resp.c line 793:
>     for (i = 1; i <= last_psn; i++) {
>         if ((sar_info = list_search(machine->sar_info, &i,
> is_wanted_sar_data)) != NULL) {
>             
> octstr_append(e->u.RcvInvoke.user_data,sar_info->sar_data);
>         } else {
>             debug("wap.wtp", 0, "Packet with psn %d not found", i);
>             return e;
>         }
>     }
> 
> In Denzel's implementation it seems to be solved correctly
> (wtp_check_segments).
> 
> Igor, can you confirm that, so I should use Danzel's patch 
> instead of CVS.
> Do you plan to implement that also?
> Maybe some part from Denzel's patch can be integrated to CVS?
> 
> Thanks
> Damir Salantic
> 
> 
> 
>