RE: SAR

Hi Damir,

What was the device your wap gw communicated with?
Looks like it send more than 6 packets in a group,
maximum that I saw by myself was 3.

Igor

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Damir Salantic [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Friday, December 06, 2002 10:28 AM
> To: 'kannel-mailing-list'
> Cc: [email protected]; Igor Ivoilov
> Subject: RE: SAR
> 
> 
> Hi Denzel, hi Igor
> 
> I don't know if this is related, but here is the part of 
> wapbox.log, after
> my wapbox crashed.
> Note that this is a kannel with Danzel's patch applied.
> If you want, I can send you more data from log.
> Note that this happened after few hours of normal operation.
> 
> bye
> Damir
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] 
> [mailto:[email protected]]On
> Behalf Of [email protected]
> Sent: 6. prosinac 2002 21:26
> To: Igor Ivoilov; [email protected]
> Cc: kannel-mailing-list
> Subject: Re: SAR
> 
> 
> Hi Damir/Igor,
> 
> As you have seen, my implementation is done based on State 
> Machine in WTP
> Response Layer. Also to my knowledge, I implemented all the 
> functionalities
> in SAR (Segmentation/Re-Assembly/NACK/ACK).
> 
> One thing I like to ask from Igor is is there any efficiency 
> problem or
> anything when you do it using the Sate Machines?
> 
> The problem was with my implementation is little funny one. 
> Actually I'm not
> sure if that's cause of a bug in the SAR implementation or 
> related to some
> other part. The problem was, when a phone initiate a WAP 
> session, WTP state
> changes to INVOKE_RESP_WAIT and waits for a Response from WSP 
> layer. And
> this continues for a long time or indefinitely. Also this 
> problem occurs
> only occationally. The funny thing here is, this happens 
> prior to the start
> of SAR packets, so I guess this couldn't be because of my 
> coding. Igor, I
> know you are in a much greater level to understand what this 
> problem can be.
> Please help me to sort this.
> 
> If any other person has tried my coding please give me your comments.
> 
> Thanks,
> Denzel
> 
>