Re: SAR

RE: SARHi Damir,

I checked your log dump. As I can see, the SAR part has successfully worked. Igor is right, your device has sent more than 6 packets in one group and from that 6 had failed, and the NACK was sent sucessfully with the missing PDU Numbers.

The problem has occured in the next incoming PDU. For some reason that has got errors (RcvErrorPDU). I've also seen that error earlier, but still I didn't find a time to look details into that. As I suspect, this error has occured prior to the SAR part, where PDU's are unpacked and as I suspect it's happened at the place where the Server looks for a WTP Machine (resp_machine_find_or_create). If you can submit us more of your logs, I may be able to see more into this.

Igor, any ideas?

Rgds,
Denzel

ps: this still doesn't support ESAR. But since I'm using a DICT structure to host segments, it can grow upto any amount.



  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Damir Salantic 
  To: 'kannel-mailing-list' 
  Cc: [email protected] ; 'Igor Ivoilov' 
  Sent: Friday, December 06, 2002 2:14 AM
  Subject: RE: SAR


  Hi Igor.

  We are experimenting with a wap stack. 
  That's probably the reason of unexpected behaviour.
  Anyway, wap gateway should accept up to 256 packets in a group (or more with ESAR).


  Damir S


    -----Original Message-----
    From: Igor Ivoilov [mailto:[email protected]]
    Sent: 6. prosinac 2002 10:21
    To: '[email protected]'; 'kannel-mailing-list'
    Cc: [email protected]
    Subject: 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 
    > 
    >