Re: M3UA: Synchronizing DPC availability state between ASPs in the same AS
Dan Gora <[email protected]> Mon, 10 Apr 2017 15:55:55 -0300
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.sigtran |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <CAGyogRZWziokZbixJyRAY1+Mv=6Q+sKordV-ag4p=gG0tCHqig@mail.gmail.com> |
Hi David, Thanks for your response... On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 5:38 AM, David Laight <[email protected]> wrote: >> Now this feels wrong to me. There is nothing in the spec which >> specifically states that the ASPs have to synchronize the destination >> states between themselves just because they belong to the same AS. >> >> There is also numerous places (RFC 4666: 3.4.1 (DUNA) and 3.4.2) >> where it says that the DUNA/DAVA message is sent to "all concerned >> ASPs" and in 4.5.1 where it says: > ... > > This is a difference between rfc 4666 and the older 3332. Is it? The only difference I can see in rfc 4666 in section 4.5.1 is the addition of this paragraph: For the particular case that an ASP becomes active for an AS and destinations normally accessible to the AS are inaccessible, restricted, or congested, the SG MAY send DUNA, DRST, or SCON messages for the inaccessible, restricted, or congested destinations to the ASP newly active for the AS to prevent the ASP from sending traffic for destinations that it might not otherwise know that are inaccessible, restricted, or congested. For the newly activating ASP from which the SGP has received an ASP Active message, these DUNA, DRST, and SCON messages MAY be sent before sending the ASP Active Ack that completes the activation procedure. But RFC 3332 still doesn't really clearly state that the ASPs have to synchronize their destination state within an AS. On the contrary, from 4.5.1 it still seems to imply that the SGP has to send DAVA/DUNA, etc to _all_ "concerned" ASPs, not just one in an AS. > AFAICT one major network equipment manufacturer has not updated their > protocol stack to conform to rfc4666. > > We've a horrid bodge that detects the missing indications. What missing indications are you referring to? The missing NTFY messages for the AS (section 5.1.1.1, etc..)? thanks, dan