RE: SE-IPSP definition

"Tolga Asveren" <[email protected]>
Newsgroups gmane.ietf.sigtran
Message-ID <[email protected]>
Brian,

(To prevent mailing list pollution my last message on this subtopic -maybe
not on this thread- )

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brian F. G. Bidulock [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2005 8:55 AM
> To: Tolga Asveren
> Cc: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [Sigtran] SE-IPSP definition
>
>
> Tolga,
>
> Tolga Asveren wrote:
>                    (Thu, 10 Nov 2005 08:22:32)
> > Brian,
> >
> > [..snip..]
> > > - To have a single exchange of messages it is a necessary
> that one side
> > >   behave like an ASP (messages and state machines) and the
> other behave
> > >   like an SGP (messages and state machines).
> > [TOLGA]Wrong. Take a look to Figure 3. IPSP can send and
> receive ASPAC/ASPIA
> > messages. As an example -just showing ASPAC messages-
> >
> >  SE-IPSP1                    SE-IPSP2
> >      |                          |
> >      |-------ASPAC------------->|
> >      |                          |
> >      |<-----ASPAC-ACK-----------|
> >      |                          |
> >      |    AS is active at both  |
> >      |        sides             |
> >      |                          |
> >      |<-------ASPIA-------------|
> >      |                          |
> >      |------ASPIA-ACK---------->|
> >      |                          |
> >      |    AS is inactive        |
> >      |    at both sides         |
> >      |                          |
> >
> > The above is a valid message sequence. Neither ASP nor SGP can
> support the
> > above message exchange. Thinking that an SE-IPSP behaves as ASP and the
> > other one as SGP for the whole set of message exchanges is
> wrong. I singled
> > out this issue because this is the key of the confusion.
> Basically, an IPSP
> > is an IPSPS neither ASP not a SGP.
>
> This message exchange is not required to be supported.
[TOLGA]Sorry but you are totally wrong. This is very well supported by
SE-IPSP state machine.
>
> The following two other possibilities are just as valid:
>
>    SE-IPSP1                    SE-IPSP2
>        |                          |
>        |-------ASPAC------------->|
>        |                          |
>        |<-----ASPAC-ACK-----------|
>        |                          |
>        |    AS is active at both  |
>        |        sides             |
>        |                          |
>        |<-------ASPIA-------------|
>        |                          |
>        |-ERR[Unexpected Message]->|
>        |                          |
[TOLGA] This is supported from M3UA point of view but means that your
SE-IPSP1 is either not an SE-IPSP or a broken one, because it does not
support IPSP state machine as defined by the specifications.
>
>
>    SE-IPSP1                    SE-IPSP2
>        |                          |
>        |-------ASPAC------------->|
>        |                          |
>        |<-----ASPAC-ACK-----------|
>        |                          |
>        |    AS is active at both  |
>        |        sides             |
>        |                          |
>        |<-------ASPIA-ACK---------|
>        |                          |
>        |-------ASPAC------------->|
>        |                          |
>        |<---ERR[Mgmt. Blocking]---|
>        |                          |
[TOLGA]Hmmm, I am not sure about this. IMO no need to support this -because
SE-IPSP2 can send ASPIA instead of ASPIA-ACK- but OTOH this has nothing to
do with our discussion.
>
> --brian
>
> --
> Brian F. G. Bidulock
> [email protected]
> http://www.openss7.org/
>
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.