M2PA - SIB vs. SCTP association level flow-control
Stanislav Ivanovich <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.sigtran |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Hello colleagues, M2PA RFC defines the protocol which is to provide the MTP L2 services and functions together with underlying SCTP protocol. I see that most important MTP L2 features (like error detection and correction, supervision, alignment etc...) are replaced with corresponding SCTP functions. However I am wondering why would one need SIB (or in M2PA terminology "Link Status Busy") if: a) the relationship between SCTP association and M2PA link is 1:1 b) SCTP provides the means to stop acknowledging incoming traffic if the local user stops to read the messages (i.e. local user function does not invoke recvmsg() on the socket API thus causing filling of the receiving buffer at local SCTP thus causing stop of acknowledgment of incoming traffic which in turn causes closing of the cwnd at the remote SCTP at the sender side) I am asking this question since maybe I missed something... I am also wondering is there any preliminary version of the M2PA Implementor's guide available? thank you for your cooperation! best regards/ Stanislav Ivanovich --------------------------------- Love cheap thrills? Enjoy PC-to-Phone calls to 30+ countries for just 2¢/min with Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. _______________________________________________ Sigtran mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sigtran