RE: M3UA : query on RC presence in messages

Prabind,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Prabind Chaubey [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 1:57 PM
> To: Tolga Asveren; [email protected]
> Subject: RE: [SIGTRAN] M3UA : query on RC presence in messages
>
>
> Tolga,
>      According to RFC4666 the state of AS may be considered when
> receiving
> messages as well:
> 4.3.4.3 ASP Active Procedures
> If the SGP or IPSP receives any Data messages before an ASP Active
> message
> is received, the SGP or IPSP MAY discard them.  By sending an ASP Active
> Ack
> message, the SGP or IPSP is no ready to receive and send traffic for the
> related Routing Context(s).
> [PRABIND] The use of MAY leaves it to implementation. Anyways 4666 is
> out only recently, so implementations based on 3332 were on their on
> own.
[TOLGA]It was the same in RFC3332. Even with "MAY", because there is such a
possibility, the protocol needs to accomodate it. Personally I think it is a
good idea to follow that "MAY" to prevent problems with a malfunctioning
ASP.
>
>
> You are right that an ASP, which is not active for a particular AS
> should
> not send messages for it, but I guess for almost every protocol, part of
> the
> procedures is to check that the other nodes behave properly.
>
> [PRABIND]IMO m3ua was introduced to extend the services of mtp3 to
> remote node for a IP user. So it is really just transparent for an user
> in IP world.
[TOLGA]The point is that ASP and SG may be coming from different vendors and
can be even operated by different organizations. I don't see how the nature
of protocol makes it unnecessary to validate that the peers ar not violating
the protocol.
>
>
> Regards,
> Prabind
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tolga Asveren [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2006 12:08 AM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: RE: [SIGTRAN] M3UA : query on RC presence in messages
>
> Prabind,
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Prabind Chaubey [mailto:[email protected]]
> > Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 1:29 PM
> > To: Tolga Asveren; [email protected]
> > Subject: RE: [SIGTRAN] M3UA : query on RC presence in messages
> >
> >
> > Lev and Tolga,
> > Yes it's has been rightly pointed out by Tolga that the purpose of RC
> is
> > to provide a faster mechanism to find out the routing key associated
> > with the message. But again, do SG should really care about the RC in
> > first place if the ASP which is sending the message is active?
> Shouldn't
> > the AS which is not active must not send any data message to SG? IMO
> the
> > SG should really care about the RC when sending the messages to AS, as
> > we really don't want the SG to send data to an AS which is not
> prepared
> > to handle it i.e it is not active!
> [TOLGA]According to RFC4666 the state of AS may be considered when
> receiving
> messages as well:
> 4.3.4.3 ASP Active Procedures
> If the SGP or IPSP receives any Data messages before an ASP Active
> message
> is received, the SGP or IPSP MAY discard them.  By sending an ASP Active
> Ack
> message, the SGP or IPSP is no ready to receive and send traffic for the
> related Routing Context(s).
>
> You are right that an ASP, which is not active for a particular AS
> should
> not send messages for it, but I guess for almost every protocol, part of
> the
> procedures is to check that the other nodes behave properly.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Prabind
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Tolga Asveren [mailto:[email protected]]
> > Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 8:35 PM
> > To: [email protected]
> > Subject: RE: [SIGTRAN] M3UA : query on RC presence in messages
> >
> > To prevent routing key analysis happening multiple times is one of the
> > reasons. There is no need to analyze the message twice both on SG and
> > ASP.
> >
> > When messages are allowed to be sent/received is determined by AS
> state
> > machine, which has a 1:1 relationship to a RK. To have RC in messages
> is
> > an
> > easy way to perform the necessary state machine updates/checks.
> >
> >    Thanks,
> >    Tolga
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Lev Finkel [mailto:[email protected]]
> > Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 9:39 AM
> > To: Aditya; Prabind Chaubey; [email protected]
> > Cc: [email protected]
> > Subject: RE: [SIGTRAN] M3UA : query on RC presence in messages
> >
> >
> > Aditya, Prabind,
> >
> > following this logic intelligent ASP also may accept DATA messages
> > without
> > RC parameter and handle it based on OPC, DPC, CIC, etc. However I
> guess
> > the
> > RFC authors saying MUST intended to avoid variety of ASP and SGP
> > implementation dependent behaviors.
> >
> > Brian,
> > what was a real the rationale behind this MUST for RC being in the
> > messages?
> >
> > Regards,
> > Lev
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > From: Aditya [mailto:[email protected]]
> > Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 4:25 PM
> > To: Prabind Chaubey; [email protected]; Lev Finkel
> > Cc: [email protected]
> > Subject: RE: [SIGTRAN] M3UA : query on RC presence in messages
> >
> >
> > I agree with Prabind. However, the RFC says "MUST".
> >
> > Regards,
> > Aditya Sehgal
> > Alcatel-Lucent
> >
> > Prabind Chaubey <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Brian,
> > If it is known by configuration that which AS the asp is going
> > to serve into, is it mandatory to send RC from asp, even if the
> multiple
> > AS are being served by the asp? I mean SG can very well route the
> > message to MTP3 based on the DPC in the message.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Prabind
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Brian F. G. Bidulock [mailto:[email protected]]
> > Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 4:26 PM
> > To: Lev Finkel
> > Cc: [email protected]
> > Subject: Re: [SIGTRAN] M3UA : query on RC presence in messages
> >
> > Lev,
> >
> > Section 3.8.1 Error/RFC 4666
> >
> > ...
> >
> > The "No Configured AS for ASP" error is sent if a message is received
> > from a peer without a Routing Context parameter and it is not known
> > by configuration data which Application Servers are referenced.
> >
> > --brian
> >
> > Lev Finkel wrote: (Wed, 13 Dec 2006
> > 12:00:45)
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > is the statement in RFC 3332/4466 sections 3.3.1 (and same for
> > other
> > > messages)
> > >
> > > "Where multiple Routing Keys and Routing Contexts are used
> > across a
> > > common association, the Routing Context MUST be sent to identify
> > the
> > > traffic flow, assisting in the internal distribution of Data
> > messages"
> > >
> > > relates to both ASP and SGP?
> > >
> > > Is it correct for SGP to reply with ERROR upon DATA message without
> > RC
> > > after several RC coordinated? Is it mandatory to send ERROR? Or
> > M3UA
> > > implementation may allow to forward message based on DPC only?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > Lev Finkel
> > >
> > > Veraz Networks ltd.
> >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Sigtran mailing list
> > > [email protected]
> > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sigtran
> >
> >
> > --
> > Brian F. G. Bidulock
> > [email protected]
> > http://www.openss7.org/
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Sigtran mailing list
> > [email protected]
> > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sigtran
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Sigtran mailing list
> > [email protected]
> > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sigtran
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > ---X
> > ----------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Don't take life too seriously...
> > Nobody comes out alive anyway
> >
> >
> > Cheap Talk? Check out Yahoo! Messenger's low PC-to-Phone call rates.
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Sigtran mailing list
> > [email protected]
> > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sigtran
> >
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Sigtran mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sigtran
>
>