RE: correct Error code

If RC is configured statically per ASP on SGP, I wouldn't think it is wrong
to say that it is invalid for that particular ASP. The peers are ASPs and
SGPs in that relationship.

   Thanks,
   Tolga

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andrew Booth [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2007 8:55 AM
> To: Aditya; [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [Sigtran] correct Error code
>
>
> Hi,
>
> I agree with Brian.  The RC is not invalid, the SGP is just refusing the
> ASP ACTIVE.  Hence "Refused Management Blocking" is appropriate.
>
> As an aside, I think the text of the pertinent paragraph is missing
> something.  The meaning is fairly clear, but it should probably read:
>
> If for any local reason the SGP will not act on the ASP ACTIVE request
> (e.g., management lockout) the SGP responds to an ASP Active message
> with an Error message with reason "Refused Management Blocking".
>
> Andrew
>
> Brian F. G. Bidulock wrote:
> > Aditya,
> >
> > The RC is not invalid: the ASP is merely not permitted to
> activate for it.
> > In this case it is management blocked.  The peer should be welcome to
> > retry, because at some point in the future it might be
> permitted to activate
> > for the AS (e.g. the permission might have only been revoked
> temporarily).
> > Sending "Invalid Routing Context" would make the peer believe that the
> > corresponding RK is not provisioned (which it is) and might result in a
> > dynamic registration attempt (which is inappropriate).
> >
> > Besides, if "Invalid Routing Context" is returned, it violates
> the MUST in
> > this passage:
> >
> >
> >>      - If the RC parameter is included in the ASP Active
> message and the
> >>      corresponding RK has been previously defined (by either static
> >>      configuration or dynamic registration), the peer node MUST respond
> >>      with an ASP Active Ack message. If for any local reason (e.g.,
> >>      management lockout) the SGP responds to an ASP Active message with
> >>      an Error message with reason "Refused Management Blocking".
> >>
> >
> > --brian
> >
> > Aditya wrote:                                     (Thu, 29 Mar
> 2007 05:53:59)
> >
> >>    Brian,
> >>    RFC  4666  mentions Invalid Routing Context to be sent if a
> message is
> >>    received  from  a  peer  with an invalid(unconfigured)
> Routing Context
> >>    value. Your analysis makes me think that only unconfigured
> RC is to be
> >>    treated  as  Invalid.  Isnt  the  RC  invalid in the
> example mentioned
> >>    below.
> >>    I  may be wrong but sending ERR management Locked message
> somehow does
> >>    not  inform  the  peer that there is something wrong at its
> end. IMHO,
> >>    "Invalid Routing Context" seems like an appropriate
> message, since the
> >>    RC is INVALID in this case. The RC being configured does
> not take away
> >>    from the fact that it is invalid.
> >>    Does  RFC  4666  state  anywhere that only unconfigured
> RC's are to be
> >>    treated as Invalid? I mean, does it define Invalid RC in any sense.
> >>    Aditya
> >>
> >
> >
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> Sigtran mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sigtran