RE: SIGTRAN Plugtest Day 3

Brian:

It's not a question of SCTP.  What if the first one is refused by the SG
for some reason - why shouldn't the ASP keep resending to try to bring
the ASP into service?

If the SGP has been configured such that it refuses the ASP-ACTIVE
request, if an operator changes the configuration as the SGP to permit
the SGP to accept the request and bring the ASP active, there is no way
to signal the ASP what has occurred at the SG, and both sides should not
have to rely on some mechanism that forces the ASP to return to a DOWN
state (such as restarting the association) to cause the process to be
restarted automatically or require some manual intervention at the ASP
end.

Mark

-----Original Message-----
From: Brian F. G. Bidulock [mailto:[email protected]] 
Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2007 4:21 AM
To: Barry Nagelberg
Cc: SIGTRAN Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Sigtran] SIGTRAN Plugtest Day 3

Barry,

You misunderstood the question, I think.  Let me rephrase:

Why would it be necessary to resend ASP Active?  (The first one surely
arrived: SCTP being a reliable transport.)

--brian

Barry Nagelberg wrote:                                  (Thu, 19 Apr
2007 12:06:44)
> Brian,
> 
> The problem is that there must be a person present at a terminal
somewhere
> to push a button to resend the ASP-Active. I doubt that many carriers
would
> be happy about this.
> 
> Barry
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brian F. G. Bidulock [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2007 11:59 AM
> To: Barry Nagelberg
> Cc: SIGTRAN Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Sigtran] SIGTRAN Plugtest Day 3
> 
> 
> Barry,
> 
> What problem results from not resending ASP Active?
> 
> --brian
> 
> Barry Nagelberg wrote:                    (Thu, 19 Apr 2007 10:16:21)
> > Greetings from Moscow! Here is the wrap-up report for Day 3 of the
SIGTRAN
> > Plugtest.
> >
> > Protocols tested:
> > M2PA - 5 implementations
> > M3UA - 6 implementations
> > M2UA - 2 implementations
> > SUA  - 2 implementations
> >
> > There was one issue raised at the Day 3 wrap-up:
> >
> > Some ASP implementations are not resending the ASP-Active msg, after
not
> > receiving the ASP-Active-Ack from the SGP. This behaviour is of
course
> > allowed by RFC 4666. The RFC states that:
> >
> > <snip>
> > "If the ASP does not receive a response to an ASP Active message
> > within T(ack), the ASP MAY restart T(ack) and resend ASP Active
> > messages until it receives an ASP Active Ack message."
> > <snip>
> >
> > However the consensus within the group is that such behaviour is not
very
> > logical, and that it would be helpful if the "MAY"
> > in the text above would be replaced with "SHOULD".
> >
> > Barry Nagelberg
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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

-- 
Brian F. G. Bidulock
[email protected]
http://www.openss7.org/

_______________________________________________
Sigtran mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sigtran