Re: Processor Outage and Resynchronizing Sequence Numbers

Martin,

Please don't use brand names on this list.

"if this is required by MTP2"

Resynchronization is required by ITU-T Q.703 1996,
ETSI EN 300 008-1, and ANSI T1.111.3/2000.

However, I am a little bit confused as to why you
think that the one end synchronizing and the other
end not will cause a problem.  Could you provide
a message sequence chart for what you think the
problem will be?

--brian

Hecht Martin wrote:                           (Mon, 23 Feb 2009 11:41:15)
> 
>    To the mailing list,
> 
>    In the M2PA RFC it details how to resynchronize sequence numbers after
>    LPR/RPR as follows:
> 
>    M2PA (at both the LPO and RPO ends) uses the BSN value in the
>        received Link Status Ready message to resynchronize its sequence
>        numbers, if this is required by MTP2.
> 
> 
>    The problem is the "required by MTP2" issue.  If one side
>    resynchronizes its FSN to the BSN received in the READY message, but
>    the other side didn't implement this, then the FSN on the next MSU
>    received would be wrong and the MSU will be discarded.
> 
>    For example, I am running M2PA conformance tests against the INET.  It
>    doesn't resynchronize its FSN to the incoming BSN as described above.
>    So the next FSN sent by the Inet is not expected and is discarded.
> 
>    So, the question is, is the resynchronizing really optional?  Or am I
>    misunderstanding the meaning of synchronize and the FSN is not set to
>    the BSN of the incoming READY message?
> 
>    Thanks,
> 
>    Martin
> 
>    Martin Hecht
>    Engineering
> 
>    Signaling Core Group
>    Comverse
>    Office: +856 608-2712
>    [1][email protected]
>    [2]www.comverse.com
> 
> References
> 
>    1. mailto:[email protected]
>    2. http://www.comverse.com/

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


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