Re: [M3UA] IPSP DE ASP Up Procedures

Igor Fedotov <[email protected]>
Newsgroups gmane.ietf.sigtran
Message-ID <[email protected]>
Hi, Evgenij

IMHO M3UA spec isn't clear in the issue. This was mentioned for example 
at SIGTRAN PLUGTESTS in Moscow in 2007 
( http://www.etsi.eu/WebSite/document/PlugtestsHistory/2007SIGTRAN/SIGTRAN_2007_REPORT.pdf, 
day 5 report, issue 1).

I'd say, the most preferable approach would be to use four messages in 
Double Exchange, as described here:
http://www.archivum.info/[email protected]/2005-07/00030/RE:_%5BSigtran%5D_M3UA_:_2_or_4_messages_for_ASP-UP_in_IPSP_DE


> *From: *Evgenij <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
> *Date: *December 16, 2009 7:35:12 AM PST
> *To: *[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
> *Subject: **[Sigtran] [M3UA] IPSP DE ASP Up Procedures*
>
> Hi All,
>
>     How many interchange ASP Up messages are needed for ASP Up procedure?
> In section 4.3.4.1.2 saying that four messages are needed but in 
> section 5.6.2 saying that one single exchange of ASP UP message is 
> enough. It is contradiction or not?
>
> 4.3.4.1.2.  IPSP Considerations (ASP Up)
>
>   Alternatively, when using the IPSP DE model, an interchange of ASP Up
>   messages from each end *MUST* be performed.  Four messages are needed
>   for completion.
>
> 5.6.2.  Double Exchange
>
>               IPSP-A                           IPSP-B
>                 |                                |
>                 |<-------------ASP Up------------|
>                 |-----------ASP Up Ack---------->|
>                 |                                |
>                 |-------------ASP Up------------>|  (optional)
>                 |<----------ASP Up Ack-----------|  (optional)
>                 |                                |
>                 |<------- ASP Active(RCb)--------|  RC: Routing Context
>                 |-----ASP Active Ack (RCb)------>|      (optional)
>                 |                                |
>                 |------- ASP Active(RCa)-------->|  RC: Routing Context
>                 |<-----ASP Active Ack (RCa)------|      (optional)
>                 |                                |
>                 |<=========  DATA (RCa) =========|
>                 |==========  DATA (RCb) ========>|
>                 |                                |
>                 |<-----ASP Inactive (RCb)--------|  RC: Routing Context
>                 |----ASP Inactive Ack (RCb)----->|
>                 |                                |
>                 |------ASP Inactive (RCa)------->|  RC: Routing Context
>                 |<----ASP Inactive Ack (RCa)-----|
>                 |                                |
>                 |<-----------ASP Down------------|
>                 |---------ASP Down Ack---------->|
>                 |                                |
>                 |------------ASP Down----------->|  (optional)
>                 |<--------ASP Down Ack-----------|  (optional)
>                 |                                |
>
>   In this approach, *only one single exchange of ASP Up message* can be
>   considered sufficient since the response by the other peer can be
>   considered a notice that it is in ASP_UP state.
>
> ---
>
> Regards
>
>     Evgenij
>     
> _______________________________________________
> Sigtran mailing list
> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sigtran

_______________________________________________
Sigtran mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sigtran
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.