http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.sigtran hourly 1 1901-01-01T00:00+00:00 http://gmane.org/img/gmane-25t.png http://gmane.org http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.sigtran/10005 <pre> For locally generated traffic the local ISUP/SCCP could generate more than 4 bits of sls (it probably generates 8 bits for ANSI and mtp3 masks them for ITU) so MTP3 could loadshare over all 32 links - but your mtp3 is unlikely to behave that way. If the traffic is TCAP/SCCP and 'route on GT' and you have 2 (or more) 'next hop' destination SCCP systems you can get the TCAP traffic to use all 32 links. Similarly 'class 0' SCCP traffic (order not guaranteed) probably has an SLS assigned sequentially by SCCP. The local MTP3 could safely reassign the SLS so that it could use all 32 (or more) links in a combined linkset. We have some other configurations that can loadshare over 32 links. David </pre> David Laight 2013-06-18T08:57:30 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.sigtran/10004 <pre>Yeah, I got it wrong. My idea was to use the SLS but still generate enough SLS for the linkset locally. But this would cause the problem of mis-sequencing when links go down. But that seems to be the only other alternative of using the entire 32 links. -----Original Message----- From: Brian F. G. Bidulock [mailto:bidulock&lt; at &gt;openss7.org] Sent: 17 June 2013 17:02 To: Nemana, Satya Cc: David Laight; Arvind Kumar; sigtran&lt; at &gt;ietf.org Subject: Re: [Sigtran] Number of links towards a DPC (ITU) Satya, Nemana, Satya wrote: (Mon, 17 Jun 2013 15:27:13) So, XXX0 goes to one linkset and XXX1 goes to the other. On the first linkset, the entire SLS is XXX0. There are only eight values here. On the second linkset, the entire SLS is XXX1. There are only eight values here. So, 8 links per linkset, 16 links per combined linkset. Nope. See above. Each linkset has 8 values. -- Brian F. G. Bidulock bidulock&lt; at &gt;openss7.org http://www.openss7.org/ </pre> Nemana, Satya 2013-06-17T16:32:38 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.sigtran/10003 <pre> That just means that the traffic to that destination can only use 8 of the links in the linkset - even if there are more. So it might not make much sense to have 16 links in both linksets, but that doesn't mean that it isn't allowed. Consider the following network fragment: Endpoint A has a linksets with 16 links to both B and C (SEP + STP). Additionally A has routes to SEP D via both B and C. Traffic to B will use all 16 direct links (backup route via C). Traffic to D will loadshare between B and C, but will only use 16 of the 32 possible links (ideally 8 via B and 8 via C). (Wonders what our MTP3 does when configured to evenly distribute the sls across all the links ...) David </pre> David Laight 2013-06-17T16:23:07 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.sigtran/10002 <pre>Satya, Nemana, Satya wrote: (Mon, 17 Jun 2013 15:27:13) So, XXX0 goes to one linkset and XXX1 goes to the other. On the first linkset, the entire SLS is XXX0. There are only eight values here. On the second linkset, the entire SLS is XXX1. There are only eight values here. So, 8 links per linkset, 16 links per combined linkset. Nope. See above. Each linkset has 8 values. </pre> Brian F. G. Bidulock 2013-06-17T16:02:24 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.sigtran/10001 <pre>My 2 cents. The ITU spec may not say this, but why not do this. 1) Use the LSB to select the linkset within a combined linkset. 2) Once the Linkset is selected, use the full SLS value to select one of the links in the linkset. In this way, we can still have 16 links in each linkset and combined linkset can have 32 links and still loadshare across all the links. Each linkset will still have 16 of the SLS values so, there won't be any issues of un-even loadsharing even if some links go down in the route to the final destination. Regards, Satya -----Original Message----- From: sigtran-bounces&lt; at &gt;ietf.org [mailto:sigtran-bounces&lt; at &gt;ietf.org] On Behalf Of David Laight Sent: 17 June 2013 10:11 To: bidulock&lt; at &gt;openss7.org; Arvind Kumar Cc: sigtran&lt; at &gt;ietf.org Subject: Re: [Sigtran] Number of links towards a DPC (ITU) In ITU each linkset can have 16 links. Brian is right in that MTP3 only has a 4 bit SLS value to select the destination link, so traffic to a specific destination will only use a maximum of 16 links even if there are routes by 2 adjacents and there are 16 links in the linkset to each. If you have two linksets with 16 links each, the routing rules for different destinations could be arranged to use different links in order to utilise all 32 links. ANSI only has 4 bits for the SLC (not 5), so a linkset is limited to 16 links. However the larger SLS value (8 bits, 5 in some earlier versions) means that MTP3 can loadshare between more links. It also isn't quite right to say that one of the bits is used for linkset selection. If some of the links are down, the sls that would be assigned to the 'down' links are evenly spread across all of the working links, not just assigned to the working links in their original linkset (this might be a config option since the ANSI and ITU specs differ here.) An endsystem ITU MTP3 may have more SLS bits available, so could loadshare between more than 16 links. David _______________________________________________ Sigtran mailing list Sigtran&lt; at &gt;ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sigtran </pre> Nemana, Satya 2013-06-17T15:27:13 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.sigtran/10000 <pre>David, David Laight wrote: (Mon, 17 Jun 2013 11:52:03) Routing not linkset selection. It is not valid because it does not lead to an even loadsharing over links. The network in the figure (using a fixed bit position for linkset selection) is the common practice for ITU. </pre> Brian F. G. Bidulock 2013-06-17T13:01:02 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.sigtran/9999 <pre> From deciding not to do it when fixing our mtp3 routing rules! Q.704 section 2.3 states that the routing is based on information from the routing label - normally the sls and dpc. With 2 linksets of 16 links the 'normal' link assignment could use one bit of the sls to select between the linksets and the low bit of the dpc and the other 3 bits of the sls to select one of the 16 links in the linkset. This would be perfectly valid. Q.705 A is only an example mesh network. The appendix is describing the routing under fault conditions. David </pre> David Laight 2013-06-17T10:52:03 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.sigtran/9998 <pre>David, David Laight wrote: (Mon, 17 Jun 2013 10:10:52) I don't know where you got that idea. See Figure A.3/Q.705. Count the number of links possible in a linkset (not a combined linkset). 8 links per A linkset, 4 links per B/D linkset. Pardon, SLC is 4 bits, but there are still 16 links per linkset, 32 links per combined linkset. It is quite right to say that 1 bit is used for linkset selection, as it says in 7.3/T1.111.5. </pre> Brian F. G. Bidulock 2013-06-17T10:18:28 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.sigtran/9997 <pre> In ITU each linkset can have 16 links. Brian is right in that MTP3 only has a 4 bit SLS value to select the destination link, so traffic to a specific destination will only use a maximum of 16 links even if there are routes by 2 adjacents and there are 16 links in the linkset to each. If you have two linksets with 16 links each, the routing rules for different destinations could be arranged to use different links in order to utilise all 32 links. ANSI only has 4 bits for the SLC (not 5), so a linkset is limited to 16 links. However the larger SLS value (8 bits, 5 in some earlier versions) means that MTP3 can loadshare between more links. It also isn't quite right to say that one of the bits is used for linkset selection. If some of the links are down, the sls that would be assigned to the 'down' links are evenly spread across all of the working links, not just assigned to the working links in their original linkset (this might be a config option since the ANSI and ITU specs differ here.) An endsystem ITU MTP3 may have more SLS bits available, so could loadshare between more than 16 links. David </pre> David Laight 2013-06-17T09:10:52 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.sigtran/9996 <pre>Arvind, ITU has a 4-bit SLS and a 4 bit SLC. The SLS and SLC is shared under ITU and ITU does not do SLS rotation. Therefore, because 1 bit is used for link-set selection, there can only be 8 links in a linkset (16 links in a combined linkset). ANSI has an 8-bit SLS and a 5-bit SLC. The SLS and SLC are not shared and ANSI does SLS rotation. Therefore, it is possible to have 32 links in a linkset (64 links in a combined linkset). Using the old 5-bit SLS it was only possible to have 16 links in a linkset and 32 links in a combined linkset because 1 of the 5 bits was used for linkset selection within a combined linkset. So, there are two considerations: SLS and SLC size. The most links in a link set is restricted by the size of the SLC (the number of signalling links that can be identified between two signalling point codes); however, the combined linkset is also restricted by the SLS size (over how many distinct signalling links can the traffic be distributed). That said, signalling links are identified by the 3-tuple PC-PC-SLC. Just because you have multiple PCs on a signalling point does not necessarily increase the number of signalling links that it can support. So, if you have 4 PCs, it does not necessarily mean that you can support 4 times as many signalling links. It is common, for example on a class 5 switch, to provide 1 primary PC that is used in management messages on signalling links and 3 additional ones (in our example) that are only aliases (that is, messages can be routed to them but they do not participate in signalling link management messages). Some stacks; however, are also capable of supporting multiple signalling points. In which case, each primary PC can act as a completely independent signalling point with its own set of signalling links. SS7 network operators do no like connecting to systems where multiple independent signalling points are implemented on the same hardware. If you need a lot of signalling links for capacity, broadband (or better, M2PA) signalling links can be used. In the case of M2PA, the signalling capacity is not dependent on the number of signalling links and only a pair of signalling links is required (and recommended). --brian Arvind Kumar wrote: (Fri, 14 Jun 2013 14:09:27) </pre> Brian F. G. Bidulock 2013-06-14T21:55:03 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.sigtran/9995 <pre>ss7 allows 16 signalling links in all linksets (for ITI and ANSI), so with multiple OPC you can have 16 signalling links to a single destination for each OPC. However your ss7 stack might have restrictions on the number of supported signalling links since processing a FISU every 6 byte times isn’t for the faint hearted! Cards that support 64 signalling links (spread over 8 E1/t1 links) are available. David From: sigtran-bounces&lt; at &gt;ietf.org [mailto:sigtran-bounces&lt; at &gt;ietf.org] On Behalf Of Arvind Kumar Sent: 14 June 2013 09:39 To: sigtran&lt; at &gt;ietf.org Subject: [Sigtran] Number of links towards a DPC (ITU) Hi All, Would appreciate if somebody help me, I have SS7 Stack with multiple OPC, I would like to create multiple linksets towards a single destination (suppose 2000). How many links are possible in all the link-sets. I know there is no limitation of number of link-sets, but as I understood, towards a given destination the maximum number of links depends upon maximum value of SLS. For ITU it could be 16. But my doubt is I have mutiple OPCs for my SS7 Stack, could number of links be possible = number of OPCs * 16 Please comment. Regards, On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 12:30 AM, &lt;sigtran-request&lt; at &gt;ietf.org&gt; wrote: If you have received this digest without all the individual message attachments you will need to update your digest options in your list subscription. To do so, go to https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sigtran Click the 'Unsubscribe or edit options' button, log in, and set "Get MIME or Plain Text Digests?" to MIME. You can set this option globally for all the list digests you receive at this point. Send Sigtran mailing list submissions to sigtran&lt; at &gt;ietf.org To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sigtran or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to sigtran-request&lt; at &gt;ietf.org You can reach the person managing the list at sigtran-owner&lt; at &gt;ietf.org When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Sigtran digest..." Today's Topics: 1. Abort chunk in SCTP (Norah Jones) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Sat, 4 May 2013 06:50:12 +0000 From: Norah Jones &lt;nh.jones01&lt; at &gt;gmail.com&gt; To: sigtran&lt; at &gt;ietf.org Subject: [Sigtran] Abort chunk in SCTP Message-ID: &lt;abcd1234abc123ab12a0000000335000020000005002&lt; at &gt;gmail.com&gt; Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Hi, I am using LKSCTP in my project, one sometime I see that by box receives About chunk from the peer. Now question is what are the possibilities for which we can receive abort chunk from remote. Thanks, Norah Jones ------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Sigtran mailing list Sigtran&lt; at &gt;ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sigtran End of Sigtran Digest, Vol 102, Issue 1 *************************************** _______________________________________________ Sigtran mailing list Sigtran&lt; at &gt;ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sigtran </pre> David Laight 2013-06-14T08:49:35 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.sigtran/9994 <pre>Hi All, Would appreciate if somebody help me, I have SS7 Stack with multiple OPC, I would like to create multiple linksets towards a single destination (suppose 2000). How many links are possible in all the link-sets. I know there is no limitation of number of link-sets, but as I understood, towards a given destination the maximum number of links depends upon maximum value of SLS. For ITU it could be 16. But my doubt is I have mutiple OPCs for my SS7 Stack, could number of links be possible = number of OPCs * 16 Please comment. Regards, On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 12:30 AM, &lt;sigtran-request&lt; at &gt;ietf.org&gt; wrote: _______________________________________________ Sigtran mailing list Sigtran&lt; at &gt;ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sigtran </pre> Arvind Kumar 2013-06-14T08:39:27 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.sigtran/9993 <pre>Hi, I didn't see any mailing list reply to your question. if you are still interested, the answers can be found in RFC 4960. There are MANY possible causes for an ABORT message in SCTP. Inspection of the ABORT message itself may provide you with further information about the problem encountered. In particular, an ABORT message often contains Cause Parameters intended to convey the reason for the abort. Each such Cause Parameter contains a Cause Code and perhaps further information. A list of possible Cause Code values appears on page 43. In the case of Cause Code value 12, there will also be a user-provided Upper Layer Cause Reason code. This "user" is the protocol above the remote SCTP, and the Reason code values depend on the upper layer protocol involved. I think your email stated that this only happens infrequently. My experience is that this might be because the IP network isn't [always] as good as the provisioned SCTP parameters expect (regarding retransmissions, timeouts etc.) I hope this helps, from Chris Benson. On Sat, 4 May 2013, Norah Jones wrote: </pre> Chris Benson 2013-05-23T19:25:54 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.sigtran/9992 <pre> 要,ya4ARyTS Yas 发送自THTC手机ar ----- Reply message ----- 发件RIT人AR： sigtran-request&lt; at &gt;ietf.org 收件人： &lt;sigtran&lt; at &gt;ietf.org&gt; 主题： Sigtran Digest, Vol 101, Issue 1 日期： 周一, 4 月 29 日, 2013 年 03:00 If you have received this digest without all the individual message attachments you will need to update your digest options in your list subscription. To do so, go to https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sigtran Click the 'Unsubscribe or edit options' button, log in, and set "Get MIME or Plain Text Digests?" to MIME. You can set this option globally for all the list digests you receive at this point. Send Sigtran mailing list submissions to sigtran&lt; at &gt;ietf.org 5RZtZrt To subATscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sigtranzs or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to sigtran-request&lt; at &gt;ietf.org You can reach the person managing the list at sigtran-owner&lt; at &gt;ietf.org When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Sigtran digest..." Today's Topics: 1. Biggest Fake Conference in Computer Science (hammondjohnson&lt; at &gt;hushmail.com) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- MessQTRZQTWage: 1 Date: Sat, 27 Apr 2013 14:00:35 -0400 From: hammondjohnson&lt; at &gt;hushmail.com To: sigtran&lt; at &gt;ietf.org Subject: [Sigtran] Biggest Fake Conference in Computer Science Message-ID: &lt;20130427180035.E32E3E6736&lt; at &gt;smtp.hushmail.com&gt; Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" We ar日e researchers from different parts of the world and conducted a study on the world?s biggest bogus computer science conference WORLDCOMP ( http://sites.google.com/site/worlddump1 ) organized by Prof. Hamid Arabnia from University of Georgia, USA. We submitted a fake paper to WORLDCOMP 2011 and again (the same paper with a modified title) to WORLDCOMP 2012. This paper had numerous fundamental mistakes. Sample statements from that paper include: (1). Binary logic is fuzzy logic and vice versa (2). Pascal developed fuzzy logic (3). Object oriented languages do not exhibit any polymorphism or inheritance (4). TCP and IP are synonyms and are part of OSI model (5). Distributed systems deal with only one computer (6). Laptop is an example for a super computer (7). Operating system is an example for computer hardware Also, our paper did not express any conceptual meaning. However, it was accepted both the times without any modifications (and without any reviews) and we were invited to submit the final paper and a payment of $500+ fee to present the paper. We decided to use the fee for better purposes than making Prof. Hamid Arabnia (Chairman of WORLDCOMP) rich. After that, we received few reminders from WORLDCOMP to pay the fee but we never responded. We MUST say that you should look at the above website if you have any thoughts to submit a paper to WORLDCOMP. DBLP and other indexing agencies have stopped indexing WORLDCOMP?s proceedings since 2011 due to its fakeness. See http://www.informatik.uni-trier.de/~ley/db/conf/icai/index.html for of one of the conferences of WORLDCOMP and notice that there is no listing after 2010. See Section 2 of http://sites.google.com/site/dumpconf for comments from well-known researchers about WORLDCOMP. The status of your WORLDCOMP papers can be changed from scientific to other (i.e., junk or non-technical) at any time. Better not to have a paper than having it in WORLDCOMP and spoil the resume and peace of mind forever! Our study revealed that WORLDCOMP is a money making business, using University of Georgia mask, for Prof. Hamid Arabnia. He is throwing out a small chunk of that money (around 20 dollars per paper published in WORLDCOMP?s proceedings) to his puppet (Mr. Ashu Solo or A.M.G. Solo) who publicizes WORLDCOMP and also defends it at various forums, using fake/anonymous names. The puppet uses fake names and defames other conferences to divert traffic to WORLDCOMP. He also makes anonymous phone calls and tries to threaten the critiques of WORLDCOMP (See Item 7 of Section 5 of above website). That is, the puppet does all his best to get a maximum number of papers published at WORLDCOMP to get more money into his (and Prof. Hamid Arabnia?s) pockets. Monte Carlo Resort (the venue of WORLDCOMP for more than 10 years, until 2012) has refused to provide the venue for WORLDCOMP?13 because of the fears of their image being tarnished due to WORLDCOMP?s fraudulent activities. That is why WORLDCOMP?13 is taking place at a different resort. WORLDCOMP will not be held after 2013. The draft paper submission deadline is over but still there are no committee members, no reviewers, and there is no conference Chairman. The only contact details available on WORLDCOMP?s website is just an email address! Let us make a direct request to Prof. Hamid arabnia: publish all reviews for all the papers (after blocking identifiable details) since 2000 conference. Reveal the names and affiliations of all the reviewers (for each year) and how many papers each reviewer had reviewed on average. We also request him to look at the Open Challenge (Section 6) at https://sites.google.com/si _______________________________________________ Sigtran mailing list Sigtran&lt; at &gt;ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sigtran </pre> cheng yan 2013-05-21T03:06:55 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.sigtran/9991 <pre>Hi, I am using LKSCTP in my project, one sometime I see that by box receives About chunk from the peer. Now question is what are the possibilities for which we can receive abort chunk from remote. Thanks, Norah Jones </pre> Norah Jones 2013-05-04T06:50:12 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.sigtran/9990 <pre>We are researchers from different parts of the world and conducted a study on the world’s biggest bogus computer science conference WORLDCOMP ( http://sites.google.com/site/worlddump1 ) organized by Prof. Hamid Arabnia from University of Georgia, USA. We submitted a fake paper to WORLDCOMP 2011 and again (the same paper with a modified title) to WORLDCOMP 2012. This paper had numerous fundamental mistakes. Sample statements from that paper include: (1). Binary logic is fuzzy logic and vice versa (2). Pascal developed fuzzy logic (3). Object oriented languages do not exhibit any polymorphism or inheritance (4). TCP and IP are synonyms and are part of OSI model (5). Distributed systems deal with only one computer (6). Laptop is an example for a super computer (7). Operating system is an example for computer hardware Also, our paper did not express any conceptual meaning. However, it was accepted both the times without any modifications (and without any reviews) and we were invited to submit the final paper and a payment of $500+ fee to present the paper. We decided to use the fee for better purposes than making Prof. Hamid Arabnia (Chairman of WORLDCOMP) rich. After that, we received few reminders from WORLDCOMP to pay the fee but we never responded. We MUST say that you should look at the above website if you have any thoughts to submit a paper to WORLDCOMP. DBLP and other indexing agencies have stopped indexing WORLDCOMP’s proceedings since 2011 due to its fakeness. See http://www.informatik.uni-trier.de/~ley/db/conf/icai/index.html for of one of the conferences of WORLDCOMP and notice that there is no listing after 2010. See Section 2 of http://sites.google.com/site/dumpconf for comments from well-known researchers about WORLDCOMP. The status of your WORLDCOMP papers can be changed from scientific to other (i.e., junk or non-technical) at any time. Better not to have a paper than having it in WORLDCOMP and spoil the resume and peace of mind forever! Our study revealed that WORLDCOMP is a money making business, using University of Georgia mask, for Prof. Hamid Arabnia. He is throwing out a small chunk of that money (around 20 dollars per paper published in WORLDCOMP’s proceedings) to his puppet (Mr. Ashu Solo or A.M.G. Solo) who publicizes WORLDCOMP and also defends it at various forums, using fake/anonymous names. The puppet uses fake names and defames other conferences to divert traffic to WORLDCOMP. He also makes anonymous phone calls and tries to threaten the critiques of WORLDCOMP (See Item 7 of Section 5 of above website). That is, the puppet does all his best to get a maximum number of papers published at WORLDCOMP to get more money into his (and Prof. Hamid Arabnia’s) pockets. Monte Carlo Resort (the venue of WORLDCOMP for more than 10 years, until 2012) has refused to provide the venue for WORLDCOMP’13 because of the fears of their image being tarnished due to WORLDCOMP’s fraudulent activities. That is why WORLDCOMP’13 is taking place at a different resort. WORLDCOMP will not be held after 2013. The draft paper submission deadline is over but still there are no committee members, no reviewers, and there is no conference Chairman. The only contact details available on WORLDCOMP’s website is just an email address! Let us make a direct request to Prof. Hamid arabnia: publish all reviews for all the papers (after blocking identifiable details) since 2000 conference. Reveal the names and affiliations of all the reviewers (for each year) and how many papers each reviewer had reviewed on average. We also request him to look at the Open Challenge (Section 6) at https://sites.google.com/site/moneycomp1 Sorry for posting to multiple lists. Spreading the word is the only way to stop this bogus conference. Please forward this message to other mailing lists and people. We are shocked with Prof. Hamid Arabnia and his puppet’s activities http://worldcomp-fake-bogus.blogspot.com Search Google using the keyword worldcomp fake for additional links. _______________________________________________ Sigtran mailing list Sigtran&lt; at &gt;ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sigtran </pre> hammondjohnson< at >hushmail.com 2013-04-27T18:00:35 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.sigtran/9989 <pre>Vaibhav, Then I should point out that IPSP-DE is not recommended. Don't use it. It has all manner of problems and race conditions. It can activate an AS in one direction and fail to do so in the opposite direction. It requires brittle configuration: if configuration on both sides do no match correctly, two half activations result instead of one full one or none. IPSP-SE is recommended. Use that. --brian Vaibhav Banga wrote: (Wed, 13 Mar 2013 10:54:42) </pre> Brian F. G. Bidulock 2013-03-13T06:38:53 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.sigtran/9988 <pre>Hi Brain, Thanks for the response. Please confirm only single exchange of ASPTM messages are sufficient if RC values are not specified. Our implementation is allowing only single exchange of ASPTM messages by not specifying RC, Where as peer implementation is expecting double exchange even if RC values are not specified which is causing inter-op issues. </pre> Vaibhav Banga 2013-03-13T05:24:42 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.sigtran/9987 <pre>Vaibhav, In the example RC values are specified and therefore a double exchange is required. There is no contradiction. --brian Vaibhav Banga wrote: (Tue, 12 Mar 2013 15:06:00) </pre> Brian F. G. Bidulock 2013-03-13T00:05:29 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.sigtran/9986 <pre>Hi All, I would request you to clarify regarding the IPSP D.E mode behavior for ASPTM messages without RC. According to M3UA RFC 4666 section 4.3.1 last paragraph : “ASPTM messages. When sending ASPTM messages to activate/deactivate all the traffic independently of routing keys by not specifying any RC, a single exchange could be sufficient.” A single exchange of ASPTM messages without RC sufficient to activate/deactivate the traffic. Whereas the diagram in section 5.6.2. double exchange it looks, even if RC is optional, double exchange of ASPAC messages are required. IPSP-A IPSP-B | | |&lt;-------------ASP Up------------| |-----------ASP Up Ack----------&gt;| | | |-------------ASP Up------------&gt;| (optional) |&lt;----------ASP Up Ack-----------| (optional) | | |&lt;------- ASP Active(RCb)--------| RC: Routing Context |-----ASP Active Ack (RCb)------&gt;| (optional) | | |------- ASP Active(RCa)--------&gt;| RC: Routing Context |&lt;-----ASP Active Ack (RCa)------| (optional) | | |&lt;========= DATA (RCa) =========| |========== DATA (RCb) ========&gt;| | | |&lt;-----ASP Inactive (RCb)--------| RC: Routing Context |----ASP Inactive Ack (RCb)-----&gt;| | | |------ASP Inactive (RCa)-------&gt;| RC: Routing Context |&lt;----ASP Inactive Ack (RCa)-----| | | |&lt;-----------ASP Down------------| |---------ASP Down Ack----------&gt;| | | |------------ASP Down-----------&gt;| (optional) |&lt;--------ASP Down Ack-----------| (optional) | | Both section are seems to be contradictory. I would request you to clarify the behavior for ASPAC/ASPIA messages without RC for IPSP Double exchange mode. Whether single exchange of ASPTM messages or double exchange of ASPTM messages are required to acivate/deactivate the traffic with out RC. - Thanks and kind Regards, Vaibhav Banga Software Engineer, ARICENT TECHNOLOGIES Gurgaon, Ph.No. 09654714588 _______________________________________________ Sigtran mailing list Sigtran&lt; at &gt;ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sigtran </pre> Vaibhav Banga 2013-03-12T09:36:00 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.sigtran/9985 <pre></pre> lalitha kumari 2013-03-12T09:19:03 Search the mailing list at Gmane query http://search.gmane.org/?group=$group=gmane.ietf.sigtran