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://comments.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 </pre> cheng yan 2013-05-21T03:06:55 http://comments.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://comments.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 t</pre> hammondjohnson< at >hushmail.com 2013-04-27T18:00:35 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.sigtran/9985 <pre></pre> lalitha kumari 2013-03-12T09:19:03 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.sigtran/9984 <pre>http://wattavillage.com/xj/zjzb43ht3e2cq1y9ner2bnv5c=z2i_______________________________________________ Sigtran mailing list Sigtran&lt; at &gt;ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sigtran </pre> deddi hp 2013-02-10T13:17:55 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.sigtran/9981 <pre>Hello! I had two questions trying to understand a problem with GT in SUA. 1) Why is the encoding scheme parameter normally present in the SS7 messages absent in the SUA message as a parameter. In the absence of the encoding scheme in the SUA Called party GT, how does the SUA NIF analyze the digits. 2) The number of digits in the SUA message (called party) is already known depending on the digits included, i.e if I have a GT of 0123456789, then I have 10 digits. In such a situation where the number of digits present is implicitly known, why do we have an other parameter " Number of Digits" to tell the same? What is the significance of this parameter? In most cases, GT is a phone number, why would we want to use only part of it for processing the message? (there would have been a wildcard GT provisioned for the destination(s) on the SG/STP to handle the case of using a subset of the digits. 3) Also, in section 3.10.2.3, the text &lt;snip&gt; 0001 Nature of Address is taken over &lt;snip&gt; What does "taken over" mean</pre> Nemana, Satya 2013-01-14T14:16:06 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.sigtran/9971 <pre> Hello, I'm faced with a problem based on the following architecture: AS connected to two SGs AS / \ / \ SG1---SG2 SCCP: SGs are making GTTs to route to the ss7 network. MTP configurations on AS: There are two routesets defined on AS, one to SG1 (containing direct route and route over SG2) and to SG2 (containing direct route and route over SG1) SCON message was received by AS from SG2 with affected PC SG1. On AS the route set (PC SG1) was inhibited. No traffic was sent to SG1 by AS any more. Usually the AS would start sending periodic DAUDs messages as a result of the congestion, but because SG1 was got to know as adjacent node, no DAUDs with affected Point Code = Point Code SG1 were sent by any ASP. No SCON messages were sent by SG2 to AS because no DATA and DAUD messages were received to react. The congestion condition never abates. Could you please help me with the following questions: How to solve this situation (timer on AS?)? Is it correct not to audit adjacent nodes? Can (should) SG</pre> urte plesske 2012-10-23T14:58:27 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.sigtran/9967 <pre>Hello all, We need your suggestion on the behavior of M3UA on override mode in IPSP single exchange and IPSP double exchange mode. Query-1 In the definition of IPSP double exchange model (RFC section 4.3) it is mentioned that the RKs define the traffic to be directed to the peer as in the AS-SG model. From this we conclude that the traffic to be directed to peer for AS-SG model is analogous to IPSP double exchange. Is our understanding correct ? /Query-1 Query- 2 As per the specifications RFC 4666 section : 4.3.4.3 ( page No : 84, 4th Paragraph) the behavior of Override mode f AS to be as follows: "In the case of an Override mode AS, receipt of an ASP Active message at an SGP causes the (re)direction of all traffic for the AS to the ASP that sent the ASP Active message . Any previously active ASP in the AS is now considered to be in the state ASP-INACTIVE and SHOULD no longer receive traffic from the SGP within the AS. The SGP or IPSP then MUST send a Notify message ("Alternate ASP_Active") to the </pre> Lalitha Kumari Gopi Reddy 2012-07-23T11:09:09 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.sigtran/9966 <pre> Thanks &amp; Regards, Lalitha Yerrapaneni ARICENT Technologies. =============================================================================== Please refer to http://www.aricent.com/legal/email_disclaimer.html for important disclosures regarding this electronic communication. =============================================================================== _______________________________________________ Sigtran mailing list Sigtran&lt; at &gt;ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sigtran </pre> Lalitha Kumari Gopi Reddy 2012-07-23T10:46:28 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.sigtran/9965 <pre> Thanks &amp; Regards, Lalitha Yerrapaneni ARICENT Technologies. =============================================================================== Please refer to http://www.aricent.com/legal/email_disclaimer.html for important disclosures regarding this electronic communication. =============================================================================== _______________________________________________ Sigtran mailing list Sigtran&lt; at &gt;ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sigtran </pre> Lalitha Kumari Gopi Reddy 2012-07-23T10:35:46 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.sigtran/9955 <pre>Hi all, One very fundamental question: SIGTRAN uses "Client-Server" model. Can anyone please tell why? Regards, Aditi _______________________________________________ Sigtran mailing list Sigtran&lt; at &gt;ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sigtran </pre> aditi someshwar 2012-04-05T05:45:47 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.sigtran/9952 <pre>Hi all, Does the IPSP (in M3UA) need to have a Point Code? Can anyone explain? Regards, Aditi _______________________________________________ Sigtran mailing list Sigtran&lt; at &gt;ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sigtran </pre> aditi someshwar 2011-12-08T12:22:14 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.sigtran/9949 <pre>Hi, Quick short question: Is it mandatory for the value of "Routing Context" to be the same at both the ends of M3UA association? Thanks and Regards, Aditi _______________________________________________ Sigtran mailing list Sigtran&lt; at &gt;ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sigtran </pre> aditi someshwar 2011-12-08T11:33:43 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.sigtran/9947 <pre>Dear Experts, In the SCTP multi-homing scenario, I have certain doubts on the Path failure detection as below. Two end points A and B have two paths between them named Path1 and Path2. 1) End point A sends some DATA in Path1 to B. But it did not receive SACK in that path from B. Now the RTO expired in A and it incremented the Error counter for the Path1 destination address in B. And A retransmits the old DATA chunks (that were sent to B in Path1 and unacknowledged) in Path2. And also transmits some new DATA chunks. Now B acknowledges with the latest TSN (old and new DATA chunks transmitted by A). Now is it ok to clear the error counter of Path1 in A (as the old DATA chunks destined to Path1 destination address were also acknowledged by SACK received in Path2)? If A clears the error counter of Path1 in this case, I think it may encounter the same cycle of problem again. What is the suggested and desirable approach here? 2) Also when an endpoint receives a DATA in certain </pre> Santhanakrishnan yayathi 2011-11-28T03:53:55 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.sigtran/9942 <pre>Hello I wonder if you can help me with a question that I have regarding Out of the Blue packets please? Section 1.5.6 states that these packets should be silently discarded:- 1.5.6. Packet Validation A mandatory Verification Tag field and a 32-bit checksum field (see Appendix B for a description of the CRC32c checksum) are included in the SCTP common header. The Verification Tag value is chosen by each end of the association during association startup. Packets received without the expected Verification Tag value are discarded, as a protection against blind masquerade attacks and against stale SCTP packets from a previous association. The CRC32c checksum should be set by the sender of each SCTP packet to provide additional protection against data corruption in the network. The receiver of an SCTP packet with an invalid CRC32c checksum silently discards the packet. However Section 8.4 gives an alternative explanation as to how these packets should be handled:- 8.4. Handle "Out of the Blue" Packets A</pre> Horsham, Ian 2011-10-12T10:15:26 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.sigtran/9940 <pre>Hi Brain, Is it must to send the NTFY message to the peer node after change in the IPSP state? *Thanks **Mahantesh* _______________________________________________ Sigtran mailing list Sigtran&lt; at &gt;ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sigtran </pre> Mahantesh SK 2011-10-04T11:42:56 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.sigtran/9937 <pre>Hi I have query on SCTP Multi-homing with respect to primary and secondary paths. Assuming two endpoints using multi-homing, End-Point-1, EP1 has IP addresses EP1-IP1 and EP1-IP2, End-Point-2, EP2 has IP addresses EP2-IP1 and EP2-IP2. Both of these interfaces are in completely different networks with different routers, etc connecting them indirectly. Under this scenario would there be 2 paths between the two end points (EP1-IP1 &lt;-&gt; EP2-IP1 as path #1 and EP1-IP2 &lt;-&gt; EP2-IP2 as Path#2) or 4 paths using (EP1-IP1 &lt;-&gt; EP2-IP1 as path #1 and EP1-IP1 &lt;-&gt; EP2-IP2 as Path#2 , EP1-IP2 &lt;-&gt; EP2-IP1 as path#3 and EP1-IP2 &lt;-&gt; EP2-IP2) If there are 4 paths, how would IP routing take care of such a scenario, i.e how would the route tables look like on EP1? How can EP1 have 2 routes to the same EP2-IP1 IP address through 2 different local interfaces on EP1? TIA, Regards, Satya _______________________________________________ Sigtran mailing list Sigtran&lt; at &gt;ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/l</pre> Nemana, Satya 2011-09-26T15:44:59 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.sigtran/9934 <pre>Hi, We have a SIGTRAN setup with ITU, ANSI and Chinese variants with network appearance values configured as 1, 2, and 3 respectively as the DUT. Now, if I send an ITU-DAUD message with network appearance value as 3 from the peer to the DUT. There is no error message sent from the DUT to the peer. Should there be no error message sent to the peer saying “Invalid Network Appearance” ? According to RFC 4666, we see that Invalid Network Appearance error message is sent for the below scenario: The "Invalid Network Appearance" error is sent by an SGP if an ASP sends a message with an invalid (unconfigured) Network Appearance value. For this error, the invalid (unconfigured) Network Appearance MUST be included in the Network Appearance parameter. So, does that mean “invalid (configured)” means the NA that’s not configured for any variant on the DUT? Could you please comment on this behavior. Thanks &amp; Regards, Vishma R Shetty ___________</pre> Shetty, Vishma (NSN - IN/Bangalore 2011-09-09T11:57:14 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.sigtran/9929 <pre>Hi, I have one query regarding the SCON message handling between SG and ASP. Suppose a SG informs one of the Active ASP serving an AS that one of the point code in MTP3 network has become congested and hence sends the SCON message with congestion level say 1 to ASP. After receiving the SCON message with congestion level 1, the ASP starts the audit procedure and starts sending the DAUD message for that destination. Now when the destination point code in MTP3 network become uncongested, can a SGP inform the ASP by sending a DAVA message or it always informs by sending SCON message with congestion level as 0. And what if say after sending the initial SCON message to ASP with congestion level 1, the SG gets restarted. After restart would it be a DAVA message sent to ASP, on receiving it the ASP clears the congestion level set earlier and marks the destination point available and informs the higher layers. Regards Deepak =============================================================================== Ple</pre> Deepak Gunjal 2011-09-04T19:05:15 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.sigtran/9923 <pre> Normal 0 false false false RU X-NONE X-NONE MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 &lt;w:latentstyles deflockedstate="false" defunhidewhenused="true" defsemihidden="true" defqformat="false" defpriority="99" latentstylecount="267"&gt; &lt;w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="0" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Normal"&gt; &lt;w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="9" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="heading 1"&gt; &lt;w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="10" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Title"&gt; &lt;w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="11" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Subtitle"&gt; &lt;w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="22" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Strong"&gt; &lt;w:lsdexcepti</pre> Mikhail Plotkin 2011-09-02T10:05:55 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.sigtran/9920 <pre>Hi Brian In M3UA can an entity send DUNA(about itself), to convey its unavailability, for some other Management reasons. If such DUNA(about self Point Code) is received from adjacent Point Code, then how to process it ? Can it be processed like normal DUNA, and a DAUD procedure be started? Or for management reasons the control should be only at the level of Blocking the ASP? Pls share your opinion. Regards Santhana _______________________________________________ Sigtran mailing list Sigtran&lt; at &gt;ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sigtran </pre> Santhana 2011-09-02T02:44:14 Search the mailing list at Gmane query http://search.gmane.org/?group=$group=gmane.ietf.sigtran