RE: [Sigtran] AS concepts and Relay in SUA and M3UA
"Tolga Asveren" <asveren@ulticom.com> Wed, 14 December 2005 20:48 UTC
Received: from localhost.cnri.reston.va.us ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EmdXv-0002Um-LV; Wed, 14 Dec 2005 15:48:19 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EmdXt-0002SR-IV for sigtran@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 14 Dec 2005 15:48:18 -0500
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA22349 for <sigtran@ietf.org>; Wed, 14 Dec 2005 15:47:04 -0500 (EST)
Received: from bw.ulticom.com ([208.255.120.38]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EmdYq-0007tQ-WD for sigtran@ietf.org; Wed, 14 Dec 2005 15:49:20 -0500
Received: from colby.ulticom.com (colby.ulticom.com [192.73.206.10]) by bw.ulticom.com (BorderWare MXtreme Mail Firewall) with ESMTP id A7E7BF3E1E for <sigtran@ietf.org>; Wed, 14 Dec 2005 15:47:29 -0500 (EST)
Received: from pcasveren (pc-asveren.ulticom.com [172.25.33.55]) by colby.ulticom.com (8.13.4/8.12.10) with SMTP id jBEKlPRA023929 for <sigtran@ietf.org>; Wed, 14 Dec 2005 15:47:28 -0500 (EST)
From: Tolga Asveren <asveren@ulticom.com>
To: sigtran@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [Sigtran] AS concepts and Relay in SUA and M3UA
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 15:29:10 -0500
Message-ID: <GBEBKGPKHGPAOFCLBNAMMENNDJAA.asveren@ulticom.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0)
In-Reply-To: <20051214202216.74980.qmail@web36315.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1506
Importance: Normal
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.40
Received-SPF: pass
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 17cf8eab1d6bbd2874a56f9e3554d91d
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-BeenThere: sigtran@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Signaling Transport <sigtran.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sigtran>, <mailto:sigtran-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:sigtran@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sigtran-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sigtran>, <mailto:sigtran-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: sigtran-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: sigtran-bounces@ietf.org
Stanislav, -----Original Message----- From: Stanislav Ivanovich [mailto:stanislav_ivanovich@yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2005 3:22 PM To: Tolga Asveren Subject: RE: [Sigtran] AS concepts and Relay in SUA and M3UA Tolga, First, thank You very much for Your prompt answer. I have a strong feeling that the Relay has been added "ad hock" to SUA! The fact is that SUA made more or less copy/paste from the M3UA specification of the critical AS/ASP/IPSP procedures which seem to be originally designed for direct-to-direct relations, but these have not been modified to support the relay concept in SUA (efficiently). In traditional SS7 networks which do support relay efficiently you do not have to specify originating and destination addresses but only the destination address when specifying Route Sets. However this is inefficiently if you want to base your relay (in SUA) on the AS concept as currently defined. For IPSP-IPSP configuration either you say: 1) It is one the same RK installed at two IPSP places (i.e. one AS) (as you claimed when you had discussions with Ilie Glib) or [TOLGA]Yes, just to be more clear, there are altogether 2 AS and 1 RK, one AS on each IPSP side, but on each end 1:1 mapping between RK and AS holds. 2) or these are 2 AS'es but these have to be bound since in SE model activation of one AS implicitly assumes activation of another AS In both cases only messages belonging to the specified SS7 relation(s) are allowed between the processes. For example IPSP-1 owns 2-100 and IPSP-2 owns 2-200. In the first case you say it is 1 AS defined as - "DPC=2-100;OPC=2-200" at IPSP-1 place and - "DPC=2-200;OPC=2-100" at IPSP-2 place (in this case you have 1 AS at each IPSP place) [TOLGA]This is SE-IPSP. or in the second case you specify: - "local AS1" as "DPC=2-100" and "remote AS2" as "DPC=2-200" at IPSP-1 place and - "local AS1" as "DPC=2-200" and "remote AS2" as "DPC=2-100" at IPSP-2 place [TOLGA]This is DE-IPSP. (in this case you have 2 independent AS'es - local and remote one - at each of the places which are bound) However according to your answers below only messages belonging to 2-100<->2-200 relation (in both directions) are allowed. [TOLGA]This is how IPSP is supposed to work by definition. There are two entities which communicate with each other directly. If they are identified by PC, it is natural that all traffic flowing between those entities will originate and end at those PCs. Could you, please, confirm this for SUA once again? However this is very unfriendly for the Relay concept, since I have to (one way or another) specify both OPC and DPC! [TOLGA]AS I said before, IPSP is never thought to support relay concept. I personally am not aware of any existing plans to have relaying functionality for SUA IPSP. Even more you claim that there is no IPSP-IPSP relay in SUA. Strictly speaking there is no section in the SUA specification which is to define the concept of IPSP-IPSP relay (or is there any?). However one might say that this is lack of specification in the SUA paper. Are you saying that the configuration I sketched below in point 5 is illegal for SUA? [TOLGA]As far as I know it is illegal. Why the relay in SUA is not explained in the RFC? Are there any plans to explain it in the "SUA Implementor's guide"? How is SUA Relay supposed to work in the mulitple AS/RC per proecess environments? [TOLGA]I don't know what is the current plan in terms of detailing SUA Relaying Procedures. Does SUA gateway includes MTP STP functionality? (In anothewr words can SUA gateway relay SCCP messages based on SPC only rather than GT? Or send TFP messages into SS7 network?) RTFC says just GT but my colleagues consider it lack of specification, isn't so? [TOLGA]You should be able to relay based on PC as well. Actually this is mentioned in RFC 3868 "1.4.6 Relay function". thnak you once again for your cooperation! /stanislav Tolga Asveren <asveren@ulticom.com> wrote: Stanislav, IPSP is a peer-to-peer model, there is no relaying functionality. It is used only to enable communication between two AS in IP domain without any intermediares. Please see below for more answers. Thanks, Tolga -----Original Message----- From: sigtran-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:sigtran-bounces@ietf.org]On Behalf Of Stanislav Ivanovich Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2005 12:32 PM To: sigtran@ietf.org Subject: [Sigtran] AS concepts and Relay in SUA and M3UA Hello SIGTRAN experts, I kindly ask You to help me clarify some important AS and relay concepts of both M3UA and SUA. I have noticed a question with subject "AS, RK , RC concepts in SE model" that Ilie Glib posted on 6th of December and discussion there raised serious doubts in my understanding of particularly SUA relay. It looks like that Brian's and Tolga's answers maybe are aligned with relevant specifications (M3UA and SUA) but I not quite sure since there might be inconsistencies in the specifications. Questions: 1) Both M3UA and SUA specifications in the same sec. 4.3.4.3. "ASP Active Procedures" say: "By sending an ASP Active Ack message, the SGP or IPSP is now ready to receive and send traffic for the related Routing Context(s). The ASP SHOULD NOT send Data or SSNM messages for the related Routing Context(s) before receiving an ASP ! Active Ack message, or it will risk message loss." I have a configuration of SGP-ASP. SE model used. 2 AS'es registered, namely AS1:DPC=2-100 and AS2:DPC=2-200. I am considering both M3UA as well as SUA. ASP has activated AS1 but not AS2 by sending ASP ACTIVE indicating RC1 only. Does the reference above mean that after ASP activates AS1 but not AS2 that it is allowed to send towards SGP but only indicating OPC=2-100 for M3UA or SPC=2-100 in Source Address for SUA but not indicating OPC=2-200 for M3UA or SPC=2-200 in Source Address for SUA? Is the answer the same for M3UA and SUA? [TOLGA]SE model refers to SE-IPSP. there is only one type of SGP/ASP relationship. ASP SHOULD send DATA only for an ACTIVE RK, so the answer to your question is "yes" -for SUA, the situation is a bit different for GT based RKs-. 2) According to Your answers sent to Ilie in IPSP-IPSP configuration in SE model one must install the same RK at both processes and the RK specify the SS7 relation(s). I have this configuration in SE model: IPSP-A<---------------->IPSP-B SPC-a1 SPC-b SPC-a2 AS1 = SPC-a1 <-> SPC-b AS2 = SPC-a2 <-> SPC-b and IPSP-A activates AS1 but keeps AS2 inactive. Does the SUA/M3UA reference in question 1 mean that IPSP-A is allowed to send towards SPC-b using OPC=SPC-a1 for M3UA (or SPC=SPC-a1 in Source Address for SUA) but is not allowed to send towards SPC-b using OPC=SPC-a2 for M3UA (or SPC=SPC-a2 in Source Address for SUA)? Is the answer the same for M3UA and SUA? [TOLGA]The answer is again "yes". 3) If the answers for questions 1 and 2 is "Yes" that implies that the concept of Application Servers (which is supported by corresponding ASP procedures) used by both M3UA and SUA seems to be extremely unfriendly to the relay concept as used by traditional SS7 networks. [TOLGA]Please note that neither SGP/ASP not IPSP/IPSP relationship corresponds to MTP3/MTP3 relationship of SS7 network. ASP/SGP corresponds to MTP3/MTP3-User Part realtionship and IPSP/IPSP can be thought as direct communication between SS7 User parts. Only SG-SG communication mimics MTP3/MTP3 communication. Esse! ntially in traditional SS7 networks traffic is managed separately and independently in both directions while in the AS concept the traffic (at least in SE model which is mandatory!) is managed symmetrically. This important asymmetrical principle of SS7 is reflected on both external as well as API internal interfaces. Thus for example TFP message sent by node A to node B indicating unavailability of a destination C means that node B cannot reach node C via node A. However the opposite direction (if exists at all) is managed separately. The same is valid for SSP messages of SCCP. [TOLGA]As said above, only SG-SG communication mimics MTP3/MTP3 relationship and thus only it functions the way you described. The same principles are kept for API internal interfaces. Thus when MTP indicates MTP_PAUSE to a User Part it means that the User Part is not allowed to send towards the indicated destination. However this does not mean that the User Part cannot receive a message from the peer at the indicated concerned destination. The ! same is valid for SCCP N_PCSTATE and N_STATE indications. However in the AS concept of xxUA networks one ASP TM message affects the traffic in both directions (if the answers is "Yes" for the previous questions). I noticed in the discussion You have with Ilie Glib that that You claim that in DE model this management is asymmetrical! Does that mean that the SUA/M3UA reference in question 1 is not valid for DE model? If so, why is that not indicated then? If You still claim that DE model is asymmetrical unlike SE model Why we do not have this asymmetrical management for SGP-ASP interface as well since DE model is only for IPSP-IPSP interface? [TOLGA]The asymmetry in DE-IPSP is not a desired behavior but can be considered more as a shortcoming. Considering that SGP/ASP interface mimics MTP3/MTP3-User Part interface, I don't see the reason why it should behave asymmetric. 4) Why do I claim that the AS concept is extremely unfriendly to the Relay concept? Because in the answer to Ilie Glib as well as in xxUA specifications You claim that (at least in the mandatory SE model) that You have to specify SS7 relat! ions, namely OPC and DPC for IPSP-IPSP configurations. Note that SUA specification differs from M3UA since it explicitly mentions the concept of Relay function in sec. 1.4.6. "Relay function" (SUA RFC). There it says that "The determination of the next hop...may also be based on...pointcode contained in the called party address". [TOLGA]SUA does not define relay functionality for IPSP communication. How could SUA relay be practically achieved if we strictly follow existing AS concept You want to follow and if You have a network of several dozens of processes? In SS7 network it is irrelevant which node sends a message - the only thing that matters is whether the addressed destination is accessible. However here in xxUA networks You have to specify all the OPC-DPC combinations that an AS supports! For a network of dozen processes it might be 100's of combinations... that have to be supported! 5) In one of the answers to Ilie Glib ! You also claimed that there is no MTP management performed by SUA processes equipped with Relay capability. If we look into SUA specification there is no section which describes exchange of DUNA, DAVA messages between two IPSP processes which are equipped with SUA relay. However one might consider this as a lack of specification and/or inconsistency with other parts of the specification! Otherwise how do You mean it is possible to support the following SUA configuration: ---------- --------- ---------| IPSP-A |-----------| 2-200 | / ----------\ /--------- / \ / IPSP-2 ---------/ \ / | 2-100 | ----- ---------\ / \ IPSP-1 \ / \ \ ----------/ \--------- ---------| IPSP-B |-----------| 2-300 | ---------- --------- IPSP-3 SCCP application at IPSP-1 place communicates with SCCP applications at IPSP-2 and IPSP-3 places by using their SPC addresses. The communication goes over IPSP SUA relay processes IPSP-A and IPSP-B which act as proxies between the processes, namely relay processes represent IPSP-2 and IPSP-3 to IPSP-1 and IPSP-1 to IPSP-2 and IPSP-3. We intend to use SE model. We define: AS = (2-100 <-> 2-200) and (2-100 <-> 2-300) at IPSP-1, IPSP-A and IPSP-B places. AS2 = 2-100 <-> 2-200 at IPSP-2, IPSP-A and IPSP-B places. AS3 = 2-100 <-> 2-300 at IPSP-3, IPSP-A and IPSP-B places. If the SCTP association between processes IPSP-B and IPSP-3 fails how can the SUA relay process IPSP-B indicate to IPSP-1 process its incapability to support relation 2-100 <-> 2-300 while the relation 2-100 <-> 2-200 is still available? One would normally expect that IPSP-B sends DUNA message to IPSP-1 indicating inaccessibility of 2-300. However this procedures are not described in the SUA R! FC! And You claim that there are no DUNA, DAVA... messages to perform MTP management on IPSP-IPSP interface even if You have SUA relay! Note that if these SCCP applications reside in classical SS7 network and if IPSP-A and IPSP-B nodes are MTP STP nodes (MTP relay) then SCCP application in node 1 would be isolated from this failure by MTP layer which would perform the re-configuration. In another words it is true that SCCP application in node 1 would not be informed by N-PCSTATE primitive of SCCP but the failure would be catered by the lower (MTP) layer. The question is, shouldn't SUA then isolate its users from this failure by performing the same job as MTP does in this case? In another words shouldn't SUA relay (and SUA gateway) include MTP STP functionality? That would imply that You need exchange of SSNM messages between two IPSP processes what You claim is not allowed!?! Otherwise what should IPSP-B node do in this case (if not to send DUNA message)? Actually, the ultimate question is -> how should SUA relay work after all? (especially considering AS concept, ASP/IPSP traffic management procedures in the multiple AS'es per signalling process environemet) 6) Is there at least "hidden" - if not explicit - M3UA relay in M3UA specifications? Is it allowed to send SSNM messages between 2 IPSP processes for M3UA? [TOLGA]No, although this is not 100% clear in the specifications -yet-. Only SCON is used to convey congestion information and hopefully we can replace it soon with an ASPTM. 7) Does the reference to SUA/M3UA specification in question 1 means that if an SUA AS is specified as Destination_Address_GT=xyz that if the AS is not active the process is not allowed to send any message with Source_Address_GT=xyz? [TOLGA]As far as I know, for GT based RKs there is no such restriction. I would very much appreciate that Your answers either contain references to the existing specifications, or if these are to be updated then some indication that the issues (! if any) would be addressed in the next version of the specification(s) (e.g. "SUA Implementor's guide"). Thank You very much in advance for Your answers! best regards/ Stanislav Ivanovich Yahoo! Shopping Find Great Deals on Holiday Gifts at Yahoo! Shopping _______________________________________________ Sigtran mailing list Sigtran@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sigtran Yahoo! Shopping Find Great Deals on Holiday Gifts at Yahoo! Shopping _______________________________________________ Sigtran mailing list Sigtran@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sigtran
- [Sigtran] AS concepts and Relay in SUA and M3UA Stanislav Ivanovich
- RE: [Sigtran] AS concepts and Relay in SUA and M3… Tolga Asveren
- Re: [Sigtran] AS concepts and Relay in SUA and M3… Brian F. G. Bidulock
- RE: [Sigtran] AS concepts and Relay in SUA and M3… Tolga Asveren
- RE: [Sigtran] AS concepts and Relay in SUA and M3… Tolga Asveren
- RE: [Sigtran] AS concepts and Relay in SUA and M3… Stanislav Ivanovich
- RE: [Sigtran] AS concepts and Relay in SUA and M3… Tolga Asveren
- RE: [Sigtran] AS concepts and Relay in SUA and M3… Stanislav Ivanovich
- Re: [Sigtran] AS concepts and Relay in SUA and M3… Brian F. G. Bidulock
- RE: [Sigtran] AS concepts and Relay in SUA and M3… Tolga Asveren
- RE: [Sigtran] AS concepts and Relay in SUA and M3… Tolga Asveren
- Re: [Sigtran] AS concepts and Relay in SUA and M3… Brian F. G. Bidulock
- RE: [Sigtran] AS concepts and Relay in SUA and M3… Tolga Asveren
- RE: [Sigtran] AS concepts and Relay in SUA and M3… Stanislav Ivanovich
- Re: [Sigtran] AS concepts and Relay in SUA and M3… Brian F. G. Bidulock
- Re: [Sigtran] AS concepts and Relay in SUA and M3… Brian F. G. Bidulock
- RE: [Sigtran] AS concepts and Relay in SUA and M3… Tolga Asveren
- Re: [Sigtran] AS concepts and Relay in SUA and M3… Brian F. G. Bidulock
- RE: [Sigtran] AS concepts and Relay in SUA and M3… Tolga Asveren
- Re: [Sigtran] AS concepts and Relay in SUA and M3… Brian F. G. Bidulock
- Re: [Sigtran] AS concepts and Relay in SUA and M3… Stanislav Ivanovich
- Re: [Sigtran] AS concepts and Relay in SUA and M3… Stanislav Ivanovich
- RE: [Sigtran] AS concepts and Relay in SUA and M3… john.loughney
- Re: [Sigtran] AS concepts and Relay in SUA and M3… Brian F. G. Bidulock
- RE: [Sigtran] AS concepts and Relay in SUA and M3… Tolga Asveren
- RE: [Sigtran] AS concepts and Relay in SUA and M3… Tolga Asveren
- RE: [Sigtran] AS concepts and Relay in SUA and M3… john.loughney
- RE: [Sigtran] AS concepts and Relay in SUA and M3… john.loughney
- Re: [Sigtran] AS concepts and Relay in SUA and M3… Ilie Glib
- RE: [Sigtran] AS concepts and Relay in SUA and M3… Stanislav Ivanovich
- RE: [Sigtran] AS concepts and Relay in SUA and M3… Barry Nagelberg
- Re: [Sigtran] AS concepts and Relay in SUA and M3… Brian F. G. Bidulock
- Re: [Sigtran] AS concepts and Relay in SUA and M3… Stanislav Ivanovich
- Re: [Sigtran] AS concepts and Relay in SUA and M3… Brian F. G. Bidulock
- Re: [Sigtran] AS concepts and Relay in SUA and M3… Stanislav Ivanovich
- Re: [Sigtran] AS concepts and Relay in SUA and M3… Brian F. G. Bidulock
- Re: [Sigtran] AS concepts and Relay in SUA and M3… Ilie Glib
- Re: [Sigtran] AS concepts and Relay in SUA and M3… Brian F. G. Bidulock
- Re: [Sigtran] AS concepts and Relay in SUA and M3… Ilie Glib
- Re: [Sigtran] AS concepts and Relay in SUA and M3… Brian F. G. Bidulock
- Re: [Sigtran] AS concepts and Relay in SUA and M3… Ilie Glib
- Re: [Sigtran] AS concepts and Relay in SUA and M3… Brian F. G. Bidulock
- Re: [Sigtran] AS concepts and Relay in SUA and M3… Ilie Glib
- Re: [Sigtran] AS concepts and Relay in SUA and M3… Brian F. G. Bidulock
- Re: [Sigtran] AS concepts and Relay in SUA and M3… Ilie Glib
- Re: [Sigtran] AS concepts and Relay in SUA and M3… Brian F. G. Bidulock
- RE: [Sigtran] AS concepts and Relay in SUA and M3… Barry Nagelberg
- Re: [Sigtran] AS concepts and Relay in SUA and M3… Brian F. G. Bidulock