Re: [Megaco] MG Behavior on getting pending message response from MGCon ITO(Inactivity Timer) timeout

["Schwarz Albrecht" <Albrecht.Schwarz at alcatel-lucent.de>]

I'm not sure, but this looks like a bug in the MGC implementation. Hm?

Should be corrected first before thinking about subsequent ServiceChange procedures.

(At least the it/ito-based "MGC-polling by MG" mechanism can't be used correctly ...)

 

---

From: megaco-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:megaco-bounces at ietf.org] On Behalf Of Rajiv Ginotra
Sent: Freitag, 26. Juni 2009 01:48
To: megaco-request at ietf.org; megaco at ietf.org
Subject: [Megaco] MG Behavior on getting pending message response from MGCon ITO(Inactivity Timer) timeout

Hello All,

 

Consider the following scenario:

When the MG is sending the ITO timeout notify and the MGC sends the pending message along with IA(Immediate Acknowledgment) in the same  message.

 

 

Question 1: After the ITO transaction retries are  finished, should MG sends a "909 MGC Impending Failure" service change message to other MGCs configured in the list or the send a ITO timeout notify with a new transaction ID.

 

Question 2: Does the IA in the above reply from MGC make the behavior different?

 

I have enclosed the call flow for reference

 

Regards

Rajiv

 

Call flow

======

[1196396 (10 ms)] !/2 [10.78.161.24]:5099 Transaction=2 {
Context = - {
Modify = ROOT {
Events = 1111 {it/ito {mit = 1000}}
}
}}

 

[10.78.161.24]:5099 [1196396 (10 ms)] !/2 [183.1.13.2]:2965 P = 2{ C = - {mf=ROOT }}

ITO Timeout notify starts and MGC started sending pending messages:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[10.78.161.24]:5099 [1197496 (10 ms)] !/2 [183.1.13.2]:2965 T = 538{ C = - {n=ROOT  { oe = 1111 { IT/ITO }  } }}

 

[1197503 (10 ms)] !/2 [10.78.161.24]:5099 Reply=538 {IA, C  =  - { n=root { Error = 506 {"506"} }}}

 

[10.78.161.24]:5099 [1197503 (10 ms)] !/2 [183.1.13.2]:2965 k{537,538}

 

[10.78.161.24]:5099 [1198403 (10 ms)] !/2 [183.1.13.2]:2965 T = 539{ C = - {n=ROOT  { oe = 1111 { IT/ITO }  } }}

 

[1198408 (10 ms)] !/2 [10.78.161.24]:5099 Reply=539 {IA, C  =  - { n=root { Error = 506 {"506"} }}}

 

[10.78.161.24]:5099 [1198408 (10 ms)] !/2 [183.1.13.2]:2965 k{539}

 

[10.78.161.24]:5099 [1199408 (10 ms)] !/2 [183.1.13.2]:2965 T = 540{ C = - {n=ROOT  { oe = 1111 { IT/ITO }  } }}

 

[1199412 (10 ms)] !/2 [10.78.161.24]:5099 Reply=540 {IA, C  =  - { n=root { Error = 506 {"506"} }}}

 

[10.78.161.24]:5099 [1199412 (10 ms)] !/2 [183.1.13.2]:2965 k{540}

 

[10.78.161.24]:5099 [1200412 (10 ms)] !/2 [183.1.13.2]:2965 T = 541{ C = - {n=ROOT  { oe = 1111 { IT/ITO }  } }}

 

[1200417 (10 ms)] !/2 [10.78.161.24]:5099 Reply=541 {IA, C  =  - { n=root { Error = 506 {"506"} }}}

 

[10.78.161.24]:5099 [1200417 (10 ms)] !/2 [183.1.13.2]:2965 k{541}

 

Now the ITO retries get finished. what would be the next transaction???