From nageshs@huawei.com Tue Sep 1 05:28:06 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sigtran@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: sigtran@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3109228CD55 for ; Tue, 1 Sep 2009 05:28:06 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.742 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.742 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.740, BAYES_50=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HkMRPOMvijUJ for ; Tue, 1 Sep 2009 05:28:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from szxga04-in.huawei.com (szxga04-in.huawei.com [119.145.14.67]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B8FFC28CF07 for ; Tue, 1 Sep 2009 05:13:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from huawei.com (szxga04-in [172.24.2.12]) by szxga04-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0KPA007V7KN8OQ@szxga04-in.huawei.com> for sigtran@ietf.org; Tue, 01 Sep 2009 20:13:56 +0800 (CST) Received: from huawei.com ([172.24.1.33]) by szxga04-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0KPA00JK8KN8QF@szxga04-in.huawei.com> for sigtran@ietf.org; Tue, 01 Sep 2009 20:13:56 +0800 (CST) Received: from BLRNSHTIPL1NC ([10.18.1.31]) by szxml06-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTPA id <0KPA008ZNKN72O@szxml06-in.huawei.com> for sigtran@ietf.org; Tue, 01 Sep 2009 20:13:56 +0800 (CST) Date: Tue, 01 Sep 2009 17:43:57 +0530 From: Nagesh To: sigtran@ietf.org Message-id: <002d01ca2afd$aee3af10$1f01120a@china.huawei.com> MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.3790.3168 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Boundary_(ID_+K7aEwpAss378YWeUC8FvQ)" Thread-index: Acoq/a4YOJDBWmOKQpSvG+Fy+A6ecg== Subject: [Sigtran] Doubt regarding SCTP TSN/SSN X-BeenThere: sigtran@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Signaling Transport List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 01 Sep 2009 13:13:15 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --Boundary_(ID_+K7aEwpAss378YWeUC8FvQ) Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Hi Group, I have a following doubt regarding SCTP TSN/SSN Handling. SCTP SCTP (Peer Node) (Local Node) Association is established with Local Init TSN = 0 <--------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------> DATA1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------> TSN(0) SSN(0) StreamId = 0 DATA2 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------> TSN(2) SSN(1) StreamId = 0 DATA3 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------> TSN(1) SSN(2) StreamId = 0 DATA4 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------> TSN(2) SSN(3) StreamId = 0 DATA5 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------> TSN(3) SSN(3) StreamId = 0 What should be the behavior when we receive DATA4 and DATA5 since the SSN is in sequence but the TSN is out-of-order? Request you to please clarify my doubt. Thanks and Regards, Nagesh. **************************************************************************** *********************************************** This e-mail and attachments contain confidential information from HUAWEI, which is intended only for the person or entity whose address is listed above. Any use of the information contained herein in any way (including, but not limited to, total or partial disclosure, reproduction, or dissemination) by persons other than the intended recipient's) is prohibited. If you receive this e-mail in error, please notify the sender by phone or email immediately and delete it! --Boundary_(ID_+K7aEwpAss378YWeUC8FvQ) Content-type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable

Hi = Group,

      I have a following = doubt regarding SCTP TSN/SSN Handling.

 

    SCTP =             &= nbsp;          =             &= nbsp;           &n= bsp;           &nb= sp;           &nbs= p;            = ;            =            =     SCTP

(Peer = Node)           &n= bsp;       =             =             =             &= nbsp;           &n= bsp;           &nb= sp;           &nbs= p;           (Local Node)

  =             &= nbsp;      Association is established with Local Init TSN =3D 0

         =          ß----------------------------= -----------------------------------------------------------------<= /font>à

         =             &= nbsp;           &n= bsp;        DATA1

         =          -------------------------------------------------------------------------= ------------------------à    

         =             &= nbsp;  TSN(0)     SSN(0)   StreamId =3D 0

 

         =             &= nbsp;           &n= bsp;        DATA2

         =          -------------------------------------------------------------------------= ------------------------à    

         =             &= nbsp;  TSN(2)     SSN(1)   StreamId =3D 0

 

         =             &= nbsp;           &n= bsp;        DATA3

         =          -------------------------------------------------------------------------= ------------------------à    

         =             &= nbsp;  TSN(1)     SSN(2)   StreamId =3D 0

 

         =             &= nbsp;           &n= bsp;        DATA4

         =          -------------------------------------------------------------------------= ------------------------à    

         =             &= nbsp;  TSN(2)     SSN(3)   StreamId =3D 0

 

         =             &= nbsp;           &n= bsp;        DATA5

         =          -------------------------------------------------------------------------= ------------------------à    

         =             &= nbsp;  TSN(3)     SSN(3)   StreamId =3D 0

 

         =    What should be the behavior when we receive DATA4 and DATA5 since the SSN is = in sequence but the TSN is out-of-order?

 

     Request you to please = clarify my doubt.

 

Thanks and Regards,

Nagesh.

*************************************************************= **************************************************************
           This e-mail and attachments = contain confidential information from HUAWEI, which is intended only for the person or entity = whose address is listed above. Any use of the information contained herein in = any way (including, but not limited to, total or partial disclosure, = reproduction, or dissemination) by persons other than the intended recipient's) is = prohibited. If you receive this e-mail in error, please notify the sender by phone = or email immediately and delete it!

 

 

--Boundary_(ID_+K7aEwpAss378YWeUC8FvQ)-- From Michael.Tuexen@lurchi.franken.de Tue Sep 1 07:41:17 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sigtran@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: sigtran@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C4E728C727 for ; Tue, 1 Sep 2009 07:41:16 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 2.038 X-Spam-Level: ** X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.038 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HOST_EQ_DIP_TDIAL=2.144, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL=0.877, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9S4hFQiBRZ5K for ; Tue, 1 Sep 2009 07:41:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-n.franken.de (drew.ipv6.franken.de [IPv6:2001:638:a02:a001:20e:cff:fe4a:feaa]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E880528C725 for ; Tue, 1 Sep 2009 07:41:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.100] (p508FE488.dip.t-dialin.net [80.143.228.136]) by mail-n.franken.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 163501C0B4607; Tue, 1 Sep 2009 16:41:23 +0200 (CEST) Message-Id: <8E7C772C-CC9F-4928-A29E-043C2BA82E09@lurchi.franken.de> From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Michael_T=FCxen?= To: Nagesh In-Reply-To: <002d01ca2afd$aee3af10$1f01120a@china.huawei.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v936) Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2009 16:41:22 +0200 References: <002d01ca2afd$aee3af10$1f01120a@china.huawei.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.936) Cc: sigtran@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Sigtran] Doubt regarding SCTP TSN/SSN X-BeenThere: sigtran@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Signaling Transport List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 01 Sep 2009 14:41:17 -0000 On Sep 1, 2009, at 2:13 PM, Nagesh wrote: > Hi Group, > I have a following doubt regarding SCTP TSN/SSN Handling. Hi, please note that SCTP is now handled at tsvwg@ietf.org. > > =20 > SCTP=20 > = SCTP > (Peer =20 > Node=20 > ) = (Local=20 > Node) > Association is established with Local Init TSN =20= > =3D 0 > =20 > =DF=20 > = --------------------------------------------------------------------------= -------------------=E0 > DATA1 > =20 > = --------------------------------------------------------------------------= -----------------------=E0 > TSN(0) SSN(0) StreamId =3D 0 > > DATA2 > =20 > = --------------------------------------------------------------------------= -----------------------=E0 > TSN(2) SSN(1) StreamId =3D 0 > > DATA3 > =20 > = --------------------------------------------------------------------------= -----------------------=E0 > TSN(1) SSN(2) StreamId =3D 0 This assignment is broken, since the TSN of SSN(1) should be smaller =20 than the one of SSN(2). > > DATA4 > =20 > = --------------------------------------------------------------------------= -----------------------=E0 > TSN(2) SSN(3) StreamId =3D 0 So you are resusing TSN(2) here? It will be dropped, since it was =20 already received. > > DATA5 > =20 > = --------------------------------------------------------------------------= -----------------------=E0 > TSN(3) SSN(3) StreamId =3D 0 > > What should be the behavior when we receive DATA4 and =20 > DATA5 since the SSN is in sequence but the TSN is out-of-order? > > Request you to please clarify my doubt. > > Thanks and Regards, > Nagesh. > = **************************************************************************= ************************************************* > This e-mail and attachments contain confidential =20 > information from HUAWEI, which is intended only for the person or =20 > entity whose address is listed above. Any use of the information =20 > contained herein in any way (including, but not limited to, total or =20= > partial disclosure, reproduction, or dissemination) by persons other =20= > than the intended recipient's) is prohibited. If you receive this e-=20= > mail in error, please notify the sender by phone or email =20 > immediately and delete it! > > > _______________________________________________ > Sigtran mailing list > Sigtran@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sigtran From santhana@huawei.com Thu Sep 24 04:08:33 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sigtran@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: sigtran@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA10028C0E2 for ; Thu, 24 Sep 2009 04:08:33 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.654 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.654 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-2.652, BAYES_50=0.001, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_12=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_26=0.6, RDNS_NONE=0.1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MxQS5X0nTbus for ; Thu, 24 Sep 2009 04:08:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from szxga02-in.huawei.com (unknown [119.145.14.65]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B779C28C0D8 for ; Thu, 24 Sep 2009 04:08:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from huawei.com (szxga02-in [172.24.2.6]) by szxga02-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0KQH005L72ZUY5@szxga02-in.huawei.com> for sigtran@ietf.org; Thu, 24 Sep 2009 19:09:30 +0800 (CST) Received: from huawei.com ([172.24.1.33]) by szxga02-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0KQH004VH2ZU6W@szxga02-in.huawei.com> for sigtran@ietf.org; Thu, 24 Sep 2009 19:09:30 +0800 (CST) Received: from BLRNSHTIPL2NC ([10.18.1.32]) by szxml06-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTPA id <0KQH00I2O2ZTYO@szxml06-in.huawei.com> for sigtran@ietf.org; Thu, 24 Sep 2009 19:09:30 +0800 (CST) Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2009 16:33:59 +0530 From: Santhana To: sigtran@ietf.org Message-id: <000901ca3d06$b82ebf90$2001120a@china.huawei.com> MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.3790.3168 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Boundary_(ID_gbCkLjbhK6TkPDwSD7A2eQ)" Thread-index: Aco9BreW50q3QKNYRCGOsn0MygI+0g== Subject: [Sigtran] [M3UA] Notify in DE mode X-BeenThere: sigtran@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Signaling Transport List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2009 11:08:33 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --Boundary_(ID_gbCkLjbhK6TkPDwSD7A2eQ) Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Hi M3UA RFC states that in IPSP mode one of the IPSPs can send Notify message. 4.3.4.5.1. IPSP Considerations (NTFY) Notify works in the same manner as in the SG-AS case. One of the IPSPs can send this message to any remote IPSP that is not in the ASP-DOWN state. But in IPSP DE(Double Exchange) mode, I feel it would be more appropriate when Notify is exchanged from each IPSP involved, as the local states of each IPSP can be different at any point. Please share your opinion on this. Regards Santhanakrishnan --Boundary_(ID_gbCkLjbhK6TkPDwSD7A2eQ) Content-type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT

Hi

            M3UA RFC states that in IPSP mode one of the IPSPs can send Notify message.

 

4.3.4.5.1.  IPSP Considerations (NTFY)

 

   Notify works in the same manner as in the SG-AS case.  One of the

   IPSPs can send this message to any remote IPSP that is not in the

   ASP-DOWN state.

 

            But in IPSP DE(Double Exchange) mode, I feel it would be more appropriate when Notify is exchanged from each IPSP involved, as the local states of each IPSP can be different at any point.

 

Please share your opinion on this.

 

Regards

Santhanakrishnan

--Boundary_(ID_gbCkLjbhK6TkPDwSD7A2eQ)-- From bidulock@openss7.org Thu Sep 24 11:01:28 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sigtran@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: sigtran@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 32BAD28C16B for ; Thu, 24 Sep 2009 11:01:28 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.699 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.300, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_12=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_26=0.6] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6sBuKtn+G16s for ; Thu, 24 Sep 2009 11:01:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gw.openss7.com (gw.openss7.com [206.75.119.236]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B379C28C172 for ; Thu, 24 Sep 2009 11:01:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from wilbur.pigworks.openss7.net (IDENT:+6hVbkc0iC2mqrsPawtGuRzHwjJQVGoR@ns5.evil.openss7.net [192.168.9.5]) by gw.openss7.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/Debian-3) with ESMTP id n8OI2ENC032479; Thu, 24 Sep 2009 12:02:14 -0600 Received: from wilbur.pigworks.openss7.net (IDENT:6ZKJAUH4CxvnvqFFpETMLR/yO8lDWTgv@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by wilbur.pigworks.openss7.net (8.13.8/8.13.8/Debian-3) with ESMTP id n8OI2EqQ012349; Thu, 24 Sep 2009 12:02:14 -0600 Received: (from brian@localhost) by wilbur.pigworks.openss7.net (8.13.8/8.13.8/Submit) id n8OI2EK6012348; Thu, 24 Sep 2009 12:02:14 -0600 Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2009 12:02:14 -0600 From: "Brian F. G. Bidulock" To: Santhana Message-ID: <20090924180214.GA11896@openss7.org> Mail-Followup-To: Santhana , sigtran@ietf.org References: <000901ca3d06$b82ebf90$2001120a@china.huawei.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <000901ca3d06$b82ebf90$2001120a@china.huawei.com> Organization: http://www.openss7.org/ Dsn-Notification-To: X-Spam-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) Cc: sigtran@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Sigtran] [M3UA] Notify in DE mode X-BeenThere: sigtran@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: bidulock@openss7.org List-Id: Signaling Transport List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2009 18:01:28 -0000 Santhana, Yes, you are right, the text was correct. In English the phase, "in the same manner" does not mean "identical to". --brian Santhana wrote: (Thu, 24 Sep 2009 16:33:59) > > Hi > > M3UA RFC states that in IPSP mode one of the IPSPs can > send Notify message. > > > 4.3.4.5.1. IPSP Considerations (NTFY) > > > > Notify works in the same manner as in the SG-AS case. One of the > > IPSPs can send this message to any remote IPSP that is not in the > > ASP-DOWN state. > > > But in IPSP DE(Double Exchange) mode, I feel it would be > more appropriate when Notify is exchanged from each IPSP involved, as > the local states of each IPSP can be different at any point. > > > Please share your opinion on this. > > > Regards > > Santhanakrishnan > _______________________________________________ > Sigtran mailing list > Sigtran@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sigtran -- Brian F. G. Bidulock bidulock@openss7.org http://www.openss7.org/