From ravi.saxena@hp.com Wed Dec 12 02:55:24 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sigtran@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: sigtran@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 762C321F894D for ; Wed, 12 Dec 2012 02:55:24 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -109.998 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-109.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_12=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 95xGn2ttKLJk for ; Wed, 12 Dec 2012 02:55:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from g4t0015.houston.hp.com (g4t0015.houston.hp.com [15.201.24.18]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B835421F8994 for ; Wed, 12 Dec 2012 02:55:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from G9W0364.americas.hpqcorp.net (g9w0364.houston.hp.com [16.216.193.45]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by g4t0015.houston.hp.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3D0798188; Wed, 12 Dec 2012 10:55:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: from G4W6306.americas.hpqcorp.net (16.210.26.231) by G9W0364.americas.hpqcorp.net (16.216.193.45) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.2.283.4; Wed, 12 Dec 2012 10:49:21 +0000 Received: from G4W3210.americas.hpqcorp.net ([169.254.6.70]) by G4W6306.americas.hpqcorp.net ([16.210.26.231]) with mapi id 14.02.0283.004; Wed, 12 Dec 2012 10:49:21 +0000 From: "Saxena, Ravi (CMS)" To: aditi someshwar Thread-Topic: [Sigtran] Routing Context: M3UA Thread-Index: AQHMtZ9CZguKzgqFwkeRD5pIVmFr25XR3FcAgAAezoCCRUSmsA== Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2012 10:49:21 +0000 Message-ID: <5D6AD1992F280C46BA6A4931CE2F0152C25E56@G4W3210.americas.hpqcorp.net> References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [16.210.48.16] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_5D6AD1992F280C46BA6A4931CE2F0152C25E56G4W3210americashp_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "sigtran@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Sigtran] Routing Context: M3UA X-BeenThere: sigtran@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Signaling Transport List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2012 10:55:24 -0000 --_000_5D6AD1992F280C46BA6A4931CE2F0152C25E56G4W3210americashp_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Yes Routing Context has to be unique for each AS and same at both ends. More details are in RFE 3332 section 1.4.2 Routing Contexts and Routing Key= s Regards, Ravi Saxena From: sigtran-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:sigtran-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf = Of arif khan Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2011 7:41 PM To: aditi someshwar Cc: sigtran@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Sigtran] Routing Context: M3UA Ah got.. RC value should be unique for each AS and it is advisable to maintain it as= same way for peer also. But It can be different. Cheers On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 12:20 PM, aditi someshwar > wrote: Can not see anything in the specs to that effect though? On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 5:18 PM, arif khan > wrote: Yes On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 11:33 AM, aditi someshwar > wrote: Hi, Quick short question: Is it mandatory for the value of "Routing Context" to be the same at both t= he ends of M3UA association? Thanks and Regards, Aditi _______________________________________________ Sigtran mailing list Sigtran@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sigtran --_000_5D6AD1992F280C46BA6A4931CE2F0152C25E56G4W3210americashp_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Yes= Routing Context has to be unique for each AS and same at both ends.

Mor= e details are in RFE 3332 section 1.4.2 Routing Contexts and Routing Keys

 

Reg= ards,

Rav= i Saxena

 

From: sigtran-= bounces@ietf.org [mailto:sigtran-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of arif khan
Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2011 7:41 PM
To: aditi someshwar
Cc: sigtran@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Sigtran] Routing Context: M3UA

 

Ah got..

RC value should be unique for each AS and it = is advisable to maintain it as same way for peer also.

But It can be different.

 

Cheers

 

On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 12:20 PM, aditi someshwar <= ;aditi.someshwar@gmail.com= > wrote:

Can not see anything in the specs to that effect though?<= /span>

 

On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 5:18 PM, arif khan <arif15jan@gmail.com&= gt; wrote:

Yes

On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 11:33 AM, aditi someshwar <= ;aditi.somes= hwar@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi,

 

Quick short question:

 

Is it mandatory for the value of "Routing Context&qu= ot; to be the same at both the ends of M3UA association?<= /p>

 

Thanks and Regards,

Aditi

 

_____________________= __________________________
Sigtran mailing list
Sigtran@ietf.org<= br> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sigtran

 

 

 

--_000_5D6AD1992F280C46BA6A4931CE2F0152C25E56G4W3210americashp_-- From eatakishiyev@azerfon.az Wed Dec 12 02:59:09 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sigtran@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: sigtran@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 55A8621F89AC for ; Wed, 12 Dec 2012 02:59:09 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.139 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.139 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.74, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_12=0.6] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id AITARsjtLXnb for ; Wed, 12 Dec 2012 02:59:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.azerfon.az (mail.azerfon.az [77.244.112.16]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A93A021F8980 for ; Wed, 12 Dec 2012 02:59:07 -0800 (PST) From: Elnur Atakishiyev To: "Saxena, Ravi (CMS)" , aditi someshwar Thread-Topic: [Sigtran] Routing Context: M3UA Thread-Index: AQHMtZ9CZguKzgqFwkeRD5pIVmFr25XR3FcAgAAezoCCRUSmsIAAA8zg Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2012 10:59:04 +0000 Message-ID: References: <5D6AD1992F280C46BA6A4931CE2F0152C25E56@G4W3210.americas.hpqcorp.net> In-Reply-To: <5D6AD1992F280C46BA6A4931CE2F0152C25E56@G4W3210.americas.hpqcorp.net> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_F0DADF41195B0E44A9C8DDDDAD881A51010FF0ABazfncoexch1azer_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "sigtran@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Sigtran] Routing Context: M3UA X-BeenThere: sigtran@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Signaling Transport List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2012 10:59:09 -0000 --_000_F0DADF41195B0E44A9C8DDDDAD881A51010FF0ABazfncoexch1azer_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Yes sure, it must be the same, because on base of Routing Context other end= determine to which AS the traffic is sent. Let say, you send RC=3D15 and other side no AS defined with RC=3D15 then yo= u can not to switch message to correct AS. From: sigtran-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:sigtran-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf = Of Saxena, Ravi (CMS) Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2012 2:49 PM To: aditi someshwar Cc: sigtran@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Sigtran] Routing Context: M3UA Yes Routing Context has to be unique for each AS and same at both ends. More details are in RFE 3332 section 1.4.2 Routing Contexts and Routing Key= s Regards, Ravi Saxena From: sigtran-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:sigtran-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf = Of arif khan Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2011 7:41 PM To: aditi someshwar Cc: sigtran@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Sigtran] Routing Context: M3UA Ah got.. RC value should be unique for each AS and it is advisable to maintain it as= same way for peer also. But It can be different. Cheers On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 12:20 PM, aditi someshwar > wrote: Can not see anything in the specs to that effect though? On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 5:18 PM, arif khan > wrote: Yes On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 11:33 AM, aditi someshwar > wrote: Hi, Quick short question: Is it mandatory for the value of "Routing Context" to be the same at both t= he ends of M3UA association? Thanks and Regards, Aditi _______________________________________________ Sigtran mailing list Sigtran@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sigtran ________________________________ Privacy Declaration: This e-mail and its attachments contain confidential i= nformation from "Azerfon LLC" ,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 erro= r, please notify the sender by phone or email immediately and delete it! --_000_F0DADF41195B0E44A9C8DDDDAD881A51010FF0ABazfncoexch1azer_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Yes sure, it must be th= e same, because on base of Routing Context other end determine to which AS = the traffic is sent.

Let say, you send RC=3D= 15 and other side no AS defined with RC=3D15 then you can not to switch mes= sage to correct AS.

 

 

 

From: sigtra= n-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:sigtran-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Saxena, Ravi (CMS)
Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2012 2:49 PM
To: aditi someshwar
Cc: sigtran@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Sigtran] Routing Context: M3UA

 

Ye= s Routing Context has to be unique for each AS and same at both ends.

Mo= re details are in RFE 3332 section 1.4.2 Routing Contexts and Routing Keys<= /span>

&n= bsp;

Re= gards,

Ra= vi Saxena

 

From: sigtra= n-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:sigtran-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of arif khan
Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2011 7:41 PM
To: aditi someshwar
Cc: sigtran@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Sigtran] Routing Context: M3UA

 

Ah got..

RC value should be unique for each AS and it = is advisable to maintain it as same way for peer also.

But It can be different.

 

Cheers

 

On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 12:20 PM, aditi someshwar <= ;aditi.someshwar@gmail.com= > wrote:

Can not see anything in the specs to that effect though?<= /span>

 

On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 5:18 PM, arif khan <arif15jan@gmail.com&= gt; wrote:

Yes

On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 11:33 AM, aditi someshwar <= ;aditi.somes= hwar@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi,

 

Quick short question:

 

Is it mandatory for the value of "Routing Context&qu= ot; to be the same at both the ends of M3UA association?

 

Thanks and Regards,

Aditi

 

_____________________= __________________________
Sigtran mailing list
Sigtran@ietf.org<= br> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sigtran

 

 

 




Privacy Declaration: This e-mail and its attachments contain confidential i= nformation from "Azerfon LLC" ,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 erro= r, please notify the sender by phone or
email immediately and delete it!
--_000_F0DADF41195B0E44A9C8DDDDAD881A51010FF0ABazfncoexch1azer_--