Links

GitHub

Open HUB

Quick Links

Download

STREAMS

SIGTRAN

SS7

Hardware

SCTP

SIGTRAN

SCTP

UA

TUA

SUA

ISUA

M3UA

M2UA

M2PA

IUA

TALI

SS7 over IP

Documentation

FAQ

SIGTRAN

Design

Conformance

Performance

References

Man Pages

Manuals

Papers

Home

Overview

Status

Documentation

Resources

About

News

draft-ietf-sigtran-sua-implementor-guide-00

Description: Request For Comments

You can download source copies of the file as follows:

draft-ietf-sigtran-sua-implementor-guide-00.txt in text format.

Listed below is the contents of file draft-ietf-sigtran-sua-implementor-guide-00.txt.




Signalling Transport Working group                              L. Coene
Internet-Draft                                                   Siemens
Expires: August 18, 2005                                     J. Loughney
                                                                   Nokia
                                                       February 14, 2005

                        SUA Implementor's guide
           <draft-ietf-sigtran-sua-implementor-guide-00.txt>

Status of this Memo

   This document is an Internet-Draft and is subject to all provisions
   of Section 3 of RFC 3667.  By submitting this Internet-Draft, each
   author represents that any applicable patent or other IPR claims of
   which he or she is aware have been or will be disclosed, and any of
   which he or she become aware will be disclosed, in accordance with
   RFC 3668.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups.  Note that
   other groups may also distribute working documents as
   Internet-Drafts.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.

   This Internet-Draft will expire on August 18, 2005.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005).

Abstract

   This document contains a compilation of all defects found up until
   the publication date for SUA [RFC3868] [1].  These defects may be of
   an editorial or technical nature.  This document may be thought of as
   a companion document to be used in the implementation of SUA to
   clarify errors in the original SUA document.  This document updates

Coene & Loughney         Expires August 18, 2005                [Page 1]

Internet-Draft           SUA implementor's Guide           February 2005

   RFC3868 and text within this document supersedes the text found in
   RFC3868.

Table of Contents

   1.   INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     1.1  Terminology  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     1.2  Conventions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   2.   Correction to RFC3868  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     2.1  Routing context list in connectionless and
          connectionoriented messages  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
       2.1.1  Description of the problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
       2.1.2  Text changes to the document . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
       2.1.3  Solution description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     2.2  Congestion level parameter value . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
       2.2.1  Description of the problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
       2.2.2  Text changes to the document . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
       2.2.3  Solution description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     2.3  Segmentation parameter value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
       2.3.1  Description of the problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
       2.3.2  Text changes to the document . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
       2.3.3  Solution description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     2.4  DAUD response message ordering . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
       2.4.1  Description of the problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
       2.4.2  Text changes to the document . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
       2.4.3  Solution description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     2.5  Host name parameter  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
       2.5.1  Description of the problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
       2.5.2  Text changes to the document . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
       2.5.3  Solution description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     2.6  ASP routing context  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
       2.6.1  Description of the problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
       2.6.2  Text changes to the document . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
       2.6.3  Solution description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     2.7  Parameters should only occur once in a message . . . . . .  10
       2.7.1  Description of the problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
       2.7.2  Text changes to the document . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
       2.7.3  Solution description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     2.8  Use of ANSI intermediate signaling network
          identification (ISNI) parameter  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
       2.8.1  Description of the problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
       2.8.2  Text changes to the document . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
       2.8.3  Solution description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     2.9  TID label parameter  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
       2.9.1  Description of the problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
       2.9.2  Text changes to the document . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
       2.9.3  Solution description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     2.10   DRM label parameter  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13

Coene & Loughney         Expires August 18, 2005                [Page 2]

Internet-Draft           SUA implementor's Guide           February 2005

       2.10.1   Description of the problem . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
       2.10.2   Text changes to the document . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
       2.10.3   Solution description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
     2.11   Usage of the TID and DRN label . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
       2.11.1   Description of the problem . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
       2.11.2   Text changes to the document . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
       2.11.3   Solution description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
     2.12   Address Range paramete . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
       2.12.1   Description of the problem . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
       2.12.2   Text changes to the document . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
       2.12.3   Solution description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
     2.13   Interpretation of the mask parameter . . . . . . . . . .  19
       2.13.1   Description of the problem . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
       2.13.2   Text changes to the document . . . . . . . . . . . .  20
       2.13.3   Solution description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
     2.14   Reply on errors contained in a error message . . . . . .  21
       2.14.1   Description of the problem . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
       2.14.2   Text changes to the document . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
       2.14.3   Solution description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
     2.15   Use of stream 0 for SSNM messages  . . . . . . . . . . .  22
       2.15.1   Description of the problem . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
       2.15.2   Text changes to the document . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
       2.15.3   Solution description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  23
     2.16   Timer Ta does not exist  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  23
       2.16.1   Description of the problem . . . . . . . . . . . . .  23
       2.16.2   Text changes to the document . . . . . . . . . . . .  23
       2.16.3   Solution description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  24
     2.17   Error response on unsupported RKM messages . . . . . . .  24
       2.17.1   Description of the problem . . . . . . . . . . . . .  24
       2.17.2   Text changes to the document . . . . . . . . . . . .  24
       2.17.3   Solution description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  25
   3.   Security considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  26
   4.   Acknowledgments  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  27
   5.   References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  27
        Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  27
   A.   Changes Control  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  28
     A.1  Changes from v00 to v01  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  28
        Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . .  29

Coene & Loughney         Expires August 18, 2005                [Page 3]

Internet-Draft           SUA implementor's Guide           February 2005

1.  INTRODUCTION

   This document contains a compilation of all defects found up until
   the publication date for the SCCP User Adaptation Layer (SUA)
   [RFC3868].  These defects may be of an editorial or technical nature.
   This document may be thought of as a companion document to be used in
   the implementation of SUA to clarify errors in the original SUA
   document.  This document updates RFC3868 and text within this
   document, where noted, supersedes the text found in RFC3868.  Each
   error will be detailed within this document in the form of:
   o  The problem description,
   o  The text quoted from RFC3868,
   o  The replacement text,
   o  A description of the solution.

1.1  Terminology

   The terms are commonly identified in related work SUA [RFC3868] [1].

1.2  Conventions

Coene & Loughney         Expires August 18, 2005                [Page 4]

Internet-Draft           SUA implementor's Guide           February 2005

2.  Correction to RFC3868

2.1  Routing context list in connectionless and connectionoriented
    messages

2.1.1  Description of the problem

   The routing context parameter of a connectionless and
   connectionoriented message can contain a list of routing contexts.
   Normaly, the addressing info present in the message will yield only a
   single routing context.  A list of routing contexts is valid only for
   SSNM, ASPTM and RKM messages

2.1.2  Text changes to the document

   ---------
   Old text: (Section 3.9.6)
   ---------

   The Routing Context parameter contains (a list of) 4-byte unsigned
   integers indexing the Application Server traffic that the sending ASP
   is configured/registered to receive.  There is a one-to-one
   relationship between an index entry and a Routing Key or AS Name.

   ---------
   New text: (Section 3.9.6)
   ---------

   The Routing Context parameter contains (a list of) 4-byte unsigned
   integers indexing the Application Server traffic that the sending ASP
   is configured/registered to receive.  There is a one-to-one
   relationship between an index entry and a Routing Key or AS Name.

   A list of routing contexts is only valid for SSNM, ASPTM and RKM
   messages.  All other messages can contain only a single Routing
   Context.

2.1.3  Solution description

   Only 1 routing context value may be included in the routing context
   parameter of a connectionless and connectionoriented message.

2.2  Congestion level parameter value

2.2.1  Description of the problem

   The value of the congestion level is dependant on which info is
   present in the SCON message.  If the SCON only contains the affected

Coene & Loughney         Expires August 18, 2005                [Page 5]

Internet-Draft           SUA implementor's Guide           February 2005

   pointcode, then the congestion level has values ranging between 0 and
   3.  If affected pointcode and subsystemnumber is included in the SCON
   message, then the value of the congestion level can be between 1 and
   8.

2.2.2  Text changes to the document

   ---------
   Old text: (Section 3.10.24)
   ---------

   When the Congestion Level parameter is included in a SCON message
   that corresponds to an N-PCSTATE primitive, the Congestion Level
   field indicates the MTP congestion level experienced by the local or
   affected signalling point as indicated by the Affected Point Code(s)
   also in the SCON message.  In this case, valid values for the
   Congestion Level field are as follows:

        0  No Congestion or Undefined
        1  Congestion Level 1
        2  Congestion Level 2
        3  Congestion Level 3

   When the Congestion Level parameter is included in a SCON messagethat
   corresponds to an N-STATE primitive, the Congestion Level field
   indicates the SCCP restricted importance level experienced by the
   local or affected subsystem as indicated by the Affected Point Code
   and Subsystem Number also in the SCON message.  In this case, valid
   values for the Congestion Level field range from 0 to 7, where 0
   indicates the least congested and 7 indicates the most congested
   subsystem.

   ---------
   New text: (Section 3.10.24)
   ---------

   2 different congestion levels ranges can be used accoring to ITU and
   ANSI congestion control algorithms.

   When the ANSI congestion control algorithm is used, the Congestion
   Level field indicates the MTP congestion level as experienced by the
   local or affected subsystem indicated by the Affected Point Code and
   Subsystem Number.  In this case, valid values for the Congestion
   Level field range from 0 to 3, where 1 indicates the least congested
   and 3 indicates the most congested condition.

        0  No Congestion or Undefined
        1  Congestion Level 1

Coene & Loughney         Expires August 18, 2005                [Page 6]

Internet-Draft           SUA implementor's Guide           February 2005

        2  Congestion Level 2
        3  Congestion Level 3

   When the ITU congestion control algorithm is used, the Congestion
   Level field indicates the SCCP restricted importance level
   experienced by the local or affected subsystem as indicated by the
   Affected Point Code and Subsystem Number also in the SCON message.
   In this case, valid values for the Congestion Level field range from
   1 to 8, where 1 indicates the least congested and 8 indicates the
   most congested condition.

2.2.3  Solution description

   The ITU SCCP congestion control procedures are described in SCCP
   procedures [Q.714] [4] paragraph 2.6.  The ANSI SCCP congestion
   control procedures are described in SCCP procedures [T1.112.4] [5]
   paragraph 5.2.4.

   The SCC message in SCCP takes the value range 1..8, so the
   corresponding SCON should also be in that range.  To indicate no
   congestion, it is sufficient to send only a DAVA.

2.3  Segmentation parameter value

2.3.1  Description of the problem

   The original sequence delivery option as original demanded(= before
   the segementing) by the SCCP application is not preserved after
   segmentation.  The receiving SCCP application will always receive the
   message with sequenced delivery option set to 1.

2.3.2  Text changes to the document

   ---------
   Old text: (Section 3.10.23)
   ---------

   The first/remaining segments field is formatted as follows:
   o  bit 8 (MSB) : indicates whether this is the first segment (1) or
      not (0)
   o  bits 1-7: indicate the number of remaining segments, value between
      0 and 15

   ---------
   New text: (Section 3.10.23)
   ---------

   The segmentation paramter consists of the following:

Coene & Loughney         Expires August 18, 2005                [Page 7]

Internet-Draft           SUA implementor's Guide           February 2005

   o  bit 0: first/remaing segment bit: first = 1,  remaining = 0
   o  bit 1: sequence delivery option as original demanded(= before the
      segementing) by the SCCP application.  class 0 = 0, class 1 = 1.
   o  bit 2-3: spare
   o  bit 4-7: number of remaining segments(4 bits, values 0 -15)
   o  bit 8-31:segmentation reference(3 byte integer)

2.3.3  Solution description

   The segmentation parameter gets a extra bit(out of the spare bits
   present) indicating the original requested sequence delivery option
   as originally demanded by the sending SCCP application.

2.4  DAUD response message ordering

2.4.1  Description of the problem

   Should a SCON be send before the DAVA or DRST or after? The SCON is
   send first and DAVA/DRST after in M3UA.

2.4.2  Text changes to the document

   ---------
   Old text: (Section 4.5.3)
   ---------

   The SGP SHOULD respond to a DAUD message with the availability and
   congestion status of the subsystem.  The status of each SS7
   destination or subsystem requested is indicated in a DUNA message (if
   unavailable), a DAVA message (if available), or a DRST (if restricted
   and the SGP supports this feature).  If the SS7 destination or
   subsystem is available and congested, the SGP responds with an SCON
   message in addition to the DAVA message.  If the SS7 destination or
   subsystem is restricted and congested, the SGP responds with an SCON
   message in addition to the DRST.  If the SGP has no information on
   the availability / congestion status of the SS7 destination or
   subsystem, the SGP responds with a DUNA message, as it has no routing
   information to allow it to route traffic to this destination or
   subsystem.

   ---------
   New text: (Section 4.5.3)
   ---------

   The SGP SHOULD respond to a DAUD message with the availability and
   congestion status of the subsystem.  The status of each SS7
   destination or subsystem requested is indicated in a DUNA message (if
   unavailable), a DAVA message (if available), or a DRST (if restricted

Coene & Loughney         Expires August 18, 2005                [Page 8]

Internet-Draft           SUA implementor's Guide           February 2005

   and the SGP supports this feature).  If the SS7 destination or
   subsystem is available and congested, the SGP responds with an SCON
   message and a DAVA message.  If the SS7 destination or subsystem is
   restricted and congested, the SGP responds with an SCON message and a
   DRST.  If the SGP has no information on the availability / congestion
   status of the SS7 destination or subsystem, the SGP responds with a
   DUNA message, as it has no routing information to allow it to route
   traffic to this destination or subsystem.

2.4.3  Solution description

   The DAVA/DUNA/DRST/SCON  messages may be send in random order.
   However if a SCON is send first and the destination is inaccessible,
   the SCON will be dropped.  So it might be better to send teh DAVA
   first followed by the SCON.

2.5  Host name parameter

2.5.1  Description of the problem

   The hostname is actually a Fully Qualified Domain Name(FQDN) as
   defined in RFC1983.  The definition of the hostname(as found in
   RFC1983) would only allow for a part of the FQDN and that does not
   uniquely identify a endpoint.  Also the encoding of the FQDN is not
   clear.

2.5.2  Text changes to the document

   ---------
   Old text: (Section 3.10.2.7)
   ---------

   This field contains a host name in "host name syntax" per RFC 1123
   Section 2.1 [1123].  The method for resolving the host name is out of
   scope for this document.

   ---------
   New text: (Section 3.10.2.7)
   ---------

   This field contains a host name in "Fully Qualified Domain Name
   syntax" per RFC 1035 section 3.1 [RFC1035] [3].  The method for
   resolving the host name is out of scope for this document.

2.5.3  Solution description

   The hostname is actually a Fully Qualified Domain Name(FQDN) which
   should be encoded following the RFC1035 section 3.1 coding rules.

Coene & Loughney         Expires August 18, 2005                [Page 9]

Internet-Draft           SUA implementor's Guide           February 2005

2.6  ASP routing context

2.6.1  Description of the problem

   An ASP routes responses to the SGP that it received messages from;
   within the routing context which it is currently active and receiving
   traffic.

2.6.2  Text changes to the document

   ---------
   Old text: (Section x.x)
   ---------

   ---------
   New text: (Section x.x)
   ---------

2.6.3  Solution description

   a.  A routing context is an integer which is significant only for a
   given SGP-ASP pair.  So it is circular logic to say that the ASP
   should use the RC to select the SGP - an RC value is meaningful only
   after the SGP has already assigned the RC for the the msg send to the
   ASP.

   b.  An ASP can be active vis-a-vis an SGP for more than one RC - so
   it is not meaningful to say that the ASP uses "the" RC for which it
   is active.

2.7  Parameters should only occur once in a message

2.7.1  Description of the problem

   Parameters in SUA messages can be repeated as many times as possible.
   This would lead to inconsistencies, such as 2 or more destination
   addresses.

2.7.2  Text changes to the document

   ---------
   Old text: (Section x.x)
   ---------

   ---------

Coene & Loughney         Expires August 18, 2005               [Page 10]

Internet-Draft           SUA implementor's Guide           February 2005

   New text: (Section x.x)
   ---------

2.7.3  Solution description

   Unless explicitly stated or shown in a message format diagram, only
   one parameter of the same type is allowed in a message.

2.8  Use of ANSI intermediate signaling network identification (ISNI)
    parameter

2.8.1  Description of the problem

2.8.2  Text changes to the document

   ---------
   Old text: (Section x.x)
   ---------

   ---------
   New text: (Section x.x)
   ---------

2.8.3  Solution description

2.9  TID label parameter

2.9.1  Description of the problem

   The clarity of the definition of TID label parameters is unclear.

Coene & Loughney         Expires August 18, 2005               [Page 11]

Internet-Draft           SUA implementor's Guide           February 2005

2.9.2  Text changes to the document

   ---------
   Old text: (Section 3.10.16)
   ---------
       0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |          Tag = 0x0110         |            Length = 8         |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |     start     |      end      |         label value           |
      +---------------+---------------+-------------------------------+

      The Start parameter is the start position of label, between 0 (LSB)
      and 31 (MSB).

      The End parameter is the end position of label, between 0 (LSB) and
      31 (MSB).

      Label value is a 16-bit integer, which is unique across an AS.

   ---------
   New text: (Section 3.10.16)
   ---------
       0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |          Tag = 0x0110         |            Length = 8         |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                          label mask                           |
      +---------------------------------------------------------------+

      Label mask value is a 32-bit integer. The mask is logically
      ANDed onto the received TCAP transaction ID. And if the result
      of the AND operation exactly matches the "Label mask" field,
      then the message is sent to the ASP that registered for this
      label via the ASPAC msg.
      An ASP that registers a label will be sent only those TID-bearing
      messages that match its label.
      An ASP that does not register a label may be sent any TID-bearing
      message.

2.9.3  Solution description

   The clarity of the definition of the TID and DRM label parameters is
   improved by removing the start and end field.  It is assumed that

Coene & Loughney         Expires August 18, 2005               [Page 12]

Internet-Draft           SUA implementor's Guide           February 2005

   these labels are simply xx-bit masks that are logically ANDed onto
   the received TID or DRN.  If the result of the AND operation exactly
   matches the "Label" field, then the message is sent to the ASP that
   registered for this label via the ASPAC msg.  An ASP that registers a
   label will be sent only those TID-bearing messages that match its
   label.

2.10  DRM label parameter

2.10.1  Description of the problem

   See problem description TID label parameter

2.10.2  Text changes to the document

   ---------
   Old text: (Section 3.10.15)
   ---------

       0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |          Tag = 0x010F         |            Length = 8         |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |     start     |      end      |         label value           |
      +---------------+---------------+-------------------------------+

      The Start parameter is the start position of label, between 0 (LSB)
      and 23 (MSB).

      The End parameter is the end position of label, between 0 (LSB) and
      23 (MSB).

      Label value is a 16-bit integer, which is unique across an AS.

Coene & Loughney         Expires August 18, 2005               [Page 13]

Internet-Draft           SUA implementor's Guide           February 2005

   ---------
   New text: (Section 3.10.15)
   ---------
       0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |          Tag = 0x010F         |            Length = 8         |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |    padding    |                 label value                   |
      +---------------+-----------------------------------------------+

      Label mask value is a 24-bit integer. The mask is logically
      ANDed onto the received SCCP DRN. And if the result
      of the AND operation exactly matches the "Label mask" field,
      then the message is sent to the ASP that registered for this
      label via the ASPAC msg.
      An ASP that registers a label will be sent only those DRN-bearing
      messages that match its label.
      An ASP that does not register a label may be sent any DRN-bearing
      message.

2.10.3  Solution description

   See solution description TID label parameter.

2.11  Usage of the TID and DRN label

2.11.1  Description of the problem

   The use of the TID and DRM label parameters is unclear.

Coene & Loughney         Expires August 18, 2005               [Page 14]

Internet-Draft           SUA implementor's Guide           February 2005

2.11.2  Text changes to the document

   ---------
   Old text: (Section 4.7.2.1)
   ---------

      After association setup and registration, an ASP normally goes active
      for each AS it registered for.  In the ASPAC message, the ASP
      includes a TID and/or DRN Label Parameter, if applicable for the AS
      in question.  All the ASPs within the AS must specify a unique label
      at a fixed position in the TID or DRN parameter.  The same ASPAC
      message is sent to each SG used for interworking with the SS7
      network.

      The SG builds, per RK, a list of ASPs that have registered for it.
      The SG can now build up and update a distribution table for a certain
      Routing Context, any time the association is (re-)established and the
      ASP goes active.  The SG has to perform some trivial plausibility
      checks on the parameters:

      - Start and End parameters values are between 0 and 31 for TID.
      - Start and End parameters values are between 0 and 23 for DRN
      - ...
      - Start values are the same for each ASP within a RC
      - End values are the same for each ASP within a RC
      - TID and DRN Label values must be unique across the RC

      If any of these checks fail, the SG refuses the ASPAC request, with
      an error: Invalid loadsharing label .

Coene & Loughney         Expires August 18, 2005               [Page 15]

Internet-Draft           SUA implementor's Guide           February 2005

   ---------
   New text: (Section 4.7.2.1)
   ---------
      After association setup and registration, an ASP normally goes active
      for each AS it registered for.  In the ASPAC message, the ASP can include
      a TID and/or DRN Label Parameter, if applicable for the AS
      in question.

      If at least one of the ASPs within an AS specifies a label, then all the
      ASPs within the AS must specify a unique label in the ASPAC's msg they
      send.

      Each of the ASPs within the AS must specify a unique label
      in the TID or DRN parameter.  The ASP must send the same ASPAC to each
      SG it is attached to, for interworking with the SS7 network.

      The SG builds, per RC, a list of ASPs that have registered for it.
      The SG can now build up and update a distribution table for a certain
      Routing Context, any time the association is (re-)established and the
      ASP goes active.  The SG has to perform some trivial plausibility
      checks on the parameters:

      - TID and/or DRN Label values must be unique across the RC

      If any of these checks fail, the SG refuses the ASPAC request, with
      an error, "Invalid loadsharing label."

   ---------
   Old text: (Section 4.7.3.1)
   ---------

      Messages not containing a destination (or "responding") TID, i.e.,
      Query, Begin, Unidirectional, are loadshared among the available
      ASPs.  Any scheme permitting a fair load distribution among the ASPs
      is allowed (e.g., round robin).

      When a destination TID is present, the SG extracts the label and
      selects the ASP that corresponds with it.

      If an ASP is not available, the SG may generate (X)UDTS "routing
      failure", if the return option is used.

Coene & Loughney         Expires August 18, 2005               [Page 16]

Internet-Draft           SUA implementor's Guide           February 2005

   ---------
   New text: (Section 4.7.3.1)
   ---------

      Messages not containing a destination (or "responding") TID, i.e.,
      Query, Begin, Unidirectional, are loadshared among the available
      ASPs.  Any scheme permitting a fair load distribution among the ASPs
      is allowed (e.g., round robin).

      When a destination TID is present, the SG extracts the label and
      if the result of the AND operation exactly matches the "Label" field,
      then the message is sent to the ASP that registered for this label via the
      ASPAC msg.

      An ASP that registers a label will be sent only those TID-bearing
      messages that match its label.

      An ASP that does not register a label may be sent any TID-bearing
      message.

      If an ASP is not available, the SG may generate (X)UDTS "routing
      failure", if the return option is used.

2.11.3  Solution description

   Improving the clarity of the use of the TID and DRM label parameters:

   If the result of the AND operation exactly matches the "Label" field,
   then the message is sent to the ASP that registered for this label
   via the ASPAC msg.

   An ASP that registers a label will be sent only those TID-bearing
   messages that match its label.  An ASP that does not register a label
   may be sent any TID-bearing message.

   Redundancy - The label values are fixed length (16 bits).  So why do
   we need both a "Start" and an "End" position for applying the mask?
   One or the other would seem to be enough.

   Simplicity - Why bother with a partial-sized mask at a specified
   "start" bit.  Why not just specify a "full-sized" 32-bit (TID) or
   23-bit (DRM) mask?

   Contradictions - Section 4.7.2.1 states that "All the ASPs within the
   AS _must_ specify a unique label at a fixed position in the TID or
   DRN parameter." The "must" here contradicts that fact the the TID and

Coene & Loughney         Expires August 18, 2005               [Page 17]

Internet-Draft           SUA implementor's Guide           February 2005

   DRM parameters are listed as Optional in the ASPAC msg.  We're
   guessing that the intention here is either:

   a.  "If at least one of the ASPs within an AS specifies a label, then
   all the ASPs within the AS must specify a unique label at a fixed
   position in the TID or DRN parameter." or b.  "All of the labels
   specified by the ASPs within an AS must start at a fixed position in
   the TID or DRN parameter."

2.12   Address Range paramete

2.12.1  Description of the problem

   It should explicitly state the order of the minimum and maximum
   addresses in this parameter.  The most logical order would probably
   be first the min, followed by the max.

2.12.2  Text changes to the document

   ---------
   Old text: (Section 3.10.17)
   ---------

    Address field:

      The Address field the following parameters:

      Parameter
        Source Address              Optional *1
        Destination Address         Optional *1

      Note 1:    The Address field must contain pairs of Source Addresses
                 or pairs of Destination Addresses but MUST NOT mix Source
                 Addresses with Destination Addresses in the same Address
                 field.

Coene & Loughney         Expires August 18, 2005               [Page 18]

Internet-Draft           SUA implementor's Guide           February 2005

   ---------
   New text: (Section 3.10.17)
   ---------

    Address field:

      The Address field the following parameters:

      Parameter
        Source Address              Optional *1
        Destination Address         Optional *1

      Note 1:    The Address field must contain pairs of Source Addresses
                 or pairs of Destination Addresses but MUST NOT mix Source
                 Addresses with Destination Addresses in the same Address
                 field. The minimum address must be first and the maximun
                 address must follow the minimum.

2.12.3  Solution description

   State the order of the minimum and maximum addresses in this
   parameter.  The logical order is first the min, followed by the max.

2.13  Interpretation of the mask parameter

2.13.1  Description of the problem

   The mask paramater in the DAUD, DAVA and DUNA SUA messages can be in
   the range from 0 to 255 bits.  This can go over the maximun pointcode
   range of 24 bits.  Also if a ASP request via DAUD with a mask
   parameter of 24, the SG would need to return all pointcodes it know
   in his network to the ASP.  (Which could be a lot).

Coene & Loughney         Expires August 18, 2005               [Page 19]

Internet-Draft           SUA implementor's Guide           February 2005

2.13.2  Text changes to the document

   ---------
   Old text: (Section 3.9.18)
   ---------

   Mask: 8-bits

      The Mask parameter can be used to identify a contiguous range of
      Affected Destination Point Codes, independent of the point code
      format.  Identifying a contiguous range of Affected PCs may be useful
      when reception of an MTP3 management message or a linkset event
      simultaneously affects the availability status of a series of
      destinations at an SG.

      The Mask parameter is an integer representing a bit mask that can be
      applied to the related Affected PC field.  The bit mask identifies
      how many bits of the Affected PC field are significant and which are
      effectively "wild-carded".  For example, a mask of "8" indicates that
      the last eight bits of the PC is "wild-carded".  For an ANSI 24-bit
      Affected PC, this is equivalent to signalling that all PCs in an ANSI
      Cluster are unavailable.  A mask of "3" indicates that the last three
      bits of the PC is "wild-carded".  For a 14-bit ITU Affected PC, this
      is equivalent to signalling that an ITU Region is unavailable.

Coene & Loughney         Expires August 18, 2005               [Page 20]

Internet-Draft           SUA implementor's Guide           February 2005

   ---------
   New text: (Section 3.9.18)
   ---------

   Mask: 8-bits

      The Mask parameter can be used to identify a contiguous range of
      Affected Destination Point Codes, independent of the point code
      format.  Identifying a contiguous range of Affected PCs may be useful
      when reception of an MTP3 management message or a linkset event
      simultaneously affects the availability status of a series of
      destinations at an SG.

      The Mask parameter is an integer representing a bit mask that can be
      applied to the related Affected PC field.  The bit mask identifies
      how many bits of the Affected PC field are significant and which are
      effectively "wild-carded".  For example, a mask of "8" indicates that
      the last eight bits of the PC is "wild-carded".  For an ANSI 24-bit
      Affected PC, this is equivalent to signalling that all PCs in an ANSI
      Cluster are unavailable.  A mask of "3" indicates that the last three
      bits of the PC is "wild-carded".

      The range of mask parameter is limited to 0-24 for ANSI networks and
      is NOT used for ITU networks.

2.13.3  Solution description

   The parameter is limited to 14 bits for ANSI networks and is NOT USED
   in ITU networks.

2.14  Reply on errors contained in a error message

2.14.1  Description of the problem

   If a error message arrives with a erro in it, what should be send
   out? Nothing in the RFC3868 describes this possibility.

2.14.2  Text changes to the document

   ---------
   Old text: (Section 3.7.1)
   ---------

Coene & Loughney         Expires August 18, 2005               [Page 21]

Internet-Draft           SUA implementor's Guide           February 2005

   ---------
   New text: (Section 3.7.1)
   ---------

   Error messages MUST NOT be generated in response to other Error messages.

2.14.3  Solution description

   No error msg must be send back in response on a received error
   message(containing a error).  This would otherwise possibly lead to a
   storm of exchange error messages.

2.15  Use of stream 0 for SSNM messages

2.15.1  Description of the problem

   There seems to be some confusion in paragraph 4.5.1.  First it is
   mentioned NOT to use stream 0 but a few lines later you MUST use
   stream 0 and that happen all in the same context of sending SSNM
   messages(DAUD, DUNA, DAVA..).  It also contradicts statements made in
   paragraph 4.1.1.

2.15.2  Text changes to the document

   ---------
   Old text: (Section 4.5.1)
   ---------

      DUNA, DAVA, SCON, and DRST messages are sent sequentially and
      processed at the receiver in the order sent.  SCTP stream 0 SHOULD
      NOT be used.  The Unordered bit in the SCTP DATA chunk MAY be used
      for the SCON message.

      Sequencing is not required for the DUPU or DAUD messages, which MAY
      be sent unordered.  SCTP stream 0 is used, with optional use of the
      Unordered bit in the SCTP DATA chunk.

Coene & Loughney         Expires August 18, 2005               [Page 22]

Internet-Draft           SUA implementor's Guide           February 2005

   ---------
   New text: (Section 4.5.1)
   ---------

      DUNA, DAVA, SCON, and DRST messages are sent sequentially and
      processed at the receiver in the order sent. The Unordered bit
      in the SCTP DATA chunk MAY be used  for the SCON message.

      Sequencing is not required for the DUPU or DAUD messages, which MAY
      be sent unordered.  SCTP stream 0 is used, with optional use of the
      Unordered bit in the SCTP DATA chunk.

2.15.3  Solution description

   The SSNM messages should be send on stream 0 of the association.

2.16  Timer Ta does not exist

2.16.1  Description of the problem

   Timer Ta is mentioned in paragraph 8 but nowhere specified.

2.16.2  Text changes to the document

   ---------
   Old text: (Section 8)
   ---------

   8.  Timer Values

      Ta                                      2 seconds
      Tr                                      2 seconds
      T(ack)                                  2 seconds
      T(ias)    Inactivity Send timer         7 minutes
      T(iar)    Inactivity Receive timer      15 minutes
      T(beat)   Heartbeat Timer               30 seconds

Coene & Loughney         Expires August 18, 2005               [Page 23]

Internet-Draft           SUA implementor's Guide           February 2005

   ---------
   New text: (Section 8)
   ---------

   8.  Timer Values

      Tr                                      2 seconds
      T(ack)                                  2 seconds
      T(ias)    Inactivity Send timer         7 minutes
      T(iar)    Inactivity Receive timer      15 minutes
      T(beat)   Heartbeat Timer               30 seconds

2.16.3  Solution description

   Timer Ta is removed.

2.17  Error response on unsupported RKM messages

2.17.1  Description of the problem

   If RKM messages are not supported by a implementation, a error
   message is send back with error cause "unsupported message Type".  We
   should send back a error message with error cause "unsupported
   message class" .

2.17.2  Text changes to the document

   ---------
   Old text: (Section 4.4.1)
   ---------
      If the SGP does not support the registration procedure, the SGP
      returns an Error message to the ASP, with an error code of
      "Unsupported Message Type".

   ---------
   New text: (Section 4.4.1)
   ---------
      If the SGP does not support the registration procedure, the SGP
      returns an Error message to the ASP, with an error code of
      "Unsupported Message Class".

Coene & Loughney         Expires August 18, 2005               [Page 24]

Internet-Draft           SUA implementor's Guide           February 2005

2.17.3  Solution description

   Send back a error message with "unsupported message class".  If >RKM
   messages are not supported, the implementation actually rejects a
   whole class of messages, not just a single one.

Coene & Loughney         Expires August 18, 2005               [Page 25]

Internet-Draft           SUA implementor's Guide           February 2005

3.  Security considerations

   No new treats have been identified besides the already known in SUA
   [RFC3868] [1].

Coene & Loughney         Expires August 18, 2005               [Page 26]

Internet-Draft           SUA implementor's Guide           February 2005

4.  Acknowledgments

   The authors wish to thank B.  Nagelberg, B.  Bidulock, T.  Asveren,
   S.  Karl, K.  Morneault and many others for their invaluable
   comments.

5.  References

   [1]  Loughney, J., Sidebottom, G., Verwimp, G., Coene, L., Keller, J.
        and B. Bidulock, "Signalling Connection Control Part User
        Adaptation Layer (SUA)", RFC 22222, June 2004.

   [2]  Malkin, G., "Internet Users' Glossary", RFC 1983, August 1996.

   [3]  Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - Implementation and
        Specification", RFC 1035, November 1987.

   [4]  ITU, "Q.714 : SCCP procedures", Q. 714, July 1997.

   [5]  ANSI, "T1.112.4 : SCCP procedures", T. 1.112.4, December 1993.

Authors' Addresses

   Lode Coene
   Siemens
   Atealaan 32
   Herentals  2200
   Belgium

   Phone: +32-14-252081
   Email: lode.coene@siemens.com

   John Loughney
   Nokia
   Itdmerenkatu 11-13
   Espoo  00180
   Finland

   Phone: +358 50 483 6242
   Email: john.loughney@nokia.com

Coene & Loughney         Expires August 18, 2005               [Page 27]

Internet-Draft           SUA implementor's Guide           February 2005

Appendix A.  Changes Control

A.1  Changes from v00 to v01

   - Typos.

Coene & Loughney         Expires August 18, 2005               [Page 28]

Internet-Draft           SUA implementor's Guide           February 2005

Intellectual Property Statement

   The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
   Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
   pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
   this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
   might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
   made any independent effort to identify any such rights.  Information
   on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
   found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
   assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
   attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
   such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
   specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
   http://www.ietf.org/ipr.

   The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
   copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
   rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
   this standard.  Please address the information to the IETF at
   ietf-ipr@ietf.org.

Disclaimer of Validity

   This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
   "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
   OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET
   ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
   INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE
   INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
   WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.

Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005).  This document is subject
   to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and
   except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights.

Acknowledgment

   Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
   Internet Society.

Coene & Loughney         Expires August 18, 2005               [Page 29]



Last modified: Wed, 12 Nov 2014 10:20:48 GMT  
Copyright © 2014 OpenSS7 Corporation All Rights Reserved.