RE: [Megaco] TPKT value for H.248 over TCP

["Kevin Boyle" <[e-mail]>]

I was under the impression that TCP segmented large packets automatically.
Is that not the case?
 
Kevin



  _____  

From: Sampath Komanduri [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2004 12:25 PM
To: 'MEGACO list'
Subject: RE: [Megaco] TPKT value for H.248 over TCP


Could the author of Annex D pls. respond?
 
Thanks,
Sampath

-----Original Message-----
From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of
Sampath Komanduri
Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2004 8:16 PM
To: 'MEGACO list'
Subject: [Megaco] TPKT value for H.248 over TCP
Importance: High


Hi List,
I am not sure if this question was already raised in the list. If it was,
pls. point me to the discussion and the consensus.

According to ANNEX D of H.248.1 protocol, "TPKT, according to
<http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1006.html> RFC 1006, SHALL be used to delineate
messages within the TCP stream". RFC 1006 limits the size of TPDU to 65524.
Replicating the relevant text here for convenience:
 
***************************************************
     "A TPKT consists of two parts:  a packet-header and a TPDU.  
      The format of the header is constant regardless of the type of packet.
      The format of the packet-header is as follows:

        0                   1                   2                   3
        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
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |      vrsn     |    reserved   |          packet length        |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

      where:

      vrsn                         8 bits

      This field is always 3 for the version of the protocol described in
this memo.

      packet length                16 bits (min=7, max=65535)

      This field contains the length of entire packet in octets, including
packet-header.
      This permits a maximum TPDU size of 65531 octets.
      Based on the size of the data transfer (DT) TPDU, this permits a
maximum 
      TSDU size of 65524 octets."
*********************************************************
 
This causes an issue. Based on the wildcard level of Audit and the
descriptors involved, this size could easily exceed 64K size (especially if
MG and MGC are using Long text format and white spaces in the messages). In
few cases, it is possible to return an error code (533: Response exceeds
maximum transport PDU size).
However, in some cases returning 533 is not an option. 
Consider for example the following scenario: After an association is
DISCONNECTED, MGC may want to get the list of non-null contexts on the
gateway using the following command (pls. ignore if there is any mistake in
the message and reply construct):
 
!/1 [10.102.2.201]:4000 T=3700003{C=*{AV=ROOT{AT{}}}}
!/1 ABCD_MG P=3700003{C=1{AV=C{*}},C=2{AV=C{*}},C=3{AV=C{*}}, ....and so on}

In the best case (i.e. no white-space, no audit descriptor and short
format), this allows for an MG to have only 5000 active contexts on the
card. Anything more (or any variation in the audit command) will reduce the
number of active contexts that an MG can have even with TCP as the transport
option.
Responding with 533 is not an option here since that would leave MG-MGC in
state from where there is no elegant way out (at least from H.248 protocol).
 
How do the gurus' on list suggest we solve this issue? Couple of ideas that
come to mind are:

1.	Define a Bulk-Audit Package/scheme: As was done for MGCP, define a
Bulk-Audit package/scheme especially with support for       
    RangeWildcard = "[" NumericalRange *( "," NumericalRange ) "]" and
    NumericalRange     = 1*(DIGIT) [ "-" 1*(DIGIT) ].
    This will certainly reduce the cases and scenarios when MG/MGC will run
into the issue under discussion but may not eliminate it. 

2.	Add more information on W- Audit support in the protocol. 

3.	Introduce RFC 1006 modification (with version field 4) such that
"packet length" of packet header in TPKT is 32 bits as opposed to 16 bits. 

4.	Combination of the above schemes. 

5.	Anything else?

Pls. advice on how this problem can be solved?

Thanks,
Sampath


_______________________________________________
Megaco mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/megaco