IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Sigtran] State-machines wrong in the RFC-3332 and RFC-4666 ??!!

Ajay Garg <ajaygargnsit@gmail.com> Thu, 13 March 2014 07:20 UTC

Return-Path: <ajaygargnsit@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: sigtran@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sigtran@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E8B181A035C for <sigtran@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 13 Mar 2014 00:20:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.405
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.405 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_12=0.6, PLING_QUERY=0.994, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6LqwB7JAz6VW for <sigtran@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 13 Mar 2014 00:20:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pa0-x234.google.com (mail-pa0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c03::234]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A9A2F1A001F for <sigtran@ietf.org>; Thu, 13 Mar 2014 00:20:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pa0-f52.google.com with SMTP id rd3so716840pab.11 for <sigtran@ietf.org>; Thu, 13 Mar 2014 00:20:42 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=Wbh6pn+ev2VS8ae/KRytlxKZAfCu5Q6bLyJgkG9CvTE=; b=gdQCF6gIDjoOhw23yCit6x/gnX2YX8P3xATJ0ODgFDlBdfuhaXxRj58lz7I+06ZOXw 6V9DaNXay9NjTMlfMyYySY+PpQnFYfdno+cJOi8rfxsV18JesfuUoTCcMl0XTbhzehbN Zf+wz8pjoojjBv6IwOqSKCyWtsEpFMBJM8e/s50+9DV9zqa1bYQ7JY2kElOSwkuI0kj4 lpYFQSlfqp0r/ZpHCZxlRsFg9mzoYwWD/SQdipO+81YuTQURQ8XBUxRRkA/dgMJBCt1n z9SJvCuSqT4LgtMUK9ZdNukrvOVbttmowyn42AEqLjlvT/4GtO62kDxipmXWFnjE6quE 11Pg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.66.142.42 with SMTP id rt10mr384257pab.1.1394695242486; Thu, 13 Mar 2014 00:20:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.70.92.9 with HTTP; Thu, 13 Mar 2014 00:20:42 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20140313070632.GA15132@openss7.org>
References: <CAHP4M8W42_NTvwQJzGf5cM21-8jQu9dGmGzHXQ8zoeq380cLZA@mail.gmail.com> <20140313070632.GA15132@openss7.org>
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2014 12:50:42 +0530
Message-ID: <CAHP4M8W7cFsATw5icyZO1f6qRc-FTu-b1=QooJu4Pqw6LBi5og@mail.gmail.com>
From: Ajay Garg <ajaygargnsit@gmail.com>
To: bidulock@openss7.org, sigtran@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1133048a7f972204f477ca46
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sigtran/Vpg2HSjDTcbxi3rvvo3pxQ5zAvo
Subject: Re: [Sigtran] State-machines wrong in the RFC-3332 and RFC-4666 ??!!
X-BeenThere: sigtran@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Signaling Transport <sigtran.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/sigtran>, <mailto:sigtran-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sigtran/>
List-Post: <mailto:sigtran@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sigtran-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sigtran>, <mailto:sigtran-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2014 07:20:51 -0000

Thanks Brian for the quick reply.


On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 12:36 PM, Brian F. G. Bidulock <bidulock@openss7.org
> wrote:

> Ajay,
>
> Please see comments below:
>
> Ajay Garg wrote:                        (Thu, 13 Mar 2014 12:15:08)
> >    1)
> >    At [1]https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3332.txt, in the section
> >                                   5.1.4 Three ASPs in an Application
> >    Server ("n+k" sparing, loadsharing case)
> >    should not "Notify (AS-ACTIVE)" be sent to ASP1 and ASP2 (as against
> >    ASP2 and ASP3 as per the diagram), since ASP1 and ASP2 are the ones
> >    that sent the "ASP Act (Ldshr)" message (and are thus the "n" active
> >    ASPs)?
>
> On the first page of RFC 4666 you will see the line: "Obsoletes: 3332".
>

:)
We are in the process of moving to the new release of the stack provided by
our vendor (right now, the stack uses M3UA in accordance with RFC 3332).

For purely academic purposes, I guess that here too "Notify (AS-ACTIVE)"
would be sent to all the ASPs (as per your reply to my second query, and
RFC-3332 also has the same "Notify Procedures")?





>
>
> >    2)
> >    At [2]https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4666, in the section
> >                                  5.1.4 Three ASPs in an Application
> Server
> >    ("n+k" sparing, loadsharing case)
> >    why will "Notify (AS-ACTIVE)" be sent to ASP3 (since only ASP1 and
> ASP2
> >    sent the "ASP Act. (Ldshr)" message, and are thus the "n" active
> ASPs)?
> >    Again, sorry if I am missing something very fundamental.
>
> RFC 4666 4.3.4.5 Notify Procedures:
>
>   A Notify message reflecting a change in the AS state MUST be sent to
>   all ASPs in the AS, except those in the ASP-DOWN state, with
>   appropriate Status information and any ASP identifier of the failed
>   ASP.
>
> ASP3 is not in the ASP down state and therefore must be sent the
> AS-ACTIVE message.
>


Thanks Brian ... !!!!



Thanks a ton Brian for the clarifications !!




>
> --brian
>
> --
> Brian F. G. Bidulock
> bidulock@openss7.org
> http://www.openss7.org/
>



-- 
Regards,
Ajay

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email