Subject: [Megaco] MG Behavior on getting pending message response from MGC on ITO(Inactivity Timer) timeout

From: Rajiv Ginotra <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 16:48:22 -0700

Hello All,
 
Consider the following scenario:
When the MG is sending the ITO timeout notify and the MGC sends the pending
message along with IA(Immediate Acknowledgment) in the same  message.

Question 1: After the ITO transaction retries are  finished, should MG sends
a "909 MGC Impending Failure" service change message to other MGCs
configured in the list or the send a ITO timeout notify with a new
transaction ID.
 
Question 2: Does the IA in the above reply from MGC make the behavior
different?
 
I have enclosed the call flow for reference
 
Regards
Rajiv
 
Call flow
======
[1196396 (10 ms)] !/2 [10.78.161.24]:5099 Transaction=2 {
Context = - {
Modify = ROOT {
Events = 1111 {it/ito {mit = 1000}}
}
}}
 
[10.78.161.24]:5099 [1196396 (10 ms)] !/2 [183.1.13.2]:2965 P = 2{ C = -
{mf=ROOT }}

ITO Timeout notify starts and MGC started sending pending messages:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------
 
[10.78.161.24]:5099 [1197496 (10 ms)] !/2 [183.1.13.2]:2965 T = 538{ C = -
{n=ROOT  { oe = 1111 { IT/ITO }  } }}
 
[1197503 (10 ms)] !/2 [10.78.161.24]:5099 Reply=538 {IA, C  =  - { n=root {
Error = 506 {"506"} }}}
 
[10.78.161.24]:5099 [1197503 (10 ms)] !/2 [183.1.13.2]:2965 k{537,538}
 
[10.78.161.24]:5099 [1198403 (10 ms)] !/2 [183.1.13.2]:2965 T = 539{ C = -
{n=ROOT  { oe = 1111 { IT/ITO }  } }}
 
[1198408 (10 ms)] !/2 [10.78.161.24]:5099 Reply=539 {IA, C  =  - { n=root {
Error = 506 {"506"} }}}
 
[10.78.161.24]:5099 [1198408 (10 ms)] !/2 [183.1.13.2]:2965 k{539}
 
[10.78.161.24]:5099 [1199408 (10 ms)] !/2 [183.1.13.2]:2965 T = 540{ C = -
{n=ROOT  { oe = 1111 { IT/ITO }  } }}
 
[1199412 (10 ms)] !/2 [10.78.161.24]:5099 Reply=540 {IA, C  =  - { n=root {
Error = 506 {"506"} }}}
 
[10.78.161.24]:5099 [1199412 (10 ms)] !/2 [183.1.13.2]:2965 k{540}
 
[10.78.161.24]:5099 [1200412 (10 ms)] !/2 [183.1.13.2]:2965 T = 541{ C = -
{n=ROOT  { oe = 1111 { IT/ITO }  } }}
 
[1200417 (10 ms)] !/2 [10.78.161.24]:5099 Reply=541 {IA, C  =  - { n=root {
Error = 506 {"506"} }}}
 
[10.78.161.24]:5099 [1200417 (10 ms)] !/2 [183.1.13.2]:2965 k{541}
 
Now the ITO retries get finished. what would be the next transaction???

---

From: "Schwarz Albrecht" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 20:04:29 +0200

I'm not sure, but this looks like a bug in the MGC implementation. Hm?
Should be corrected first before thinking about subsequent ServiceChange
procedures.
(At least the it/ito-based "MGC-polling by MG" mechanism can't be used
correctly ...)

________________________________

	From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
On Behalf Of Rajiv Ginotra
	Sent: Freitag, 26. Juni 2009 01:48
	To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
	Subject: [Megaco] MG Behavior on getting pending message
response from MGCon ITO(Inactivity Timer) timeout

	Hello All,
	 
	Consider the following scenario:
	When the MG is sending the ITO timeout notify and the MGC sends
the pending message along with IA(Immediate Acknowledgment) in the same
message.

	Question 1: After the ITO transaction retries are  finished,
should MG sends a "909 MGC Impending Failure" service change message to
other MGCs configured in the list or the send a ITO timeout notify with
a new transaction ID.
	 
	Question 2: Does the IA in the above reply from MGC make the
behavior different?

	Regards
	Rajiv
	 
	Call flow
	======
	 
	[10.78.161.24]:5099 [1196396 (10 ms)] !/2 [183.1.13.2]:2965 P =
2{ C = - {mf=ROOT }}
	
	ITO Timeout notify starts and MGC started sending pending
messages:
	
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
	 
	[10.78.161.24]:5099 [1197496 (10 ms)] !/2 [183.1.13.2]:2965 T =
538{ C = - {n=ROOT  { oe = 1111 { IT/ITO }  } }}
	 
	[1197503 (10 ms)] !/2 [10.78.161.24]:5099 Reply=538 {IA, C  =  -
{ n=root { Error = 506 {"506"} }}}
	 
	[10.78.161.24]:5099 [1197503 (10 ms)] !/2 [183.1.13.2]:2965
k{537,538}
	 
	[10.78.161.24]:5099 [1198403 (10 ms)] !/2 [183.1.13.2]:2965 T =
539{ C = - {n=ROOT  { oe = 1111 { IT/ITO }  } }}
	 
	[1198408 (10 ms)] !/2 [10.78.161.24]:5099 Reply=539 {IA, C  =  -
{ n=root { Error = 506 {"506"} }}}
	 
	[10.78.161.24]:5099 [1198408 (10 ms)] !/2 [183.1.13.2]:2965
k{539}
	 
	[10.78.161.24]:5099 [1199408 (10 ms)] !/2 [183.1.13.2]:2965 T =
540{ C = - {n=ROOT  { oe = 1111 { IT/ITO }  } }}
	 
	[1199412 (10 ms)] !/2 [10.78.161.24]:5099 Reply=540 {IA, C  =  -
{ n=root { Error = 506 {"506"} }}}
	 
	[10.78.161.24]:5099 [1199412 (10 ms)] !/2 [183.1.13.2]:2965
k{540}
	 
	[10.78.161.24]:5099 [1200412 (10 ms)] !/2 [183.1.13.2]:2965 T =
541{ C = - {n=ROOT  { oe = 1111 { IT/ITO }  } }}
	 
	[1200417 (10 ms)] !/2 [10.78.161.24]:5099 Reply=541 {IA, C  =  -
{ n=root { Error = 506 {"506"} }}}
	 
	[10.78.161.24]:5099 [1200417 (10 ms)] !/2 [183.1.13.2]:2965
k{541}
	 
	Now the ITO retries get finished. what would be the next
transaction???