Subject: [Sigtran] SUA - routing on IP address

From: "Valerie Gastaud" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 11:20:51 +0100

When the SUA has to route a message on IP address, does this IP address has
to map the SCTP IP addresses, knowing that in case of SCTP multi-homing,
there can be more than one IP address?

Or is it possible for the ASP to register for handling traffic of a virtual
IP address over an SCTP association established between two SCTP endpoints's
real IP addresses, different from the virtual IP address.
I believe there is nothing in the SUA draft that prevents this mode of
operation, can you confirm?

Thanks,
Valerie

_______________________________________________
Sigtran mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sigtran

---

From: "Brian F. G. Bidulock" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 01:29:44 -0700

Valerie,

See SUA last call thread "[SUA Issue 27]: Hostname as Routing Parameter".

In particular:

| From [email-masked]  Mon Aug 27 02:50:09 2001
| From: [email-masked]
| To: "sigtran" <[email-masked]>
| Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2001 10:47:58 +0300
| Subject: RE: [SUA Issue 27]: Hostname as Routing Parameter
| 
| Hi Brian,
| 
| > > > If we want to leave Hostname and IP address (would that be IPv4 or
| > > > IPv6 or both?) as place-holders in the Address format, there is no
| > > > real problem with that.  Their use, however, should be reserved for
| > > > an extension draft and clearly stated (I believe that is already is)
| > > > that SCCP-Users do not use these parameters.
| > >
| > > I'd prefer this.
| > > 
| > > John
| > > 
| > 
| > Would this do? -- spinning a little text into the intro or parameter
| > descriptions to the effect that the use of hostname (or URL)
| > as a routing parameter is not necessary to the SCCP-User and will be
| > described elsewhere.
| 
| Exactly.  My intention is that an SUA-user (as opposed to an SCCP-user)
| could define how to use this and the protocol would/could support
| this.  There are some 3G-users of SUA that could benefit from this.
| The burden would be for these SUA-users to say how they would use
| them.
| 
| John
| 

This issue was resolved at last call.  Hostname and IP Address is only used
by an SUA-User (as opposed to an SCCP-User).  If you have a document which
defines an "SUA-User," or an "SUA-Relay" consult that document for how to
use IP Address or Hostname.  These should never appear in a message to an
SCCP-User or an SCCP-Relay.  If such a GTT should appear in a message to
an SCCP-User, Return/Release Cause "No Translation for such Address" seems
appropriate.

Also on that thread John said he would add a note to section 1.5.3 which
said something to the effect that routing on hostname and IP address was
for "further study".  This has not been properly clarified in the RFC.

Also, in a number of places in the document, it refes to SUA-User
interchangeably with SCCP-User, and nowhere is the SUA-User properly
distinguished from the SCCP-User.  This is a mistake.  An SUA-User has the
added Hostname and IP Address capability, an SCCP-User does not.

Perhaps we can catch this in the IG or in final RFC edit.

--brian

Valerie Gastaud wrote:                           (Thu, 19 Dec 2002 11:20:51)

-- 
Brian F. G. Bidulock
[email-masked]
http://www.openss7.org/