Subject: [Sigtran] Affected SPC is a mandatory parameter in SUA SCON

From: "Ilie Glib" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2006 14:04:56 +0200

Hello Folks,

On the one hand, according to SUA RFC, an IPSP MAY indicate local
congestion to an SUA peer with an SCON message. On the other hand,
Affected SPC is a mandatory parameter in SCON. Therefore, in case the
IPSP serves a hostname or IP address, and does not serve an SPC, the
IPSP has to use a dummy SPC, which shall be interpreted as an
indication that own nodal congestion is experienced in the IPSP
originating the SCON message.

To avoid use of dummy SPCs in SCONs, it would be good to change the
SUA RFC, and make the Affected SPC an optional parameter in SCON
exchanged by IPSPs.

I believe RC parameter is sufficient in SCON, and Affected SPC can be
made optional in that case. This is because DPC is not mandatory in
the RK definition of IPSPs.

Perhaps, the same could apply to M3UA, if  DPC was optional in the RK
definition.

Any opinions?

Thank you in advance

-- 
Ilie

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

---

From: "Tolga Asveren" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2006 09:35:33 -0400

Ilie,

IMHO, an elegant solution would be to (finally) define ASPCONG (or whatever
we call it) as a new ASPTM, to indicate congestion related with a spoecific
AS on a an ASP or IPSP.

We had some discussions about this on the list and Brian even put a draft
together but I don't know whether work still continues about this issue. I
think, this is a missing piece and it is a good idea to have that message
and corresponding procedures defined.

   Thanks,
   Tolga

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ilie Glib [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Sunday, October 01, 2006 8:05 AM
> To: sigtran
> Subject: [Sigtran] Affected SPC is a mandatory parameter in SUA SCON
>
>
> Hello Folks,
>

---

From: "Haresign Lincoln" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2006 10:04:36 -0400

I agree, the draft that Brian put out looked good for resolving this
issue.

Does it make any sense to combine this draft with the SUA implementor's
guide as that discussion seems to be going on, or is that too
complicated?

Regards,
Lincoln 

-----Original Message-----
From: Tolga Asveren [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Monday, October 02, 2006 9:36 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [Sigtran] Affected SPC is a mandatory parameter in SUA SCON

Ilie,

IMHO, an elegant solution would be to (finally) define ASPCONG (or
whatever we call it) as a new ASPTM, to indicate congestion related with
a spoecific AS on a an ASP or IPSP.

We had some discussions about this on the list and Brian even put a
draft together but I don't know whether work still continues about this
issue. I think, this is a missing piece and it is a good idea to have
that message and corresponding procedures defined.

   Thanks,
   Tolga

---

From: "Brian F. G. Bidulock" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2006 08:27:58 -0600

Haresign,

The current draft is:

  http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-bidulock-sigtran-aspcong.00.txt

This is not a working group item.  The SUA IG is.  Also the
draft addresses M3UA.  The SUA IG does not.  No M3UA IG exists
currently.

As it stands, the draft is yet another non-WG extension draft,
twisting in the wind...

If we want to add work items, the corid and loadsel would be
better choices.  Particularly as they address blatant
deficiencies of these protocols that have existed since their
inception.

For SUA, there is the larger concern of the disposition of DLR
and TID labels that are broken.  This is better addressed by the
LOADSEL draft.

--brian

Haresign Lincoln wrote:                        (Mon, 02 Oct 2006 10:04:36)

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