| draft-bidulock-sigtran-sginfo-06Description: Request For CommentsYou can download source copies of the file as follows:
Listed below is the contents of file draft-bidulock-sigtran-sginfo-06.txt.
Network Working Group Brian Bidulock
INTERNET-DRAFT OpenSS7 Corporation
Intended status: PROPOSED STANDARD June 18, 2007
Expires in December 2007
Signalling Gateway (SG) Information (SGINFO) Support
for
Signalling User Adaptation Layers
<draft-bidulock-sigtran-sginfo-06.txt>
Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware have
been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes aware
will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other
groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six
months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents
at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress".
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire in December 2007.
Copyright
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).
Abstract
This Internet-Draft describes Signalling Gateway (SG) Information
(SGINFO) for Signalling User Adaptation Protocols [M2UA], [M3UA],
[SUA], [ISUA], [TUA], which permits supporting Signalling Gateways
(SG) to convey additional Application Server (AS) support information
to Application Server Processes (ASPs) activating for AS on the SG.
This additional AS support information consists of information
pertaining to the underlying SS7 Signalling Provider that otherwise
B. Bidulock Version 0.6 Page 1
Internet Draft UA SGINFO June 18, 2007
would have to be statically configured at the Application Server
Process (ASP) or exchanged between SG and ASP using a non-IETF defined
protocol.
Contents
A complete table of contents, list of tables and illustrations, and
change history appears at the end of this document.
1. Introduction
1.1. Scope
This Internet-Draft provides parameters and procedures in extension
to the parameters and procedures of the Signalling User Adaptation
Layers (UAs) [M2UA], [M3UA], [SUA], [ISUA], [TUA], for the purpose of
supporting the transfer of SG-specific information of interest to an
Application Server during the ASP Active procedure.
UA implementations with SGINFO are intended to be compatible with UA
implementations not supporting this configuration.
1.2. Abbreviations
AS --Application Server.
ASP --Application Server Process.
IANA --Internet Assigned Numbers Authority
I-D --Internet-Draft
IETF --Internet Engineering Task Force
IP --Internet Protocol.
IPSP --IP Signalling Point.
SCCP --Signalling Connection Control Part.
SCTP --Stream Control Transmission Protocol.
SG --Signalling Gateway.
SGP --Signalling Gateway Process.
SIGTRAN --IETF Signalling Transport WG
SPP --Signalling Peer Process.
SS7 --Signalling System No. 7.
SUA --SS7 SCCP-User Adpatation Layer.
TCAP --Transaction Capabilities Application Part.
TUA --SS7 TCAP-User Adaptation Layer.
UA --User Adaptation Layer.
WG --Working Group
1.3. Terminology
SGINFO adds the following terms to the terminology presented in the
UA documents:<1>
Signalling User Adaptation Layer (UA) - one or more of the Stream
Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP) [SCTP], [SCTPCRC], [SCTPIG]
B. Bidulock Version 0.6 Page 2
Internet Draft UA SGINFO June 18, 2007
SS7 Signalling User Adaptation Layers [M2UA], [M3UA], [SUA],
[ISUA], [TUA] supporting ASP Management.
1.4. Overview
There is a need to provide extensions for the Signalling User
Adaptation Layer protocols to permit a Signalling Gateway (SG) to
provide Application Server (AS) specific information pertaining to the
SG's ability to support the Application Server.
For example, the "Maximum SIF Length" of MTP3 [Q.704] is a value
that an MTP-User at an AS needs to reference to avoid sending MSU data
in excess of these MTP-PDU length restrictions. The "Maximum SIF
Length"; however, can change due to SS7 Network failures or
reconfiguration at the SG that cannot be handled purely by static
configuration information at an ASP.
Additional examples exist for SCCP [Q.711] and TCAP [Q.771] and the
need for these protocol limits at the Application Server is evidenced
by the requirements for these values in the OSI/ISO NSD [X.213]
Compliant NPI [NPI], and the OSI/ISO TSD [X.214] and the OSI/ISO ROSE
[X.219] Compliant TPI [TPI], and the ACSE [X.217], [X.227] compliant
mOSI extensions to the XNS [XNS].
SGINFO provides parameters and procedures that allow Signalling
Gateway Processes (SGPs) to inform Application Server Processes (ASPs)
of the SG parameters, as well as provides procedures to update these
parameters in an active AS.
1.4.1. Existing Information Management
While there is a mandate to provide MIBs to support UA
configuration, the existing UA procedures<2> and MIBs make no
provisions for the management of dynamic operational information at a
Signalling Gateway that is of specific concern to a UA-User at an
Application Server (AS).
For example, if an Signalling Gateway changes an operation parameter
of necessary to a UA-User at an Application Server (AS), such as the
"Maximum SIF Length", there is no mechanism for the SG to communicate
this information to the concerned Application Server (AS).
While the existing UA procedures<2> provide for the SG giving an
indication of a "Protocol Error" or "Invalid Parameter Value" as a
result of an operational parameter being exceeded, there are no
procedures for the Application Server to discover the operational
parameters when they are dynamic.
The lack of an IETF procedure for managing operational parameter
information represents a deficiency of the existing UA procedures<2>
that detracts from interoperability between separate implementations
of SGP and ASP.
B. Bidulock Version 0.6 Page 3
Internet Draft UA SGINFO June 18, 2007
1.4.2. SGINFO Information Management
To remedy these deficiencies, SGINFO provides support for the
following:
+ Support for an SG indicating operational parameters to an
Application Server (AS).
+ Support for an SG changing operational parameter for an active
Application Server (AS).
+ Support for interworking between SGPs supporting SGINFO and ASPs
not supporting SGINFO.
Notes for Section 1
<1> See, for example, Section 1.2 of the specific UA document
[M2UA], [M3UA], [SUA], [ISUA], [TUA].
<2> See, for example, Section 4 of the specific UA document [M2UA],
[M3UA], [SUA], [ISUA], [TUA].
2. Conventions
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
3. Protocol Elements
SGINFO provides the following parameters and the messages in which
they are included in addition to the parameters of the UAs.<1>
3.1. Parameters
SGINFO provides the following parameters in addition to the
parameters defined for the UAs.<1>
3.1.1. Protocol Limits
The Protocol Limits parameter is a common parameter used in the
ASPAC ACK message to indicate the protocol data unit size limitations
presented by a Signalling Gateway to an Application Server.
The Protocol Limits parameter is formatted as follows:<2>
B. Bidulock Version 0.6 Page 4
Internet Draft UA SGINFO June 18, 2007
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Tag = 0x001b | Length |
+- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -+- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -+
| Maximum SDU Size |
+- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -+
| Optimal SDU Size (optional) |
+- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -+
| Maximum Connect Data Size (optional) |
+- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -+
| Maximum Disconnect Data Size (optional) |
+- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -+
| Maximum ESDU Size (optional) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The Protocol Limits parameter contains the following fields:
Maximum SDU Size field: 32-bits (signed integer)
The Maximum SDU Size field contains the maximum number of bytes in
the Protocol Data parameter that the Signalling Gateway can support
to the specific Application Server.
M2UA For M2UA [M2UA] the Maximum SDU Size field provides the maximum
size of the data payload of the Protocol Data field. The
maximum size is the largest maximum data payload size that can
be transferred across the SS7 network by the SG for the
specified link. For example, for an SG supporting an SIF
Maximum Size [Q.704] of 3094 bytes on the link, this size would
be 3094. For an SG supporting 272 bytes, this size would be
272.
M3UA For M3UA [M3UA] the Maximum SDU Size field provides the limit
on the maximum size of the data payload of the Protocol Data
field. The maximum size is the largest maximum data payload
size that can be transferred across the SS7 network by the SG
for the specific Application Server. For example, for an SG
supporting both an SIF Maximum Size [Q.704] of 3094 bytes on a
primary links and 272 bytes on secondary links, this size would
be 3094.
SUA For SUA [SUA] the Maximum SDU Size field provides the limit on
the maximum size of the User Data field for a normal (non-
expedited) data transfer. The maximum size is the largest data
payload size that can be transferred across the SS7 network for
the specific Application Server (and associated Protocol Class)
considering segmentation. If there is no limit on the NSDU
size for an SCCP provider at an SG, this field will be set to a
value of -1 (0xFFFFFFFF).
B. Bidulock Version 0.6 Page 5
Internet Draft UA SGINFO June 18, 2007
TUA For TUA [TUA] the Maximum SDU Size field provide the limit on
the maximum size of the Components field for a TC-CONTINUE data
transfer. The maximum size is the largest component size that
can be transferred across the SS7 network for the specific
Application Server (and associated Operation Class) considering
segmentation. If there is no limit on the component size for a
TCAP provider at the SG, this field will be set to a value of
-1 (0xFFFFFFFF).
Optimal SDU Size field: 32-bits (signed integer)
The Optimal SDU Size field contains the optimal number of bytes in
the Protocol Data parameter that the Signalling Gateway can support
to the specific Application Server.
M2UA For M2UA [M2UA] the Optimal SDU Size field does not apply and
is not included in the Protocol Limits parameter.
M3UA For M3UA [M3UA] the Optimal SDU Size field provides the limit
on the optimal size of the data payload of the Protocol Data
field. The optimal size is the smallest maximum data payload
size that can be transferred across the SS7 network by the SG
for the specific Application Server. For example, for an SG
supporting both an SIF Maximum Size [Q.704] of 3094 bytes on a
primary links and 272 bytes on secondary links, this size would
be 272.
SUA For SUA [SUA] the Optimal SDU Size field provides the limit on
the optimal size of the User Data field for a normal (non-
expedited) data transfer. The optimal size is the largest data
protocol size that can be transferred across the SS7 network
for the specific Application Server (and associated Protocol
Class) without segmentation.
TUA For TUA [TUA] the Optimal SDU Size field provides the limit on
the optimal size of the Components field for a TC-CONTINUE data
transfer. The optimal size is the largest component size that
can be transferred across the SS7 network for the specific
Application Server (and associated Operation Class) without
segmentation.
Maximum Connect Data Size field: 32-bits (signed integer)
The Maximum Connect Data Size field contains the maximum number of
bytes in the Data parameter that the Signalling Gateway can support
to the specific Application Server upon connection or transaction
dialogue establishment.
M2UA For M2UA [M2UA] the Maximum Connect Data Size field does not
apply and is not included in the Protocol Limits parameter.
M3UA For M3UA [M3UA] the Maximum Connect Data Size field does not
apply and is not included in the Protocol Limits parameter.
B. Bidulock Version 0.6 Page 6
Internet Draft UA SGINFO June 18, 2007
SUA For SUA [SUA] the Maximum Connect Data Size field provides a
limit on the maximum size of the User Data field that can be
included in CORE and COAK messages. For Connection-less
operation, this field does not apply and is not included in the
Protocol Limits parameter.
TUA For TUA [TUA] the Maximum Connect Data Size field provides the
limit on the maximum size of the User Information and
Components that can be included in a TQRY or initial TCNV
message. For Operation Class 4, this field does not apply and
is not included in the Protocol Limits parameter.
Maximum Disconnect Data Size field: 32-bits (signed integer)
The Maximum Disconnect Data Size field contains the maximum number
of bytes in the Data parameter that the Signalling Gateway can
support to the specific Application Server upon disconnection or
transaction dialogue abort.
M2UA For M2UA [M2UA] the Maximum Disconnect Data Size field does not
apply and is not included in the Protocol Limits parameter.
M3UA For M3UA [M3UA] the Maximum Disconnect Data Size field does not
apply and is not included in the Protocol Limits parameter.
SUA For SUA [SUA] the Maximum Disconnect Data Size field provides a
limit on the maximum size of the User Data field that can be
included in a RELRE message. For Connection-less operation,
this field does not apply and is not included in the Protocol
Limits parameter.
TUA For TUA [TUA] the Maximum Disconnect Data Size field provides
the limit on the maximum size of the User Abort Information
that can be included in a TUAB message. For Operation Class 4,
this field does not apply and is not included in the Protocol
Limits parameter.
Maximum ESDU Size field: 32-bits (signed integer)
The Maximum ESDU Size field contains the maximum number of bytes in
the Data parameter that the Signalling Gateway can support to the
specific Application Server when data is expedited on a connection.
M2UA For M2UA [M2UA] The Maximum ESDU Size field does not apply and
is not included in the Protocol Limits parameter.
M3UA For M3UA [M3UA] the Maximum ESDU Size field does not apply and
is not included in the Protocol Limits parameter.
SUA For SUA [SUA] the Maximum ESDU Size field provides a maximum
number of bytes in the User Data field for an expedited data
transfer. The maximum size is the largest expedited data
payload size that can be transferred across the SS7 network for
B. Bidulock Version 0.6 Page 7
Internet Draft UA SGINFO June 18, 2007
the specific Application Server. For Connection-less or
Protocol Class 2 operation, this field does not apply and is
not included in the Protocol Limits parameter.
TUA For TUA [TUA] the Maximum ESDU Size field does not apply and is
not included in the Protocol Limits parameter.
3.2. Messages
SGINFO extends the following messages defined for the UAs.<1>
3.2.1. ASP Active Acknowledgment (ASPAC ACK)
SGINFO supplements the ASPAC ACK message by permitting the following
optional parameters to be included in the message:
Extension Parameters
-----------------------------------------
Protocol Limits Optional
The format of the resulting ASP ACK message for M2UA is as
follows:<3>
B. Bidulock Version 0.6 Page 8
Internet Draft UA SGINFO June 18, 2007
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Tag = 0x000b | Length = 8 |
+- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -+- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -+
| Traffic Mode Type |
+-------------------------------+-------------------------------+
| Tag = 0x0001 | Length |
+- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -+- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -+
\ \
/ Interface Identifiers /
\ \
+-------------------------------+-------------------------------+
| Tag = 0x0008 | Length |
+- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -+- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -+
| Interface Identifier Start1 |
+- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -+
| Interface Identifier Stop1 |
+- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -+
| Interface Identifier Start2 |
+- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -+
| Interface Identifier Stop2 |
+- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -+
\ . \
/ . /
\ . \
+- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -+
| Interface Identifier StartN |
+- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -+
| Interface Identifier StopN |
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
/ /
\ Additional Interface Identifiers \
/ of Tag Type 0x1 or 0x8 /
\ \
+-------------------------------+-------------------------------+
| Tag = 0x001b | Length |
+- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -+- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -+
\ \
/ Protocol Limits /
\ \
+-------------------------------+-------------------------------+
| Tag = 0x0004 | Length |
+- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -+- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -+
\ \
/ Info String /
\ \
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The format of the resulting ASPAC ACK message for M3UA, ISUA, SUA
and TUA is as follows:<4>
B. Bidulock Version 0.6 Page 9
Internet Draft UA SGINFO June 18, 2007
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Tag = 0x0006 | Length = 8 |
+- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -+- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -+
\ \
/ Routing Context /
\ \
+-------------------------------+-------------------------------+
| Tag = 0x001b | Length |
+- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -+- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -+
\ \
/ Protocol Limits /
\ \
+-------------------------------+-------------------------------+
| Tag = 0x0004 | Length |
+- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -+- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -+
\ \
/ Info String /
\ \
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
To indicate restrictions on the maximum sizes for transfer of data,
the SGP and IPSP MUST include the Protocol Limits parameter in the
ASPAC ACK message.
No other changes to the ASPAC ACK message format are provided by
this extension.
Notes for Section 3
<1> See, for example, Section 3 of the specific UA document [M2UA],
[M3UA], [SUA], [ISUA], [TUA].
<2> EDITOR'S NOTE:- The parameter tag values shown as 0x001b will
be assigned by IANA within the common parameter range of the
SIGTRAN UAs and may change its value in further versions of
this document.
<3> EDITOR'S NOTE:- The parameter tag values shown as 0x001b will
be assigned by IANA within the common parameter range of the
SIGTRAN UAs and may change its value in further versions of
this document.
<4> EDITOR'S NOTE:- The parameter tag values shown as 0x001b will
be assigned by IANA within the common parameter range of the
SIGTRAN UAs and may change its value in further versions of
this document.
B. Bidulock Version 0.6 Page 10
Internet Draft UA SGINFO June 18, 2007
4. Procedures
The following procedures are provided in extension to the UA
procedures by SGINFO.
4.1. ASP Management Procedures
4.1.1. ASP Active Procedures
In extension of the "ASP Active Procedures" of the UAs<2>, SGINFO
provides the following procedures:
Whenever an SGP, as a part of the normal UA procedures, sends an ASP
Active Acknowledgment (ASPAC ACK) to an ASP, it MAY include the
Protocol Limits parameter indicating the protocol data size limits
that apply to the Application Server associated with the Routing
Contexts (Interface Identifiers) specified or implied in the ASPAC ACK
message. Where the protocol limits only apply to one Application
Server, the SGP SHOULD NOT include more than one Routing Context
(Interface Identifier) in the ASPAC ACK response. That is, in
response to an ASPAC message containing multiple Routing Contexts
(Interface Identifiers), the SGP SHOULD send a separate ASPAC ACK
reply for each Routing Context (Interface Identifier) for which it
includes the Protocol Limits parameter.
If an SG discovers that the protocol data size limits has changed
due to an event, (such as a failure in the SS7 network), the SGP MAY
send an unsolicited ASPAC ACK message containing the new protocol
limits.
Whenever an ASP receives an ASPAC ACK message as part of the normal
UA procedures, or receives an unsolicited ASPAC ACK for an active
Application Server (AS), the ASP will apply the new protocol data size
limits to the Application Server.
4.2. Interworking
Whenever an SGP receives an ERR("Invalid Parameter") message
indicating the Protocol Limits parameter in response to a sent ASPAC
ACK message containing a Protocol Limits parameter, the SGP SHOULD re-
attempt by sending the ASPAC ACK without a Protocol Limits parameter.
5. Examples
5.1. ASP and SGP both supporting Protocol Limits
An example of an ASP and SGP both supporting Protocol Limits is
illustrated in Figure 1.
As illustrated in Figure 1, the sequence of events for this example
are as follows:
B. Bidulock Version 0.6 Page 11
Internet Draft UA SGINFO June 18, 2007
SGP ASP
| ASPUP |
|<------------------------------|
| ASPUP ACK |
(1) |------------------------------>|
| |
| ASPAC |
(2) |<------------------------------|
| |
| ASPAC ACK(Protocol Limits) |
(3) |------------------------------>|
| |
. .
. .
. .
| ASPAC ACK(Protocol Limits) |
(4) |------------------------------>|
| |
Figure 1. ASP and SGP both supporting Protocol Limits
(1) An Application Server at an ASP begins in the AS-DOWN or AS-
INACTIVE state.
(2) The ASP activates an Application Server by sending an ASPAC
message.
(3) The SGP responds with an ASPAC ACK message containing the
current protocol limits in the Protocol Limits parameter. The
ASP applies these protocol limits to the Application Server
upon activation.
(4) Later, when the SGP notes a change to protocol limits, the SGP
sends an unsolicited ASPAC ACK message containing the updated
Protocol Limits. The ASP applies these updated protocol limits
to the Application Server upon receipt.
5.2. SGP only supporting Protocol Limits
5.2.1. ASP ignores Protocol Limits
An example of an SGP only supporting Protocol Limits where the ASP
ignores the Protocol Limits parameter is illustrated in Figure 2.
As illustrated in Figure 2, the sequence of events for this example
are as follows:
(1) An Application Server at an ASP begins in the AS-DOWN or AS-
INACTIVE state.
(2) The ASP activates an Application Server by sending an ASPAC
message.
B. Bidulock Version 0.6 Page 12
Internet Draft UA SGINFO June 18, 2007
SGP ASP
| ASPUP |
|<------------------------------|
| ASPUP ACK |
(1) |------------------------------>|
| |
| ASPAC |
(2) |<------------------------------|
| |
| ASPAC ACK(Protocol Limits) |
(3) |------------------------------>|
| |
. .
. .
. .
| ASPAC ACK(Protocol Limits) |
(4) |------------------------------>|
| |
Figure 2. ASP and SGP both supporting Protocol Limits
(3) The SGP responds with an ASPAC ACK message containing the
current protocol limits in the Protocol Limits parameter. The
ASP ignores the Protocol Limits parameter and, instead, relies
upon internal configuration data to determine protocol limits.
(4) Later, when the SGP notes a change to protocol limits, the SGP
sends an unsolicited ASPAC ACK message containing the updated
Protocol Limits. The ASP ignores the Protocol Limits parameter
and, instead, relies upon internal configuration data to
determine protocol limits.
5.2.2. ASP refuses Protocol Limits
An example of an SGP only supporting Protocol Limits where the ASP
refuses the Protocol Limits parameter is illustrated in Figure 3.
As illustrated in Figure 3, the sequence of events for this example
are as follows:
(1) An Application Server at an ASP begins in the AS-DOWN or AS-
INACTIVE state.
(2) The ASP activates an Application Server by sending an ASPAC
message.
(3) The SGP responds with an ASPAC ACK message containing the
current protocol limits in the Protocol Limits parameter.
(4) The ASP refuses the ASPAC ACK message and responds with an
ERR("Invalid Parameter") message indicating the Protocol Limits
parameter as invalid.
B. Bidulock Version 0.6 Page 13
Internet Draft UA SGINFO June 18, 2007
SGP ASP
| ASPUP |
|<------------------------------|
| ASPUP ACK |
(1) |------------------------------>|
| |
| ASPAC |
(2) |<------------------------------|
| |
| ASPAC ACK(Protocol Limits) |
(3) |------------------------------>|
| |
| ERR("Invalid Parameter") |
(4) |<------------------------------|
| |
| ASPAC ACK |
(5) |------------------------------>|
| |
. .
. .
. .
| |
(6) | |
| |
Figure 3. ASP and SGP both supporting Protocol Limits
(5) The SGP re-attempts and sends the ASPAC ACK message without the
Protocol Limits parameter and marks the ASP as incapable of
processing protocol limits.
(6) When a subsequent change in the protocol limits at the SGP
occurs, the SGP does nothing (the ASP is marked as incapable of
handling protocol limits).
5.3. ASP only supporting Protocol Limits
An example of an ASP only supporting Protocol Limits is illustrated
in Figure 4.
As illustrated in Figure 4, the sequence of events for this example
are as follows:
(1) An Application Server at an ASP begins in the AS-DOWN or AS-
INACTIVE state.
(2) The ASP activates an Application Server by sending an ASPAC
message.
(3) The SGP responds with an ASPAC ACK message not containing the
Protocol Limits parameter.
B. Bidulock Version 0.6 Page 14
Internet Draft UA SGINFO June 18, 2007
SGP ASP
| ASPUP |
|<------------------------------|
| ASPUP ACK |
(1) |------------------------------>|
| |
| ASPAC |
(2) |<------------------------------|
| |
| ASPAC ACK |
(3) |------------------------------>|
| |
| |
(4) | |
| |
Figure 4. ASP and SGP both supporting Protocol Limits
(4) The ASP receiving the ASPAC ACK with no Protocol Limits
parameter relies upon internal configuration data to determine
protocol limits.
6. Security
SGINFO does not introduce any new security risks or considerations
that are not already inherent in the UA [M2UA], [M3UA], [SUA], [ISUA],
[TUA] Please see the SIGTRAN Security document [SIGSEC] for security
considerations and recommendations that are applicable to each of
these UAs.
7. IANA Considerations
7.1. Protocol Extensions
SGINFO provides an additional Protocol Limits message parameter to
the common parameter range of the SIGTRAN UAs [M2UA], [M3UA], [SUA],
[ISUA], [TUA]:
(a) The parameter is named the Protocol Limits parameter.
(b) The structure of the Protocol Limits parameter field conforms
to the UA general TLV format and is described in detail in
Section 3.1.1.
(c) The detailed definition of each component of the Protocol
Limits parameter values is described in Section 3.1.1.
(d) This document also provides a detailed description of the
intended use of the Protocol Limits<1> parameter, and in which
messages the Protocol Limits parameter should appear, how many
times, and when.
B. Bidulock Version 0.6 Page 15
Internet Draft UA SGINFO June 18, 2007
Notes for Section 7
<1> EDITOR'S NOTE:- The Protocol Limits parameter tag value shown
throughout this document as 0x001b will be assigned by IANA
within the common parameter range of the SIGTRAN UAs and may
change its value in further versions of this document.
0. Revision History
This section provides historical information on the changes made to
this draft. This section will be removed from the document when the
document is finalized.
0.6. Changes from Version 0.5 to Version 0.6
+ updated new boilerplate and idnits 2.00.1.
+ updated references, version numbers and dates.
0.5. Changes from Version 0.4 to Version 0.5
+ updated to IETF boilerplate for first and last page.
+ updated references, version numbers and dates.
+ resubmitted to sync with IETF numbering
0.4. Changes from Version 0.3 to Version 0.4
+ updated references, version numbers and dates.
0.3. Changes from Version 0.2 to Version 0.3
+ added list of abbreviations.
+ moved history section.
+ updated revision and dates.
+ updated references.
+ split reference section.
+ updated secuirty section.
+ moved notes to end.
0.2. Changes from Version 0.1 to Version 0.2
+ added this section,
B. Bidulock Version 0.6 Page 16
Internet Draft UA SGINFO June 18, 2007
+ updated references, release version and dates,
+ minor corrections,
+ updated postscript diagrams,
+ updated author's address.
0.1. Changes from Version 0.0 to Version 0.1
0.0. Version 0.0
0.0.0. Change Log
$Log: draft-bidulock-sigtran-sginfo-06.me,v $
Revision 0.9.2.1 2007/02/03 15:47:25 brian
- added new drafts
Revision 0.9.2.5 2006/06/27 09:41:15 brian
- rereleased drafts
Revision 0.9.2.4 2006/06/18 20:53:35 brian
- preparing for draft rerelease
Revision 0.9.2.3 2005/10/17 11:53:46 brian
- updated drafts for republication
Revision 0.9.2.2 2005/05/14 08:33:21 brian
- copyright header correction
Revision 0.9.2.1 2004/03/16 05:10:46 brian
- Added drafts and figures.
Revision 0.8.2.1 2003/08/01 12:23:16 brian
Added abbreviations, updated format.
B. Bidulock Version 0.6 Page 17
Internet Draft UA SGINFO June 18, 2007
Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels," BCP 14/RFC 2119, The Internet Society (March
1997). <http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt>
[M2UA] Morneault, K., Dantu, R., Sidebottom, G., Bidulock, B. and
Heitz, J., "Signaling System 7 (SS7) Message Transfer Part 2
(MTP2) -- User Adaptation Layer," RFC 3331, The Internet Society
(September 2002). <http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3331.txt>
[M3UA] Morneault, K., Pastor-Balbas, J., (eds), "Signaling System 7
(SS7) Message Transfer Part 3 (MTP3) -- User Adaptation Layer
(M3UA)," RFC 4666, The Internet Society (September 2006).
<http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4666.txt>
[SUA] Loughney, J., Sidebottom, G., Coene, L., Verwimp, G., Keller,
J. and Bidulock, B., "Signalling Connection Control Part User
Adaptation Layer (SUA)," RFC 3868, The Internet Society (October
2004). <http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3868.txt>
[SCTP] Stewart, R. R., Xie, Q., Morneault, K., Sharp, C.,
Schwarzbauer, H. J., Taylor, T., Rytina, I., Kalla, H., Zhang, L.
and Paxson, V., "Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP),"
RFC 2960, The Internet Society (October 2000). (Updated by RFC
3309) (Status: PROPOSED STANDARD)
<http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2960.txt>
[SCTPCRC] Stone, J., Stewart, R. R. and Otis, D., "Stream Control
Transmission Protocol (SCTP) Checksum Change," RFC 3309, The
Internet Society (September 2002). (Updates RFC 2960) (Status:
PROPOSED STANDARD) <http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3309.txt>
[SIGSEC] Loughney, J., Tuexen, M. and Pastor-Balbas, J., "Security
Considerations for Signaling Transport (SIGTRAN) Protocols," RFC
3788, Internet Engineering Task Force -- Signalling Transport
Working Group (June 2004). <http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3788.txt>
Informative References
[ISUA] Bidulock, B., "SS7 ISUP-User Adaptation Layer (ISUA)," draft-
bidulock-sigtran-isua-04.txt, Internet Engineering Task Force --
Signalling Transport Working Group (February 3, 2007). Work In
Progress. <http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-bidulock-
sigtran-isua-04.txt>
[TUA] Bidulock, B., "SS7 TCAP-User Adaptation Layer (TUA)," draft-
bidulock-sigtran-tua-05.txt, Internet Engineering Task Force --
Signalling Transport Working Group (February 3, 2007). Work In
Progress. <http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-bidulock-
sigtran-tua-05.txt>
B. Bidulock Version 0.6 Page 18
Internet Draft UA SGINFO June 18, 2007
[SCTPIG] Stewart, R., Aria-Rodriguez, I., Poon, K., Caro, A. and
Tuexen, M., "Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP)
Specification Errata and Issues," RFC 4460, The Internet Society
(April 2006). (Status: INFORMATIONAL)
<http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4460.txt>
[Q.704] ITU, "Message Transfer Part -- Signalling Network Functions
and Messages," ITU-T Recommendation Q.704, ITU-T
Telecommunication Standardization Sector of ITU, Geneva (March
1993). (Previously "CCITT Recommendation")
[Q.711] ITU, "Functional Description of Signalling Connection Control
Part," ITU-T Recommendation Q.711, ITU-T Telecommunication
Standardization Sector of ITU, Geneva (March 1993). (Previously
"CCITT Recommendation")
[Q.771] ITU, "Signalling System No. 7 -- Functional Description of
Transaction Capabilities," ITU-T Recommendation Q.771, ITU-T
Telecommunication Standardization Sector of ITU, Geneva (March
1993). (Previously "CCITT Recommendation")
[X.213] ITU, "OSI -- Network Service Definition," ITU-T
Recommendation X.213 [ISO/IEC 8348], ITU-T Telecommunication
Standardization Sector of ITU, International Organization for
Standardization, Geneva (November 1995). (Previously "CCITT
Recommendation")
[NPI] UNIX International, Inc., "Network Provider Interface (NPI)
Specification," NPI Revision 2.0.0, UNIX International Press,
Parsippany, New Jersey (August 17, 1992).
<http://www.openss7.org/docs/npi.pdf>
[X.214] ITU, "Information Technology -- Open Systems Interconnection
-- Transport service definition," ITU-T Recommendation X.214
[ISO/IEC 8072 : 1996], ITU-T Telecommunication Standardization
Sector of ITU, International Organization for Standardization,
Geneva (November 1995). (Previously "CCITT Recommendation")
[X.219] ITU, "Information processing systems -- Text Communication,
Remote Operations: Model, Notation and Service Definition," ITU-T
Recommendation X.219 [ISO/IEC 9072-1], ITU-T Telecommunication
Standardization Sector of ITU, International Organization for
Standardization, Geneva (n.d.). (Previously "CCITT
Recommendation")
[TPI] Open Group, "Transport Provider Interface (TPI) Specification,"
TPI Revision 2.0.0, Open Group Publication, Parsippany, New
Jersey (1999). <http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/>
[X.217] ITU, "Information Technology -- Open Systems Interconnection
-- Service definition for the Association Control Service
Element," ITU-T Recommendation X.217 [ISO/IEC 8649 : 1996], ITU-T
Telecommunication Standardization Sector of ITU, International
B. Bidulock Version 0.6 Page 19
Internet Draft UA SGINFO June 18, 2007
Organization for Standardization, Geneva (1995). (Previously
"CCITT Recommendation")
[X.227] ITU, "Information Technology -- Open Systems Interconnection
-- Connection-oriented protocol for the Association Control
Service Element: Protocol Specification," ITU-T Recommendation
X.227 [ISO/IEC 8650-1], ITU-T Telecommunication Standardization
Sector of ITU, International Organization for Standarization,
Geneva (1995). (Previously "CCITT Recommendation")
[XNS] Open Group, "Technical Standard: Network Services (XNS)," XNS
Issue 5.2 Draft 2.0 [ISBN 1-85912-241-8], Open Group Publication
(1999). <http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/>
Author's Addresses
Brian Bidulock
OpenSS7 Corporation
1469 Jeffreys Crescent
Edmonton, AB T6L 6T1
Canada
Phone: +1-780-490-1141
Email: [email protected]
URL: http//www.openss7.org/
This draft expires December 2007.
B. Bidulock Version 0.6 Page 20
Internet Draft UA SGINFO June 18, 2007
List of Illustrations
Figure 1. ASP and SGP both supporting Protocol Limits ........... 12
Figure 2. ASP and SGP both supporting Protocol Limits ........... 13
Figure 3. ASP and SGP both supporting Protocol Limits ........... 14
Figure 4. ASP and SGP both supporting Protocol Limits ........... 15
Table of Contents
Status of this Memo ............................................. 1
Copyright ....................................................... 1
Abstract ........................................................ 1
Contents ........................................................ 2
1 Introduction .................................................. 2
1.1 Scope ....................................................... 2
1.2 Abbreviations ............................................... 2
1.3 Terminology ................................................. 2
1.4 Overview .................................................... 3
1.4.1 Existing Information Management ........................... 3
1.4.2 SGINFO Information Management ............................. 4
Notes for Section 1 ............................................. 4
2 Conventions ................................................... 4
3 Protocol Elements ............................................. 4
3.1 Parameters .................................................. 4
3.1.1 Protocol Limits ........................................... 4
3.2 Messages .................................................... 8
3.2.1 ASP Active Acknowledgment (ASPAC ACK) ..................... 8
Notes for Section 3 ............................................. 10
4 Procedures .................................................... 11
4.1 ASP Management Procedures ................................... 11
4.1.1 ASP Active Procedures ..................................... 11
4.2 Interworking ................................................ 11
5 Examples ...................................................... 11
5.1 ASP and SGP both supporting Protocol Limits ................. 11
5.2 SGP only supporting Protocol Limits ......................... 12
5.2.1 ASP ignores Protocol Limits ............................... 12
5.2.2 ASP refuses Protocol Limits ............................... 13
5.3 ASP only supporting Protocol Limits ......................... 14
6 Security ...................................................... 15
7 IANA Considerations ........................................... 15
7.1 Protocol Extensions ......................................... 15
Notes for Section 7 ............................................. 16
0 Revision History .............................................. 16
0.6 Changes from Version 0.5 to Version 0.6 ..................... 16
0.5 Changes from Version 0.4 to Version 0.5 ..................... 16
0.4 Changes from Version 0.3 to Version 0.4 ..................... 16
0.3 Changes from Version 0.2 to Version 0.3 ..................... 16
0.2 Changes from Version 0.1 to Version 0.2 ..................... 16
0.1 Changes from Version 0.0 to Version 0.1 ..................... 17
0.0 Version 0.0 ................................................. 17
0.0.0 Change Log ................................................ 17
Normative References ............................................ 18
B. Bidulock Version 0.6 Page 21
Internet Draft UA SGINFO June 18, 2007
Informative References .......................................... 18
Author's Addresses .............................................. 20
List of Illustrations ........................................... 21
Table of Contents ............................................... 21
B. Bidulock Version 0.6 Page 22
Internet Draft UA SGINFO June 18, 2007
Intellectual Property
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be found
in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this specification
can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf-
[email protected].
Disclaimer of Validity
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND
THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS
OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF
THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007). This document is subject to the
rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and except as
set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights.
Acknowledgement
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.
B. Bidulock Version 0.6 Page 23
| ||||||||||||||||||
| Last modified: Wed, 27 Nov 2024 19:27:08 GMT Copyright © 2014 OpenSS7 Corporation All Rights Reserved. | |||||||||||||||||||