| draft-ietf-sigtran-m2pa-08Description: Request For CommentsYou can download source copies of the file as follows:
Listed below is the contents of file draft-ietf-sigtran-m2pa-08.txt.
Network Working Group Tom George
INTERNET-DRAFT Alcatel
Brian Bidulock
OpenSS7
Ram Dantu
Netrake
Hanns Juergen Schwarzbauer
Siemens
Ken Morneault
Cisco Systems
Expires October 2003 April 22, 2003
SS7 MTP2-User Peer-to-Peer Adaptation Layer
<draft-ietf-sigtran-m2pa-08.txt>
Status of This Memo
This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with all
provisions of Section 10 of RFC 2026. 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.
To learn the current status of any Internet-Draft, please check the
'1id-abstracts.txt' listing contained in the Internet-Drafts Shadow
Directories on ftp.is.co.za (Africa), nic.nordu.net (Europe),
munnari.oz.au (Pacific Rim), ftp.ietf.org (US East Coast), or
ftp.isi.edu (US West Coast).
George, et. al. [Page 1]
Internet Draft SS7 MTP2-User Peer-to-Peer Adaptation Layer Apr 2003
Abstract
This Internet Draft defines a protocol supporting the transport of
Signaling System Number 7 (SS7) Message Transfer Part (MTP) Level 3
signaling messages over Internet Protocol (IP) using the services of
the Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP). This protocol would
be used between SS7 Signaling Points using the MTP Level 3
protocol. The SS7 Signaling Points may also use standard SS7 links
using the SS7 MTP Level 2 to provide transport of MTP Level 3
signaling messages. The protocol operates in a manner similar to MTP
Level 2 so as to provide peer-to-peer communication between SS7
endpoints.
George, et. al. [Page 2]
Internet Draft SS7 MTP2-User Peer-to-Peer Adaptation Layer Apr 2003
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Introduction............................................. 4
1.1 Scope................................................. 4
1.2 Terminology........................................... 4
1.3 Abbreviations......................................... 5
1.4 Conventions........................................... 6
1.5 Signaling Transport Architecture...................... 6
1.6 Services Provided by M2PA............................. 8
1.7 Functions Provided by M2PA............................ 9
1.8 Definition of the M2PA Boundaries.....................10
1.9 Differences Between M2PA and M2UA.....................11
2. Protocol Elements........................................13
2.1 Common Message Header.................................13
2.2 M2PA Header...........................................14
2.3 M2PA Messages.........................................15
3. State Control............................................19
3.1 SCTP Association State Control........................19
3.2 M2PA Link State Control...............................20
4. Procedures...............................................21
4.1 Procedures to Support MTP2 Features...................21
4.2 Procedures to Support the MTP3/MTP2 Interface.........29
4.3 SCTP Considerations...................................32
5. Examples of M2PA Procedures..............................34
5.1 Link Initialization (Alignment).......................34
5.2 Message Transmission and Reception....................37
5.3 Link Status Indication................................37
5.4 Link Status Message (Processor Outage)................38
5.5 Level 2 Flow Control..................................39
5.6 MTP3 Signaling Link Congestion........................41
5.7 Link Deactivation.....................................42
5.8 Link Changeover.......................................43
6. Security.................................................44
6.1 Threats...............................................44
6.2 Protecting Confidentiality............................44
7. IANA Considerations......................................45
7.1 SCTP Payload Protocol Identifier......................45
7.2 M2PA Protocol Extensions..............................45
8. Acknowledgements.........................................46
9. References...............................................47
9.1 Normative..............................................47
9.2 Informative............................................48
10. Author's Addresses.......................................49
George, et. al. [Page 3]
Internet Draft SS7 MTP2-User Peer-to-Peer Adaptation Layer Apr 2003
1. Introduction
1.1 Scope
There is a need for Switched Circuit Network (SCN) signaling protocol
delivery over an IP network. This includes message transfer between
the following:
- a Signaling Gateway (SG) and a Media Gateway Controller (MGC)
[RFC2719]
- a SG and an IP Signaling Point (IPSP)
- an IPSP and an IPSP
This could allow for convergence of some signaling and data
networks. SCN signaling nodes would have access to databases and other
devices in the IP network domain that do not use SS7 signaling
links. Likewise, IP telephony applications would have access to SS7
services. There may also be operational cost and performance
advantages when traditional signaling links are replaced by IP network
"connections".
The delivery mechanism described in this document allows for full MTP3
message handling and network management capabilities between any two
SS7 nodes, communicating over an IP network. An SS7 node equipped with
an IP network connection is called an IP Signaling Point (IPSP). The
IPSPs function as traditional SS7 nodes using the IP network instead
of SS7 links.
The delivery mechanism SHOULD
- Support seamless operation of MTP3 protocol peers over an IP
network connection.
- Support the MTP Level 2 / MTP Level 3 interface boundary.
- Support management of SCTP transport associations and traffic
instead of MTP2 Links.
- Support asynchronous reporting of status changes to management.
1.2 Terminology
MTP - The Message Transfer Part of the SS7 protocol [Q.700] [Q.701]
[Q.702] [Q.703] [Q.704] [Q.705] [T1.111].
MTP2 - MTP Level 2, the MTP signaling link layer.
MTP3 - MTP Level 3, the MTP signaling network layer.
George, et. al. [Page 4]
Internet Draft SS7 MTP2-User Peer-to-Peer Adaptation Layer Apr 2003
MTP2-User - A protocol that normally uses the services of MTP
Level 2. The only MTP2 user is MTP3. The MTP2 user is equivalent to
the M2PA user.
Signaling End Point (SEP) - A node in an SS7 network that originates
or terminates signaling messages. One example is a central office
switch.
IP Signaling Point (IPSP) - An SS7 Signaling Point with an IP
network connection used for SS7 over IP.
Signaling Gateway (SG) - A signaling agent that receives/sends SCN
native signaling at the edge of the IP network [RFC2719]. In this
context, an SG is an SS7 Signaling Point that has both an IP network
connection used for SS7 over IP, and a traditional (non-IP) link to an
SS7 network.
Signaling Transfer Point (STP) - A node in an SS7 network that routes
signaling messages based on their destination point code in the SS7
network.
Association - An association refers to a SCTP association
[RFC2960]. The association provides the transport for MTP3 protocol
data units and M2PA adaptation layer peer messages.
Network Byte Order - Most significant byte first, also known as "Big
Endian". See [RFC791], Appendix B "Data Transmission Order".
Stream - A stream refers to a SCTP stream [RFC2960].
1.3 Abbreviations
BSNT - Backward Sequence Number to be Transmitted
FSNC - Forward Sequence Number of last message accepted by
remote level 2
LI - Length Indicator
MSU - Message Signal Unit
SCCP - Signaling Connection Control Part
SCN - Switched Circuit Network
SCTP - Stream Control Transmission Protocol
SIF - Signaling Information Field
SIO - Service Information Octet
SLC - Signaling Link Code
George, et. al. [Page 5]
Internet Draft SS7 MTP2-User Peer-to-Peer Adaptation Layer Apr 2003
SS7 - Signaling System Number 7
SSN - Stream Sequence Number
STP - Signal Transfer Point
1.4 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].
1.5 Signaling Transport Architecture
The architecture that has been defined [RFC2719] for Switched Circuit
Network (SCN) signaling transport over IP uses multiple components,
including an IP transport protocol, the Stream Control Transmission
Protocol (SCTP), and an adaptation module to support the services
expected by a particular SCN signaling protocol from its underlying
protocol layer.
Within this framework architecture, this document defines an SCN
adaptation module that is suitable for the transport of SS7 MTP3
messages. The adaptation layer, known as the MTP2 User Peer-to-peer
Adaptation Layer (M2PA), provides MTP3 with an interface and services
similar to MTP2. In effect, MTP2 and lower layers of the traditional
SS7 protocol stack are replaced by an IP equivalent.
Figure 1 shows the seamless interworking at the MTP3 layer. MTP3 is
adapted to the SCTP layer using the MTP2 User Peer-to-peer Adaptation
Layer (M2PA). All the primitives between MTP3 and MTP2 are supported
by M2PA. The SCTP association acts as one SS7 link between the IPSPs.
An IPSP may have the Signaling Connection Control Part (SCCP) and
other SS7 layers above MTP3.
George, et. al. [Page 6]
Internet Draft SS7 MTP2-User Peer-to-Peer Adaptation Layer Apr 2003
******** IP ********
* IPSP *--------* IPSP *
******** ********
+------+ +------+
| TCAP | | TCAP |
+------+ +------+
| SCCP | | SCCP |
+------+ +------+
| MTP3 | | MTP3 |
+------+ +------+
| M2PA | | M2PA |
+------+ +------+
| SCTP | | SCTP |
+------+ +------+
| IP | | IP |
+------+ +------+
IP - Internet Protocol
IPSP - IP Signaling Point
SCTP - Stream Control Transmission Protocol [RFC2960]
Figure 1. M2PA Symmetrical Peer-to-Peer Architecture
Figure 2 shows an example of M2PA used in a Signaling Gateway
(SG). The SG is an IPSP equipped with both traditional SS7 and IP
network connections. Any of the nodes in the diagram could have SCCP
or other SS7 layers above MTP3. The Signaling Gateway acts as a Signal
Transfer Point (STP). Other STPs MAY be present in the SS7 path
between the SEP and the SG.
George, et. al. [Page 7]
Internet Draft SS7 MTP2-User Peer-to-Peer Adaptation Layer Apr 2003
******** SS7 *************** IP ********
* SEP *--------* SG *--------* IPSP *
******** *************** ********
+------+ +------+
| TCAP | | TCAP |
+------+ +------+
| SCCP | | SCCP |
+------+ +-------------+ +------+
| MTP3 | | MTP3 | | MTP3 |
+------+ +------+------+ +------+
| MTP2 | | MTP2 | M2PA | | M2PA |
+------+ +------+------+ +------+
| MTP1 | | MTP1 | SCTP | | SCTP |
| | | +------+ +------+
| | | | IP | | IP |
+------+ +------+------+ +------+
SEP - SS7 Signaling Endpoint
Figure 2. M2PA in IP Signaling Gateway
Figure 2 is only an example. Other configurations are possible. In
short, M2PA uses the SCTP association as an SS7 link. The M2PA/SCTP/IP
stack can be used in place of an MTP2/MTP1 stack.
1.5.1 Point Code Representation
MTP requires that each node with an MTP3 layer is identified by an SS7
point code. In particular, each IPSP MUST have its own SS7 point code.
1.6 Services Provided by M2PA
The SS7 MTP3/MTP2 (MTP2-User) interface is retained in the IPSP. The
M2PA protocol layer is required to provide the equivalent set of
services to its user as provided by MTP Level 2 to MTP Level 3.
These services are described in the following subsections.
1.6.1 Support for MTP Level 2 / MTP Level 3 interface boundary
This interface is the same as the MTP2/MTP3 interface described in the
applicable SS7 standards [Q.703] [Q.704] [T1.111] [Q.2140], with the
addition of support for larger sequence numbers in [T1.111] and
[Q.2210].
M2PA receives the primitives sent from MTP3 to its lower layer. M2PA
processes these primitives or maps them to appropriate primitives at
the M2PA/SCTP interface. Likewise, M2PA sends primitives to MTP3 like
those used in the MTP3/MTP2 interface.
George, et. al. [Page 8]
Internet Draft SS7 MTP2-User Peer-to-Peer Adaptation Layer Apr 2003
Because M2PA uses larger sequence numbers than MTP2, the MTP3
Changeover procedure MUST use the Extended Changeover Order and
Extended Changeover Acknowledgment messages described in [Q.2210] and
[T1.111].
Also, the following MTP3/MTP2 primitives must use the larger sequence
numbers:
- BSNT Confirmation
- Retrieval Request and FSNC
1.6.2 Support for peer-to-peer communication
In SS7, MTP Level 2 sends three types of messages, known as signal
units: Message Signal Units (MSUs), Link Status Signal Units (LSSUs),
and Fill-In Signal Units (FISUs).
MSUs originate at a higher level than MTP2, and are destined for a
peer at another node. Likewise, M2PA passes these messages from MTP3
to SCTP as data for transport across a link. These are called User
Data messages in M2PA.
LSSUs allow peer MTP2 layers to exchange status information. Analogous
messages are needed for M2PA. The Link Status message serves this
purpose.
FISUs are transmitted continuously when no other signal units are
waiting to be sent. FISUs also carry acknowledgment of messages. Since
an IP network is a shared resource, it would be undesirable to have a
message type that is sent continuously as the FISUs are. Furthermore,
SCTP does not require its upper layer to continuously transmit
messages. Therefore, M2PA does not provide a protocol data unit like
the FISU. The M2PA User Data message is used to carry acknowledgment
of messages. If M2PA needs to acknowledge a message and it has no MTP3
message of its own to send, an empty User Data message can be sent.
1.7 Functions Provided by M2PA
1.7.1 MTP2 Functionality
M2PA provides MTP2 functionality that is not provided by SCTP, so that
together M2PA and SCTP provide functionality similar to that of
MTP2.
SCTP provides reliable, sequenced delivery of messages.
George, et. al. [Page 9]
Internet Draft SS7 MTP2-User Peer-to-Peer Adaptation Layer Apr 2003
M2PA functionality includes:
- Data retrieval to support the MTP3 changeover procedure
- Reporting of link status changes to MTP3
- Processor outage procedure
- Link alignment procedure
1.7.2 Mapping of SS7 and IP Entities
The M2PA layer must maintain a map of each of its SS7 links to the
corresponding SCTP association.
1.7.3 SCTP Association Management
SCTP allows a user-specified number of streams to be opened during the
initialization. It is the responsibility of the M2PA layer to ensure
proper management of the streams allowed within each association.
M2PA uses two streams in each direction for each association. Stream 0
in each direction is designated for Link Status messages. Stream 1 is
designated for User Data messages. Separating the Link Status and User
Data messages onto separate streams allows M2PA to prioritize the
messages in a manner similar to MTP2.
Notifications received from SCTP are processed by M2PA or translated
into an appropriate notification to be sent to the upper layer MTP3.
1.7.4 Retention of MTP3 in the SS7 Network
M2PA allows MTP3 to perform all of its Message Handling and Network
Management functions with IPSPs as with other SS7 nodes.
1.8 Definition of the M2PA Boundaries
1.8.1 Definition of the M2PA / MTP Level 3 boundary
The upper layer primitives provided by M2PA are the same as those
provided by MTP2 to MTP3. These primitives are described in the
applicable SS7 standards [Q.703] [Q.704] [T1.111] [Q.2140].
1.8.2 Definition of the Lower Layer Boundary between M2PA and SCTP
The upper layer primitives provided by SCTP are described in [RFC2960]
Section 10 "Interface with Upper Layer".
George, et. al. [Page 10]
Internet Draft SS7 MTP2-User Peer-to-Peer Adaptation Layer Apr 2003
1.9 Differences Between M2PA and M2UA
The MTP2 User Adaptation Layer (M2UA) [M2UA] also adapts the MTP3
layer to the SCTP/IP stack. It does so through a backhauling
architecture [RFC2719]. This section is intended to clarify some of
the differences between the M2PA and M2UA approaches.
A possible M2PA architecture is shown in Figure 3. Here the IPSP's
MTP3 uses its underlying M2PA as a replacement for MTP2. Communication
between the two layers MTP3/M2PA is defined by the same primitives as
in SS7 MTP3/MTP2. M2PA performs functions similar to MTP2.
******** SS7 *************** IP ********
* SEP *--------* SG *--------* IPSP *
******** *************** ********
+------+ +-------------+ +------+
| SCCP | | SCCP | | SCCP |
+------+ +-------------+ +------+
| MTP3 | | MTP3 | | MTP3 |
+------+ +------+------+ +------+
| MTP2 | | MTP2 | M2PA | | M2PA |
+------+ +------+------+ +------+
| MTP1 | | MTP1 | SCTP | | SCTP |
| | | +------+ +------+
| | | | IP | | IP |
+------+ +------+------+ +------+
Figure 3. M2PA in IP Signaling Gateway
A comparable architecture for M2UA is shown in Figure 4. In M2UA, the
MGC's MTP3 uses the SG's MTP2 as its lower SS7 layer. Likewise, the
SG's MTP2 uses the MGC's MTP3 as its upper SS7 layer. In SS7,
communication between the MTP3 and MTP2 layers is defined by
primitives. In M2UA, the MTP3/MTP2 communication is defined as M2UA
messages and sent over the IP connection.
George, et. al. [Page 11]
Internet Draft SS7 MTP2-User Peer-to-Peer Adaptation Layer Apr 2003
******** SS7 *************** IP ********
* SEP *--------* SG *--------* MGC *
******** *************** ********
+------+ +------+
| SCCP | | SCCP |
+------+ +------+
| MTP3 | (NIF) | MTP3 |
+------+ +------+------+ +------+
| MTP2 | | MTP2 | M2UA | | M2UA |
+------+ +------+------+ +------+
| MTP1 | | MTP1 | SCTP | | SCTP |
| | | +------+ +------+
| | | | IP | | IP |
+------+ +------+------+ +------+
NIF - Nodal Interworking Function
Figure 4. M2UA in IP Signaling Gateway
M2PA and M2UA are similar in that:
a. Both transport MTP3 data messages.
b. Both present an MTP2 upper interface to MTP3.
Differences between M2PA and M2UA include:
a. M2PA: IPSP processes MTP3/MTP2 primitives.
M2UA: MGC transports MTP3/MTP2 primitives between the SG's MTP2
and the MGC's MTP3 (via the NIF) for processing.
b. M2PA: SG-IPSP connection is an SS7 link.
M2UA: SG-MGC connection is not an SS7 link. It is an
extension of MTP to a remote entity.
c. M2PA: SG is an SS7 node with a point code.
M2UA: SG is not an SS7 node and has no point code.
d. M2PA: SG can have upper SS7 layers, e.g., SCCP.
M2UA: SG does not have upper SS7 layers since it has no MTP3.
e. M2PA: relies on MTP3 for management procedures.
M2UA: uses M2UA management procedures.
Potential users of M2PA and M2UA should be aware of these differences
when deciding how to use them for SS7 signaling transport over IP
networks.
George, et. al. [Page 12]
Internet Draft SS7 MTP2-User Peer-to-Peer Adaptation Layer Apr 2003
2. Protocol Elements
This section describes the format of various messages used in this
protocol.
All fields in an M2PA message must be transmitted in the network byte
order, i.e., most significant byte first, unless otherwise stated.
2.1 Common Message Header
The protocol messages for M2PA require a message header structure
which contains a version, message class, message type, and message
length. The header structure is shown in Figure 5.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Version | Spare | Message Class | Message Type |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Message Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 5. Common Message Header
2.1.1 Version
The version field contains the version of M2PA. The supported versions
are:
Value
(decimal) Version
--------- -------
1 Release 1.0 of M2PA protocol
2.1.2 Spare
The Spare field SHOULD be set to all zeroes (0's) by the sender and
ignored by the receiver. The Spare field SHOULD NOT be used for
proprietary information.
2.1.3 Message Class
The following List contains the valid Message Classes:
Value
(decimal) Message Class
--------- -------------
11 M2PA Messages
Other values are invalid for M2PA.
George, et. al. [Page 13]
Internet Draft SS7 MTP2-User Peer-to-Peer Adaptation Layer Apr 2003
2.1.4 Message Type
The following list contains the message types for the defined
messages.
Value
(decimal) Message Type
--------- -------------
1 User Data
2 Link Status
Other values are invalid.
2.1.5 Message Length
The Message Length defines the length of the message in octets,
including the Common Header.
2.2 M2PA Header
All protocol messages for M2PA require an M2PA-specific header. The
header structure is shown in Figure 6.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| unused | BSN |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| unused | FSN |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 6. M2PA-specific Message Header
2.2.1 Backward Sequence Number (BSN)
This is the FSN of the message last received from the peer.
2.2.2 Forward Sequence Number (FSN)
This is the M2PA sequence number of the User Data message being sent.
The FSN and BSN values range from 0 to 16,777,215.
George, et. al. [Page 14]
Internet Draft SS7 MTP2-User Peer-to-Peer Adaptation Layer Apr 2003
2.3 M2PA Messages
The following section defines the messages and parameter contents. An
M2PA message consists of a Common Message Header and M2PA Header
followed by the data appropriate to the message.
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
\ \
/ Common Message Header /
\ \
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
\ \
/ M2PA-specific Message Header /
\ \
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
\ \
/ Message Data /
\ \
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
2.3.1 User Data
The User Data is the data sent from MTP3. The User Data is an optional
field. It need not be included in an acknowlegement-only message.
The format for the User Data message is as follows:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
\ \
/ Data /
\ \
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The Data field contains the following fields of the MTP Message Signal
Unit (MSU):
- Length Indicator (LI), including the two undefined bits between
the SIO and LI fields.
- Service Information Octet (SIO)
- Signaling Information Field (SIF)
The MTP MSU is described in Q.703 [Q.703], section 2.2 "Signal Unit
Format", and T1.111.3 [T1.111] section 2.2 "Signal Unit Format".
M2PA SHALL NOT add padding to the MTP3 message.
George, et. al. [Page 15]
Internet Draft SS7 MTP2-User Peer-to-Peer Adaptation Layer Apr 2003
Note that the Data field SHALL NOT contain other components of the MTP
MSU format:
- Flag
- Backward Sequence Number (BSN)
- Backward Indicator Bit (BIB)
- Forward Sequence Number (FSN)
- Forward Indicator Bit (FIB)
- Check bits (CK)
The Data field SHALL be transmitted in the byte order as defined by
MTP3.
It is not necessary to put the message length in the LI octet as in
MTP2. The LI octet is included because the two spare bits in the LI
octet are used by MTP3 in at least one national version of SS7 to
carry MTP3 information. For example, the Japanese TTC standard uses
these spare bits as an MTP3 Message Priority field. See [JT-Q704],
section 14 "Common Characteristics of message signal unit formats",
section 14.2 (A) "Priority Indicator (PRI)". For versions of MTP that
do not use these two bits, the entire octet is spare.
Therefore in M2PA the format of the LI octet is:
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|PRI| spare | (followed by SIO, SIF)
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
PRI - Priority used only in national MTP defined in [JT-Q704].
Spare for other MTP versions.
Since the LI octet is not used for a message length, there is no need
to support the expanded LI field in Q.703 [Q.703] Annex A. Therefore
the LI field in M2PA is always one octet.
Note: In the SS7 Recommendations, the format of the messages and
fields within the messages are based on bit transmission order. In
these recommendations the Least Significant Bit (LSB) of each field is
positioned to the right. The received SS7 fields are populated octet
by octet as received into the 4-octet word as shown below.
George, et. al. [Page 16]
Internet Draft SS7 MTP2-User Peer-to-Peer Adaptation Layer Apr 2003
As an example, in the ANSI MTP protocol, the Data field format is
shown below:
|MSB---------------------------------------------------------LSB|
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|PRI| spare | SIO | SIF octet | ... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
\ : \
/ : /
\ : \
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| ... | ... | ... | SIF octet |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Within each octet the Least Significant Bit (LSB) per the SS7
Recommendations is to the right (e.g., bit 15 of SIO is the LSB).
2.3.2 Link Status
The MTP2 Link Status message can be sent between M2PA peers to
indicate link status. This message performs a function similar to the
the Link Status Signal Unit in MTP2. The format for the Link Status
message is as follows:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| State |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The valid values for State are shown in the following table.
Value
(decimal) Description
--------- -----------
1 Alignment
2 Proving Normal
3 Proving Emergency
4 Ready
5 Processor Outage
6 Processor Recovered
7 Busy
8 Busy Ended
9 Out of Service (OOS)
George, et. al. [Page 17]
Internet Draft SS7 MTP2-User Peer-to-Peer Adaptation Layer Apr 2003
2.3.2.1 Link Status Proving
The Link Status Proving message may optionally carry additional
bytes. If the optional bytes are used, the format for the message is
as follows.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| State |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
\ \
/ filler /
\ \
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
It is RECOMMENDED that the length of the Link Status Proving message
be similar to the size of the User Data messages that will be carried
on the link.
It is RECOMMENDED that the filler field contain a number pattern which
varies among the Link Status Proving messages, and that will allow the
SCTP checksum [RFC3309] to be used to verify the accuracy of
transmission.
George, et. al. [Page 18]
Internet Draft SS7 MTP2-User Peer-to-Peer Adaptation Layer Apr 2003
3. State Control
3.1 SCTP Association State Control
Figure 7 illustrates state changes in the M2PA management of the SCTP
association together with the causing events. Note that some of the
error conditions are not shown in the state diagram.
Following is a list of the M2PA Association States and a description
of each.
IDLE - State of the association during power-up initialization.
ASSOCIATE - M2PA is attempting to establish an SCTP association.
ESTABLISHED - SCTP association is established.
+-----------+
| IDLE |
+-----------+
|
| Associate
| (Issue SCTP associate)
|
| +----------------------+
| | (Issue SCTP |
V V associate) |
+-----------+ |
| ASSOCIATE |------------------->+
+-----------+ SCTP Comm Error |
| |
| |
| SCTP Comm Up |
| |
V |
+-------------+ |
| ESTABLISHED |----------------->+
+-------------+ SCTP Comm Error
OR SCTP Comm Lost
Figure 7. M2PA Association State Transition Diagram
George, et. al. [Page 19]
Internet Draft SS7 MTP2-User Peer-to-Peer Adaptation Layer Apr 2003
3.2 M2PA Link State Control
The M2PA link moves from one state to another in response to various
events. The events that may result in a change of state include:
- MTP3 primitive requests
- Receipt of messages from the peer M2PA
- Expiration of timers
- SCTP notifications
These events affect the M2PA link state in a manner similar to MTP2.
George, et. al. [Page 20]
Internet Draft SS7 MTP2-User Peer-to-Peer Adaptation Layer Apr 2003
4. Procedures
Since M2PA provides MTP3 with an interface and functionality like
MTP2, its internal functioning is similar to that of MTP2.
Except as modified in this document, M2PA SHOULD follow the
requirements of the applicable MTP2 specification. These may include
[Q.703] or [T1.111].
When referring to MTP2 terminology in this document, the terminology
of [Q.703] is used. This does not imply that the requirements of
[Q.703] are to be followed.
4.1 Procedures to Support MTP2 Features
4.1.1 Signal Unit Format, Delimitation, Acceptance
Messages for transmission across the network must follow the format
described in section 2.
SCTP provides reliable, in-sequence delivery of user
messages. Therefore the related functionality of MTP2 is not
needed. SCTP does not provide functions related to Link State Control
in MTP2. These functions must be provided by M2PA.
Since SCTP provides delivery of messages, there is no need for M2PA to
delimit its messages with a flag as in MTP2. Furthermore, M2PA does
not need to perform zero bit insertion and deletion on its messages.
Since SCTP uses a checksum to detect transmission errors, there is no
need for an M2PA checksum as in MTP2. This also eliminates the need
for the error rate monitors of MTP2.
Since SCTP provides reliable delivery and ordered delivery, M2PA does
not perform retransmissions. This eliminates the need for the forward
and backward indicator bits in MTP2 signal units.
Acceptance of a message is indicated by a successful receipt of the
message from SCTP.
George, et. al. [Page 21]
Internet Draft SS7 MTP2-User Peer-to-Peer Adaptation Layer Apr 2003
4.1.2 MTP and SCTP Entities
This section describes how M2PA relates MTP and SCTP entities.
Each MTP link corresponds to an SCTP association. To prevent duplicate
associations from being established, it is RECOMMENDED that each
endpoint know the IP address (or IP addresses, if multi-homing is
used) and port number of both endpoints. SCTP prevents two
associations with the same IP addresses and port numbers from being
established.
It is necessary for at least one of the endpoints to be listening on
the port on which the other endpoint is trying to establish the
association. Therefore, at least one of the port numbers SHOULD be the
M2PA registered port.
If only one association is to be established between these two IP
addresses, then the association SHOULD be established using the M2PA
registered port at each endpoint.
If it is desirable to create multiple associations (for multiple
links) between the two IP addresses, different port numbers can be
used for each association. Nevertheless, the M2PA registered port
number SHOULD be used at one end of each association.
Each combination of IP address/port for the two endpoints (i.e., each
association) MUST be mapped to the same Signaling Link Code (SLC) at
each endpoint, so that each endpoint knows which link is being created
at the time the SCTP association is established. However, M2PA does
not do any processing based on the SLC.
Following are examples of the relationships between associations and
links. Note that a link is an SCTP association identified by two
endpoints. Each endpoint is identified by an IP address and port
number. Each association is mapped to an SLC.
Figure 8 shows a case with two IPSPs, each with two IP addresses. Two
associations are the links that connect the two IPSPs. Since these
links are in the same link set, they MUST have different SLCs.
Table 1 shows the relationships in tabular form. Table 1 is only
conceptual. The actual method for mapping the SCTP associations to the
SLCs is implementation dependent.
George, et. al. [Page 22]
Internet Draft SS7 MTP2-User Peer-to-Peer Adaptation Layer Apr 2003
IPSP X IPSP Y
+-------------+ +-------------+
| | SCTP | |
| IPA | association 1 | IPB |
| port = PW +---------------+ port = PW |
| SLC = a | | SLC = a |
| | | |
| | | |
| | SCTP | |
| IPC | association 2 | IPD |
| port = PW +---------------+ port = PW |
| SLC = b | | SLC = b |
| | | |
| | | |
+-------------+ +-------------+
IPx = IP address
PW = Registered port number for M2PA
Figure 8. Two IPSPs with Two IP Addresses Each
Table 1. Two IPSPs with Two IP Addresses Each
+-------------+---------------------------------------+-----+
| Association | IPSP X | IPSP Y | SLC |
| +------------+------+------------+------+ |
| | IP address | Port | IP address | Port | |
+=============+============+======+============+======+=====+
| 1 | IPA | PW | IPB | PW | a |
+-------------+------------+------+------------+------+-----+
| 2 | IPC | PW | IPD | PW | b |
+-------------+------------+------+------------+------+-----+
Figure 9 and Table 2 show an example with three IPSPs. Note that in
this example, the two links are in different link sets. Therefore, it
is possible that the values a and b MAY be equal.
George, et. al. [Page 23]
Internet Draft SS7 MTP2-User Peer-to-Peer Adaptation Layer Apr 2003
IPSP X IPSP Y
+-------------+ +-------------+
| | SCTP | |
| IPA | association 1 | IPB |
| port = PW +---------------+ port = PW |
| SLC = a | | SLC = a |
| | | |
| | | |
| | SCTP | |
| IPC | association 2 | |
| port = PW +-------+ | |
| SLC = b | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
+-------------+ | +-------------+
|
|
| IPSP Z
|
| +-------------+
| | |
| | IPD |
+-------+ port = PW |
| SLC = b |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
+-------------+
IPx = IP address
PW = Registered port number for M2PA
Figure 9. One IPSP Connected to Two IPSPs
Table 2. One IPSP Connected to Two IPSPs
+-------------+---------------------------------------+-----+
| Association | IPSP X | IPSP Y/Z | SLC |
| +------------+------+------------+------+ |
| | IP address | Port | IP address | Port | |
+=============+============+======+============+======+=====+
| 1 | IPA | PW | IPB | PW | a |
+-------------+------------+------+------------+------+-----+
| 2 | IPC | PW | IPD | PW | b |
+-------------+------------+------+------------+------+-----+
George, et. al. [Page 24]
Internet Draft SS7 MTP2-User Peer-to-Peer Adaptation Layer Apr 2003
Figure 10 and Table 3 show two associations between the same IP
addresses. This is accomplished by using different port numbers for
each association at one endpoint.
IPSP X IPSP Y
+-------------+ +-------------+
| | SCTP | |
| IPA | association 1 | IPB |
| port = P1 +---------------+ port = PW |
| SLC = a | | SLC = a |
| | | |
| | | |
| | SCTP | |
| IPA | association 2 | IPB |
| port = PW +---------------+ port = PW |
| SLC = b | | SLC = b |
| | | |
| | | |
+-------------+ +-------------+
IPx = IP address
P1 = Pre-selected port number
PW = Registered port number for M2PA
Figure 10. Multiple Associations Between Two IP Addresses
Table 3. Multiple Associations Between Two IP Addresses
+-------------+---------------------------------------+-----+
| Association | IPSP X | IPSP Y | SLC |
| +------------+------+------------+------+ |
| | IP address | Port | IP address | Port | |
+=============+============+======+============+======+=====+
| 1 | IPA | P1 | IPB | PW | a |
+-------------+------------+------+------------+------+-----+
| 2 | IPA | PW | IPB | PW | b |
+-------------+------------+------+------------+------+-----+
The association SHALL contain two streams in each direction. Stream 0
is designated for Link Status messages. Stream 1 is designated for
User Data messages.
George, et. al. [Page 25]
Internet Draft SS7 MTP2-User Peer-to-Peer Adaptation Layer Apr 2003
4.1.3 Link Alignment
The purposes of the alignment procedure are:
(1) To provide a handshaking procedure so that both endpoints are
prepared to send SS7 traffic, and to prevent traffic from being
sent before the other end is ready.
(2) To verify that the SCTP association is suitable for use as an
SS7 link.
Link alignment takes place after the association is established. If
SCTP fails to establish the association, and M2PA has received a Start
Request from its MTP3, then M2PA SHALL report to MTP3 that the link is
out of service.
The Link Status Out of Service message replaces the SIOS message of
MTP2. Unlike MTP2, the message SHOULD NOT be transmitted
continuously. After the association is established, M2PA SHALL send a
Link Status Out of Service message to its peer. Prior to the beginning
of alignment, M2PA MAY send additional Link Status Out of Service
messages.
The Link Status Alignment message replaces the SIO message of
MTP2. This message is sent to signal the beginning of the alignment
procedure. The Link Status Alignment message SHOULD NOT be transmitted
continuously. M2PA MAY send additional Link Status Alignment until it
receives Link Status Alignment, Link Status Proving Normal, or Link
Status Proving Emergency from the peer.
The Link Status Proving Normal message replaces the SIN message of
MTP2. The Link Status Proving Emergency message replaces the SIE
message of MTP2.
During the proving period (i.e., after M2PA starts the proving period
timer T4), M2PA SHALL send Link Status Proving messages to its peer at
an interval defined by the protocol parameter Proving_Interval.
The Link Status Ready message replaces the FISU of MTP2 that is sent
at the end of the proving period. The Link Status Ready message is
used to verify that both ends have completed proving. When M2PA starts
timer T1, it SHALL send a Link Status Ready message to its peer in the
case where MTP2 would send a FISU after proving is complete. M2PA MAY
send additional Link Status Ready messages while timer T1 is running.
4.1.4 Processor Outage
The Link Status Processor Outage message replaces the SIPO message of
MTP2. Unlike MTP2, the message SHOULD NOT be transmitted
continuously. M2PA SHALL send a Link Status Processor Outage message
to its peer at the beginning of a processor outage condition where
MTP2 would send SIPO. M2PA MAY send additional Link Status Processor
Outage messages as long as that condition persists. When the condition
George, et. al. [Page 26]
Internet Draft SS7 MTP2-User Peer-to-Peer Adaptation Layer Apr 2003
ends, M2PA SHALL send a Link Status Processor Recovered message to its
peer.
While in a local processor outage condition:
(a) Any User Data messages received from the peer MUST NOT be
acknowledged and MUST be buffered.
(b) M2PA SHOULD continue to acknowledge User Data messages received
and accepted by MTP3 before the local processor outage.
(c) M2PA SHOULD continue running the T7 timer for messages sent
before the local processor outage.
While there is a remote processor outage condition:
(a) Any User Data messages received from the peer after the Link
Status Processor Outage MUST NOT be acknowledged and MUST be
buffered.
(b) M2PA SHOULD continue to acknowledge User Data messages received
and accepted by MTP3 before the remote processor outage.
In other respects, M2PA SHOULD follow the same procedures as MTP2 in
processor outage.
4.1.5 Level 2 Flow Control
The Link Status Busy message replaces the SIB message of MTP2. The
message SHOULD NOT be transmitted continuously. M2PA SHALL send a Link
Status Busy message to its peer at the beginning of a receive
congestion condition where MTP2 would send SIB. M2PA MAY send
additional Link Status Processor Outage messages as long as that
condition persists. When the condition ends, M2PA SHALL send a Link
Status Busy Ended message to its peer.
M2PA SHALL continue transmitting and acknowledging messages while it
is in receive congestion.
When the peer M2PA receives the first Link Status Busy message, it
SHALL start the Remote Congestion timer T6. Additional Link Status
Busy messages received while T6 is running do not cause T6 to be
reset.
The peer M2PA SHOULD continue transmitting and acknowledging messages
while its T6 timer is running, i.e., while the other end is Busy.
4.1.6 Link Out of Service
The Link Status Out of Service message replaces the SIOS message of
MTP2. Unlike MTP2, the message SHOULD NOT be transmitted
continuously. M2PA SHALL send a Link Status Out of Service message to
George, et. al. [Page 27]
Internet Draft SS7 MTP2-User Peer-to-Peer Adaptation Layer Apr 2003
its peer at the beginning of a condition where MTP2 would send
SIOS. M2PA MAY send additional Link Status Out of Service messages as
long as that condition persists.
When M2PA places a link in the OUT OF SERVICE state, M2PA SHOULD NOT
terminate the SCTP association.
4.1.7 SCTP Association Problems
The SCTP association for a link may become unusable, such as when one
of the following occurs:
- SCTP sends a Send Failure notification to M2PA.
- SCTP sends a Communication Lost notification to M2PA.
- SCTP sends a Communication Error notification to M2PA.
- The SCTP association is lost.
If the SCTP association for a link becomes unable to transmit or
receive messages, M2PA SHALL report to MTP3 that the link is out of
service and enter the OUT OF SERVICE state.
4.1.8 Transmission and Reception Priorities
In MTP, Link Status messages have priority over User Data messages
([Q.703], section 11.2). To achieve this in M2PA, M2PA SHALL send
Link Status and User Data messages on separate streams in its SCTP
association. M2PA SHALL send all messages using the ordered delivery
option of SCTP.
M2PA SHOULD give higher priority to Link Status messages than to User
Data messages when sending messages to SCTP.
M2PA SHOULD give higher priority to reading the Link Status stream
than to reading the User Data stream.
M2PA SHOULD give higher priority to receiving notifications from SCTP
than to reading either the Link Status stream or the User Data stream.
4.1.9 M2PA Version Control
A node upgraded to a newer version of M2PA SHOULD support the older
versions used on other nodes with which it is communicating. If that
is the case, then alignment can proceed normally.
George, et. al. [Page 28]
Internet Draft SS7 MTP2-User Peer-to-Peer Adaptation Layer Apr 2003
In particular, it is recommended that for future modifications to this
protocol:
- Any newer version SHOULD be able to process the messages from an
older version.
- A newer version of M2PA SHOULD refrain from sending messages to an
older version of M2PA messages that the older version cannot
process.
- If an older version of M2PA receives a message that it cannot
process, it SHOULD discard the message.
- In cases where different processing is done in two versions for the
same format of a message, then the newer version SHOULD contain
procedures to recognize this and handle it appropriately.
In case a newer version of M2PA is incompatible with an older version,
the newer version SHOULD recognize this and prevent the alignment of
the link. If a Link Status Alignment message with an unsupported
version is received by the newer version, the receiving end's M2PA
SHOULD reply with a Link Status Out of Service message and not
complete the alignment procedure.
4.2 Procedures to Support the MTP3/MTP2 Interface
4.2.1 Sending and receiving messages
When MTP3 sends a message for transmission to M2PA, M2PA passes the
corresponding M2PA message to SCTP using the SEND primitive.
User Data messages SHALL be sent via stream 1 of the association.
M2PA Link Status messages are passed to SCTP using the SEND primitive.
Link Status messages SHALL be sent via stream 0 of the association.
If M2PA receives a message from SCTP with an invalid Message Class or
unsupported Message Type in the Common Message Header, M2PA SHALL
discard the message.
For message types other than User Data, the Forward Sequence Number is
set to the FSN of the last User Data message sent.
If M2PA receives a User Data message with an FSN that is out of order,
M2PA SHALL place the link out of service (see section 4.1.6 Link Out
of Service).
M2PA SHOULD ignore the FSN and BSN contained in a Link Status message.
Note: In all calculations involving FSN and BSN, the programmer should
be aware that the value wraps around to 0 after reaching its maximum
value.
George, et. al. [Page 29]
Internet Draft SS7 MTP2-User Peer-to-Peer Adaptation Layer Apr 2003
If there is no other User Data message to be sent when there is a
message to acknowledge, M2PA SHOULD send a User Data message with no
data payload. The FSN for this empty User Data message is not
incremented. It MUST contain the same FSN as the most recently sent
User Data message containing Data. This message SHOULD be sent
promptly in order to prevent poor SS7 performance.
If M2PA receives an empty User Data message, it SHALL NOT send an
acknowledgement of that message.
Note that there is no reason to place empty User Data messages in the
M2PA retransmit buffer, since the empty messages are not retrieved for
changeover and timer T7 does not apply to them.
Note that since SCTP provides reliable delivery and ordered delivery
within the stream, M2PA does not perform
retransmissions. Nevertheless, M2PA SHALL retain transmitted User Data
messages in a retransmit queue until they are acknowledged. These
messages are needed in case MTP3 performs data retrieval as part of a
changeover procedure.
Because propagation delays in IP networks are more variable than in
traditional SS7 networks, a single T7 timer (excessive delay of
acknowledgement) is inadequate. A T7 timer SHALL be started for each
message in the M2PA retransmit buffer.
4.2.2 MTP3 Signaling Link Congestion
M2PA SHALL detect transmit congestion in its buffers according to the
requirements for signaling link transmit congestion in MTP3, e.g.,
Q.704 [Q.704], section 3.8.
4.2.3 Changeover
The objective of the changeover is to ensure that signaling traffic
carried by the unavailable signaling link is diverted to the
alternative signaling link(s) as quickly as possible while avoiding
message loss, duplication, or mis-sequencing. For this purpose, the
changeover procedure includes data retrieval, which is performed
before opening the alternative signaling links to the diverted
traffic. Data retrieval consists of these steps:
(1) buffer updating, i.e., identifying all those User Data
messages in the retransmission buffer of the unavailable
signaling link which have not been received by the far end
M2PA, as well as untransmitted messages, and
(2) transferring those messages to the transmission buffers of the
alternate links.
Note that only User Data messages are retrieved and transmitted over
George, et. al. [Page 30]
Internet Draft SS7 MTP2-User Peer-to-Peer Adaptation Layer Apr 2003
the alternate links. Link Status messages SHALL NOT be retrieved and
transmitted over the alternate links.
M2PA's Sequence Numbers are 24 bits long. MTP2's Forward and Backward
Sequence Numbers are only seven bits long. Hence it is necessary for
MTP3 to accommodate the larger sequence numbers. This is done through
the use of the Extended Changeover Order (XCO) and Extended Changeover
Acknowledgement (XCA) messages instead of the Changeover Order (COO)
and Changeover Acknowledgement (COA) messages. The XCO and XCA
messages are specified in [Q.2210] section 9.8.1 and T1.111.4
[T1.111], section 15.4. Only the XCO and XCA messages from [Q.2210] or
[T1.111] are required. The BSN is placed in the XCO/XCA message as
explained in [Q.2210] and [T1.111].
Also, the following MTP3/MTP2 primitives MUST use the larger sequence
numbers:
- BSNT Confirmation
- Retrieval Request and FSNC
If M2PA receives a Retrieval Request and FSNC request from MTP3, M2PA
SHALL retrieve from its buffers and deliver to MTP3 in order:
(a) any transmitted User Data messages beginning with the first
unacknowledged message with FSN greater than FSNC.
(b) any untransmitted User Data messages.
For emergency changeover, MTP3 retrieves only the unsent messages for
transmission on the alternate link(s). If M2PA receives a Retrieval
Request and FSNC request with no FSNC value, or with an invalid FSNC,
then M2PA SHALL retrieve from its buffers and deliver to MTP3 in
order:
(a) any untransmitted User Data messages.
Note: For the Japanese version of MTP defined in [JT-Q704], MTP3
retrieves both unsent and unacknowleged messages for transmission on
the alternate link(s). In this version of MTP, if M2PA receives a
Retrieval Request and FSNC request with no FSNC value, or with an
invalid FSNC, then M2PA SHALL retrieve from its buffers and deliver to
MTP3 in order:
(a) any transmitted but unacknowledged User Data messages.
(b) any untransmitted User Data messages.
George, et. al. [Page 31]
Internet Draft SS7 MTP2-User Peer-to-Peer Adaptation Layer Apr 2003
4.2.3.1 Multiple User Data Streams and Changeover
The changeover procedure makes it problematic for M2PA to have
multiple User Data streams in one direction for a link. Buffer
updating would have to be done for each User Data stream separately to
avoid duplication or loss of messages. But MTP3 provides for only one
XCO/XCA message for sending the last-received sequence number.
Even with sequence numbering of User Data messages at the M2PA layer,
it is necessary to perform buffer updating on each stream. Since the
M2PA messages would be delivered over multiple streams, there could be
a gap in the M2PA sequence numbers at the receiving end when the
changeover procedure begins. If only the M2PA sequence number is used
in the XCO/XCA message, there would be a possibility of losing the
messages in the gap, or duplicating messages after the gap.
M2PA links with multiple User Data streams would be possible if a
multiple-BSNT XCO/XCA message is defined in MTP3, or MTP3 allows
multiple XCO/XCA messages (one for each User Data stream) to be sent
during a changeover. This is beyond the scope of this document.
4.3 SCTP Considerations
Some M2PA procedures may be affected by the use of SCTP as a transport
layer. These considerations are discussed in this section.
4.3.1 SCTP Slow Start
SCTP contains a slow start algorithm to control the amount of data
being injected into the network. The algorithm allows SCTP to probe
the network to determine the available capacity. The algorithm is
invoked when transmission begins on an association, after a
sufficiently long idle period, or after repairing loss detected by the
SCTP retransmission timer.
It is possible that transmission of M2PA messages MAY be delayed by
SCTP slow start under certain conditions, including the following:
(a) Link Alignment. Link alignment takes place after an association
is established. SCTP invokes the slow start algorithm since
transmission is beginning on the association.
(b) Changeover. Messages are retrieved from one link (association)
and transferred to another for transmission. If the second link
had previously been idle, or is in the process of link
alignment, SCTP may invoke the slow start algorithm.
(c) Path failure (multi-homing). If SCTP switches from a failed
path to a new path, and the new path had previously been idle,
SCTP may invoke the slow start algorithm.
George, et. al. [Page 32]
Internet Draft SS7 MTP2-User Peer-to-Peer Adaptation Layer Apr 2003
(d) Reduced traffic volume. Any time that M2PA sends a low volume
of traffic on a link and then the volume increases, SCTP may
invoke the slow start algorithm.
Programmers should be aware of this condition and how it may affect
M2PA performance. In some cases, it may be possible to avoid the
negative effects of slow start. For example, the Link Status Proving
messages sent during the proving period may be used to complete slow
start before the link is placed in service.
George, et. al. [Page 33]
Internet Draft SS7 MTP2-User Peer-to-Peer Adaptation Layer Apr 2003
5. Examples of M2PA Procedures
In general, messages passed between MTP3 and M2PA are the same as
those passed between MTP3 and MTP2. M2PA interprets messages from
MTP3 and sends the appropriate message to SCTP. Likewise, messages
from SCTP are used to generate a meaningful message to MTP3.
Note that throughout this section, the primitives between MTP3 and
M2PA are named using the MTP terminology [Q.700] [Q.701] [Q.702]
[Q.703] [Q.704] [Q.705]. Communications between M2PA and SCTP are
named using SCTP terminology.
5.1 Link Initialization (Alignment)
An example of the message flow to bring an SS7 link in service is
shown in Figures 11 and 12. Alignment is done by both ends of the
link. To simplify the diagram, alignment is shown on one end
only. Some messages from the remote end are not shown. It is assumed
in this example that SCTP has been initialized.
George, et. al. [Page 34]
Internet Draft SS7 MTP2-User Peer-to-Peer Adaptation Layer Apr 2003
MTP3 M2PA SCTP SCTP M2PA MTP3
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
. . . . . .
. Associate . . . .
. ------------> . . .
. . . . . .
. . (SCTP Association . .
. . procedure) . .
. . . . . .
. Communication Up Communication Up .
. <------------ ------------> .
. . . . . .
. Link Status Out of Service . .
. ------------------------------------> .
. . . . . .
Emergency OR . . . .
Emergency Ceases . . . .
------------> . . . .
. . . . . .
Start . . . . .
------------> . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. Link Status Alignment . . .
. ------------------------------------> .
. . . . . .
. Start timer T2 . . .
. . . . . .
. . . Link Status Alignment .
. <------------------------------------ .
. . . . . .
. Stop timer T2 . . .
. . . . . .
Proving period begins.
Figure 11. Example: Link Initialization - Alignment
George, et. al. [Page 35]
Internet Draft SS7 MTP2-User Peer-to-Peer Adaptation Layer Apr 2003
MTP3 M2PA SCTP SCTP M2PA MTP3
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
. . . . . .
. Start timers T3, T4 . . .
. . . . . .
. . . Link Status Proving .
. <------------------------------------ .
. . . . . .
. Stop timer T3 . . .
. . . . . .
. Link Status Proving . . .
. ------------------------------------> .
. ------------------------------------> .
. ------------------------------------> .
. ------------------------------------> .
. ------------------------------------> .
. ------------------------------------> .
. . . . . .
. Timer T4 expires . . .
. . . . . .
Send Link Status Ready (one or more) and wait for the remote end
to complete its proving period.
. . . . . .
. Start timer T1 . . .
. . . . . .
. Link Status Ready . . .
. ------------------------------------> .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . Link Status Ready .
. <------------------------------------ .
. . . . . .
. Stop timer T1 . . .
. . . . . .
In Service . . In Service
<------------ . . ------------>
. . . . . .
MTP3 MAY begin sending data messages.
Figure 12. Example: Link Initialization - Proving
George, et. al. [Page 36]
Internet Draft SS7 MTP2-User Peer-to-Peer Adaptation Layer Apr 2003
5.2 Message Transmission and Reception
Messages are transmitted using the Data Request primitive from MTP3 to
M2PA. Figure 13 shows the case where the Link is In Service. The
message is passed from MTP3 of the source to MTP3 of the destination.
MTP3 M2PA SCTP SCTP M2PA MTP3
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
. . . . . .
Message for . . . .
transmission . . . .
------------> . . . .
. . . . . .
. Send . . . .
. (Data Message) . . .
. ------------> . . .
. . . . . .
. . (SCTP sends message) . .
. . . . . .
. . . Receive .
. . . ------------> .
. . . . . .
. . . . Received message
. . . . ------------>
. . . . . .
Figure 13. Example: Link Initialization - In Service
5.3 Link Status Indication
An example of a Link Status Indication is shown in Figure 14. If SCTP
sends a Communication Lost primitive to M2PA, M2PA notifies MTP3 that
the link is out of service. MTP3 responds in its usual way.
MTP3 M2PA SCTP SCTP M2PA MTP3
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
. . . . . .
. Communication Lost . . .
. <------------ . . .
. . . . . .
Out of Service . . . .
<------------ . . . .
. . . . . .
Figure 14. Example: Link Status Indication
George, et. al. [Page 37]
Internet Draft SS7 MTP2-User Peer-to-Peer Adaptation Layer Apr 2003
5.4 Link Status Message (Processor Outage)
Figure 15 shows how M2PA responds to a local processor outage. M2PA
sends a Link Status message to its peer. The peer M2PA notifies MTP3
of the outage. MTP3 can then follow the processor outage procedures in
[Q.703].
MTP3 M2PA SCTP SCTP M2PA MTP3
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
. . . . . .
. M2PA detects . . . .
. Local Processor . . . .
. Outage . . . .
. . . . . .
. Link Status . . . .
. Processor Outage . . .
. ------------> . . .
. . . . . .
. . (SCTP sends message) . .
. . . . . .
. . . Receive . .
. . . ------------> .
. . . . . .
. . . . Remote Processor
. . . . Outage .
. . . . ------------>
. . . . . .
. Link Status . . .
. Processor Outage . . .
. Ended . . .
. ------------> . . .
. . . . . .
. . (SCTP sends message) . .
. . . . . .
. . . Receive . .
. . . ------------> .
. . . . . .
. . . . Remote Processor
. . . . Outage Ceases
. . . . ------------>
. . . . . .
Figure 15. Example: Link Status Message - Processor Outage
George, et. al. [Page 38]
Internet Draft SS7 MTP2-User Peer-to-Peer Adaptation Layer Apr 2003
5.5 Level 2 Flow Control
Figures 16 and 17 illustrate the Level 2 Flow Control procedure. In
Figure 16, congestion ceases before timer T6 expires. Figure 17 shows
the case where T6 expires.
MTP3 M2PA SCTP SCTP M2PA MTP3
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
. . . . . .
. Implementation dependent . .
. determination of M2PA . .
. receive congestion onset . .
. . . . . .
. Link Status Busy . . .
. ------------------------------------> .
. . . . . .
. . . . Start .
. . . . Timer T6 .
. . . . . .
. Implementation dependent . .
. determination of M2PA . .
. receive congestion abatement . .
. . . . . .
. Link Status Busy Ended . . .
. ------------------------------------> .
. . . . . .
. . . . Stop .
. . . . Timer T6 .
. . . . . .
Figure 16. Example: Level 2 Flow Control - Congestion Ceases
George, et. al. [Page 39]
Internet Draft SS7 MTP2-User Peer-to-Peer Adaptation Layer Apr 2003
MTP3 M2PA SCTP SCTP M2PA MTP3
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
. . . . . .
. Implementation dependent . .
. determination of M2PA . .
. receive congestion onset . .
. . . . . .
. Link Status Busy . . .
. ------------------------------------> .
. . . . . .
. . . . Start .
. . . . Timer T6 .
. . . . : .
. . . . : .
. . . . Timer T6 .
. . . . Expires .
. . . . . .
. . Link Status Out of Service .
. <------------------------------------ .
. . . . . .
. . . . Out of Service
. . . . ------------>
. . . . . .
Figure 17. Example: Level 2 Flow Control - Timer T6 Expires
George, et. al. [Page 40]
Internet Draft SS7 MTP2-User Peer-to-Peer Adaptation Layer Apr 2003
5.6 MTP3 Signaling Link Congestion
In Figure 18, M2PA notifies MTP3 of congestion onset and
abatement. The notification includes the congestion level, if there
are levels of congestion defined.
MTP3 M2PA SCTP SCTP M2PA MTP3
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
. . . . . .
. Implementation dependent . .
. determination of M2PA . . .
. transmit congestion . . .
. onset (level) . . .
. . . . . .
Congestion Indication . . . .
(level) . . . . .
<------------ . . . .
. . . . . .
. Implementation dependent . .
. determination of M2PA . . .
. transmit congestion . . .
. abatement (level) . . .
. . . . . .
Congestion Indication . . . .
(level) . . . . .
<------------ . . . .
. . . . . .
Figure 18. Example: MTP3 Signalling Link Congestion
George, et. al. [Page 41]
Internet Draft SS7 MTP2-User Peer-to-Peer Adaptation Layer Apr 2003
5.7 Link Deactivation
Figure 19 shows an example of link deactivation. MTP3 can request that
a link be taken out of service.
MTP3 M2PA SCTP SCTP M2PA MTP3
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
. . . . . .
Stop . . . . .
------------> . . . .
. . . . . .
. Link Status Out of Service . .
. ------------------------------------> .
. . . . . .
Out of Service . . . .
<------------ . . . .
. . . . . .
Figure 19. Example: Link Deactivation
George, et. al. [Page 42]
Internet Draft SS7 MTP2-User Peer-to-Peer Adaptation Layer Apr 2003
5.8 Link Changeover
In Figure 20, MTP3 performs a changeover because the link went out of
service. MTP3 selects a different link to retransmit the
unacknowledged and unsent messages.
MTP3 M2PA SCTP SCTP M2PA MTP3
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
. . . . . .
. Communication Lost . . .
. <------------ . . .
. . . . . .
Out of Service . . . .
<------------ . . . .
. . . . . .
Retrieve BSNT . . . .
------------> . . . .
. . . . . .
BSNT Confirmation . . . .
<------------ . . . .
. . . . . .
XCO (BSNT) on another link . . .
------------------------------------------------------------>
. . . . . .
. . . . Retrieve BSNT
. . . . <------------
. . . . . .
. . . . BSNT Confirmation
. . . . ------------>
. . . . . .
. . . . . XCA (BSNT)
<------------------------------------------------------------
. . . . . .
Retrieval Request . . . .
and FSNC . . . . .
------------> . . . .
. . . . . .
Retrieved Message . . . .
<------------ . . . .
. : . . . . .
. : . . . . .
<------------ . . . .
. . . . . .
Retrieval Complete . . . .
<------------ . . . .
. . . . . .
Send messages on another link.
Figure 20. Example: Link Changeover
George, et. al. [Page 43]
Internet Draft SS7 MTP2-User Peer-to-Peer Adaptation Layer Apr 2003
6. Security
M2PA is designed to carry signaling messages for telephony
services. As such, M2PA MUST involve the security needs of several
parties:
- the end users of the services
- the network providers
- the applications involved
Additional requirements MAY come from local regulation.
While these parties may have some overlapping security needs, their
needs may not be identical. Any security solution SHOULD fulfill all
of the different parties' needs.
6.1 Security Requirements
Consult [Security] for a discussion of security requirements and for
guidance on the use of security protocols.
When M2PA is running in professionally managed corporate or service
provider network, it is reasonable to expect that this network
includes an appropriate security policy framework. The "Site Security
Handbook" [RFC2196] SHOULD be consulted for guidance.
6.2 Protecting Confidentiality
Particularly for wireless users, the requirement for confidentiality
MAY include the masking of IP addresses and ports. In this case
application-level encryption is not sufficient. IPSec ESP SHOULD be
used instead [RFC2401]. Regardless of which level performs the
encryption, the IPSec ISAKMP service SHOULD be used for key
management.
George, et. al. [Page 44]
Internet Draft SS7 MTP2-User Peer-to-Peer Adaptation Layer Apr 2003
7. IANA Considerations
7.1 SCTP Payload Protocol Identifier
The SCTP (and TCP) Registered User Port Number Assignment for M2PA
is 3565.
The value assigned by IANA for the Payload Protocol Identifier in the
SCTP Payload Data chunk is
M2PA 5
The SCTP Payload Protocol Identifier is included in each SCTP Data
chunk, to indicate which protocol the SCTP is carrying. This Payload
Protocol Identifier is not directly used by SCTP but may be used by
certain network entities to identify the type of information being
carried in a Data chunk.
The User Adaptation peer may use the Payload Protocol Identifier as a
way of determining additional information about the data being
presented to it by SCTP.
7.2 M2PA Protocol Extensions
This protocol may be extended through IANA in three ways:
- through definition of additional message classes,
- through definition of additional message types, and
- through definition of additional message parameters.
The definition and use of new message classes, types, and parameters
is an integral part of SIGTRAN adaptation layers. Thus, these
extensions are assigned by IANA through an IETF Consensus action as
defined in [RFC2434].
The proposed extension must in no way adversely affect the general
working of the protocol.
7.2.1 IETF Defined Message Classes
The documentation for a new message class MUST include the following
information:
(a) A long and short name for the message class.
(b) A detailed description of the purpose of the message class.
George, et. al. [Page 45]
Internet Draft SS7 MTP2-User Peer-to-Peer Adaptation Layer Apr 2003
7.2.2 IETF Defined Message Types
Documentation of the message type MUST contain the following
information:
(a) A long and short name for the new message type.
(b) A detailed description of the structure of the message.
(c) A detailed definition and description of the intended use
of each field within the message.
(d) A detailed procedural description of the use of the new
message type within the operation of the protocol.
(e) A detailed description of error conditions when receiving this
message type.
When an implementation receives a message type which it does not
support, it MUST discard the message.
7.2.3 IETF-defined Parameter Extension
Documentation of the message parameter MUST contain the following
information:
(a) Name of the parameter type.
(b) Detailed description of the structure of the parameter field.
(c) Detailed definition of each component of the parameter value.
(d) Detailed description of the intended use of this parameter type,
and an indication of whether and under what circumstances
multiple instances of this parameter type may be found within
the same message type.
8. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the following for their valuable
comments and suggestions: Brian Tatum, Jeff Copley, Monique Bernard,
Wayne Davis, Malleswar Kalla, Cliff Thomas, Ian Rytina, Greg
Sidebottom, Al Varney, Jeff Craig, Andrew Booth.
George, et. al. [Page 46]
Internet Draft SS7 MTP2-User Peer-to-Peer Adaptation Layer Apr 2003
9. References
9.1 Normative
[JT-Q704]
TTC, "Message Transfer Part Signalling Network Functions," TTC
Standard JT-Q704, Telecommunication Technology Committee (TTC)
(April 28, 1992).
[Q.703]
ITU, "Signalling System No. 7 - Signalling Link," ITU-T
Recommendation Q.703, ITU-T Telecommunication Standardization
Sector of ITU (March 1993).
[Q.704]
ITU, "Message Transfer Part - Signalling Network Functions and
Messages," ITU-T Recommendation Q.704, ITU-T Telecommunication
Standardization Sector of ITU (March 1993).
[Q.2140]
ITU, "B-ISDN ATM Adaptation Layer - Service Specific
Coordination Function for Signalling at the Network Node
Interface (SSCF at NNI)," ITU-T Recommendation Q.2140, ITU-T
Telecommunication Standardization Sector of ITU (February
1996).
[Q.2210]
ITU, "Message Transfer Part Level 3 Functions and Messages
Using the Services of ITU-T Recommendation Q.2140," ITU-T
Recommendation Q.2210, ITU-T Telecommunication Standardization
Sector of ITU (July 1996).
[RFC791]
Information Sciences Institute, "Internet Protocol - DARPA
Internet Program - Protocol Specification," RFC 791, The
Internet Society (September 1981).
[RFC2119]
S. Bradner, "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
Levels," BCP 14, RFC 2119, Internet Engineering Task Force
(March 1997).
[RFC2196]
B. Y. Frazer, "Site Security Handbook," RFC 2196, Internet
Engineering Task Force (September 1997).
[RFC2401]
S. Kent, R. Atkinson, "Security Architecture for the Internet
Protocol," RFC 2401, Internet Engineering Task Force (November
1998).
George, et. al. [Page 47]
Internet Draft SS7 MTP2-User Peer-to-Peer Adaptation Layer Apr 2003
[RFC2434]
T. Narten, H. T. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an IANA
Considerations Section in RFCs," BCP 26, RFC 2434, The Internet
Society (October, 1998).
[RFC2960]
R. Stewart, et. al., "Stream Control Transmission Protocol
(SCTP)," RFC 2960, The Internet Society (February 2000).
[RFC3309]
J. Stone, R. Stewart, and D. Otis, "Stream Control Transmission
Protocol (SCTP) Checksum Change," RFC 3309, The Internet
Society (September 2002).
[Security]
J. Loughney, M. Tuexen, and J. Pastor-Balbas, "Security
Considerations for SIGTRAN Protocols,"
draft-ietf-sigtran-security-02.txt (January 2003).
[T1.111]
ANSI, "American National Standard for Telecommunications -
Signaling System Number 7 (SS7) - Message Transfer Part (MTP),"
ANSI T1.111-2000, American National Standards Institute (2000).
9.2 Informative
[M2UA]
K. Morneault, et. al., "Signaling System 7 (SS7) Message
Transfer Part 2 (MTP2) - User Adaptation Layer," RFC 3331,
Internet Engineering Task Force - Signalling Transport Working
Group (September, 2002).
[Q.700]
ITU, "Introduction to CCITT Signalling System No. 7," ITU-T
Recommendation Q.700, ITU-T Telecommunication Standardization
Sector of ITU (March 1993).
[Q.701]
ITU, "Functional Description of the Message Transfer Part (MTP)
of Signalling System No. 7," ITU-T Recommendation Q.701, ITU-T
Telecommunication Standardization Sector of ITU (March 1993).
[Q.702]
ITU, "Signalling Data Link," ITU-T Recommendation Q.702, ITU-T
Telecommunication Standardization Sector of ITU (March 1993).
[Q.705]
ITU, "Signalling System No. 7 - Signalling Network Structure,"
ITU-T Recommendation Q.705, ITU-T Telecommunication
Standardization Sector of ITU (March 1993).
[RFC2719]
L. Ong, et. al., "Framework Architecture for Signaling
Transport," RFC 2719, The Internet Society (October 1999).
George, et. al. [Page 48]
Internet Draft SS7 MTP2-User Peer-to-Peer Adaptation Layer Apr 2003
10. Author's Addresses
Tom George Tel: +1-972-519-3168
Alcatel EMail: [email protected]
3400 West Plano Parkway
Plano, TX 75075
USA
Brian Bidulock Tel +1-780-490-1141
OpenSS7 Corporation EMail: [email protected]
1469 Jeffreys Crescent
Edmonton, AB T6L 6T1
Canada
Ram Dantu, Ph.D. Tel: +1-214-291-1111
Netrake Corporation EMail: [email protected]
3000 Technology Drive, Suite 100
Plano 75074
USA
Hanns Juergen Schwarzbauer Tel: +49-89-722-24236
SIEMENS AG [email protected]
Hofmannstr. 51
81359 Munich
Germany
Ken Morneault Tel: +1-703-484-3323
Cisco Systems Inc. EMail: [email protected]
13615 Dulles Technology Drive
Herndon, VA 20171
USA
This Internet Draft expires October 2003.
George, et. al. [Page 49]
| ||||||||||||||||
| Last modified: Thu, 28 Nov 2024 03:07:03 GMT Copyright © 2014 OpenSS7 Corporation All Rights Reserved. | |||||||||||||||||