Protocol version re-negotiation
Michael Brown
C.Michael.Brown at NORTELNETWORKS.COM
Thu Mar 1 16:08:39 EST 2001
Hi Nancy,
In 7.2.8, the reference to the value of the ServiceChange address says:
"...(e.g., IP port number for IP networks)..."
so that it is an example of what the value could be. Following is the ABNF
for what the value could be which I don't believe precludes any type of
addressing naming schema.
serviceChangeAddress = ServiceChangeAddressToken EQUAL VALUE
VALUE = quotedString / 1*(SafeChar)
SafeChar = DIGIT / ALPHA / "+" / "-" / "&" /
"!" / "_" / "/" / "'" / "?" / "@" /
"^" / "`" / "~" / "*" / "$" / "\" /
"(" / ")" / "%" / "|" / "."
Admittedly, the specific "appropriate" usage is not definitively specified.
I think it would be up to the MGC to evaluate the nature of the address.
Michael
-----Original Message-----
From: Nancy Devin [mailto:nancy.devin at alcatel.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2001 7:18 AM
To: Brown, Michael [NC1:GW10:EXCH]
Cc: ITU-SG16 Mail List; megaco at fore.com
Subject: Re: Protocol version re-negotiation
Good morning Michael,
In RFC3015, section 7.2.8, it is mentionned that
the serviceChangeAddress parameter specifies the
address (IP port number) to be used. Can this
also contain an IP address? In which cases is it
using an IP address and in which cases is it using
an IP port? Could it also take other values?
thanks,
Nancy
Michael Brown wrote:
>
>
> Nancy,
>
> The parameter that would be used is be the
> ServiceChangeAddress. As far as the assumption
> that the MGC would be provisioned with the
> primary and secondary MGs, certainly it could be
> done that way (and the text in 11.4 does imply
> this), but I do think that passing the address
> is an acceptable approach and should certainly
> be allowed.
>
> IMO we don't really need a new method for
> this. I don't see how adding a new method is
> more efficient. I still would contend that
> adding a ServiceChangeReason is sufficient and
> that it is desirable to do so (at least in V.2).
>
> Michael
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Nancy Devin
> [mailto:nancy.devin at alcatel.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2001 1:07 PM
> To: Brown, Michael [NC1:GW10:EXCH]
> Cc: ITU-SG16 Mail List; megaco at fore.com
> Subject: Re: Protocol version re-negotiation
>
>
> Hi Mike,
>
> I don't understand why your are talking about
> passing the address of the secondary
> MG to the MGC during a Failover. My
> understanding is that the MGC is configured
> with both the primary MG address and the
> secondary MG address (even though I did
> not find any text on that). If that is not the
> case then which parameter is used
> to transmit the address the the MGC.
>
> Also, I think the idea of having to Handoff to
> another MG or Failover to the other
> MG may not be the most efficient one. If we are
> to add a new reason then why not
> also add a new method which would be
> "VersionNegotiation"
>
> Method: VersionNegotiation
> TerminationID: Root
> Reason: MG directed change / MGC
> directed change
> Description:
> Sent from the MG to the MGC, the MG initiates a
> protocol version negotiation. Sent
> from the MGC to the MG, the MGC initiates a
> protocol version negotiation.
>
> Nancy
>
> Michael Brown wrote:
>
> > Comments inline.
> >
> > Michael
> >
> > "Rosen, Brian" wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > > I think you missed one point: "How does a
> NON-redundant MG
> > > > upgrade to a
> > > > new version of the protocol?"
> > > It comes down, reboots, and comes up again -
> it's a service affecting
> > > change. AFAIK, that's the only way today.
> >
> > <MB> Yes, if the MG is really Non-redundant
> there doesn't seem to be an option.
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Can the MG Failover to itself? Will this
> cause any problems
> > > > in the MGC?
> > > Since that's not a defined option, some MGCs
> might have a problem.
> >
> > <MB> While there is no existing text
> specifically saying that this is allowed.,
> > there also is none that disallows this
> behavior. It seems to me that the MGC
> > should just accept the "new" address for the
> "secondary" MG and go on. This
> > would be used when an MG and its mate hide
> behind a single address for the MGC
> > <> MG control association. I would think that
> this could easily be added to the
> > implementor's guide and I don't think that it
> should cause problems.
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > To allow this requires only a few changes
> to the text in RFC3015 as
> > > > follows:
> > > > Section 7.2.8 ServiceChange
> > > > Modify text: "6) Failover - sent from MG
> to MGC to indicate
> > > > the primary
> > > > MG is out of service and a secondary is
> taking over, or to indicate a
> > > > version negotiation from the MG."
> > > > Add a Reason: "Version Negotiation" or a
> more generic "MG Directed
> > > > Change".
> > > > Add text: "The MG may initiate a version
> negotiation with a
> > > > ServiceChange Command specifying the
> "Root" for the TerminationID,
> > > > ServiceChangeMethod equal to Failover and
> ServiceChangeReason equal to
> > > > "Version Negotiation"."
> > > I think that's a scope add, which I for one
> am reluctant to do.
> > > If there was a real problem with something
> we already had, that's one thing,
> > > but a real feature add, I'm less thrilled
> about. I'll admit some of the
> > > things
> > > we have talked about stray at least close,
> if not over such a line. Here,
> > > I think an MG that can do a non-service
> affecting upgrade which is not
> > > redundant is pretty unusual these days - I
> don't mean to discourage folks
> > > from doing that, but I also don't feel we
> need changes in semantics (and
> > > some additional syntax, albeit some IANA
> registrations) to make it happen,
> > > it can wait for V2.
> >
> > <MB> I'm suppose I'd agree that this propoal
> is adding a new feature as it would
> > require a new, IANA registered reason and the
> associated behavior. I'd say it's
> > somewhat unfortunate because basically, I
> don't see problems with the proposed
> > approach. There is one thing about the
> approach that bothers me which we might
> > consider for V2. That is, the use of Failover
> in this instance seems
> > inappropriate. The name just seems to imply
> that a software upgrade is a failure
> > scenario. I would suggest that it would be
> nicer to enhance the definition of
> > Handoff rather than Failover since handoff
> implies a more graceful transition.
> > Given the current definitions of Handoff and
> Failover in version 1, we do have
> > to live with Failover for now.
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Cheers,
> > > > Paul
> > > >
> > > > "Rosen, Brian" wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > It's unlikely that we will do anything
> that adds
> > > > > new features by edits to the
> implementor's guide.
> > > > > It's reasonable to have explanatory text
> in such a
> > > > > document that is not normative.
> > > > >
> > > > > I think you failover, upgrade, and
> failover back
> > > > > with this version of the protocol.
> > > > >
> > > > > Brian
> > > > >
> > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > From: Paul Rheaume
> [mailto:paul.rheaume at alcatel.com]
> > > > > > Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2001 1:00
> PM
> > > > > > To: ITU-SG16 Mail List
> > > > > > Cc: megaco at fore.com
> > > > > > Subject: Re: Protocol version
> re-negotiation
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Folks,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Where is the appropriate list to
> discuss this issue?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > We feel that version negotiation and
> the version upgrade
> > > > > > process is not
> > > > > > well specified and needs to be
> discussed and properly
> > > > defined at the
> > > > > > latest in version 2 of the
> specification. That means
> > > > looking at this
> > > > > > very soon.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I think this issue belongs to the next
> version of the
> > > > Implementor's
> > > > > > Guide.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > Paul
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Nancy Devin wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > How does a non-redundant MG upgrade
> to a new
> > > > > > > Megaco version without affecting
> service? How
> > > > > > > does a redundant MG upgrade to a new
> Megaco
> > > > > > > version without affecting service?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > It is mentionned in RFC3015 that
> Protocol version
> > > > > > > negotiation can be done at Restart,
> Failover, and
> > > > > > > Handoff serviceChanges. It is not
> mentionned
> > > > > > > explicitly how version protocol
> re-negotiation is
> > > > > > > done after the MG has registered
> with the MGC. in
> > > > > > > both situation
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > This could be done in at least two
> different ways
> > > > > > > as listed bellow.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 1- Protocol version negotiation
> could be
> > > > > > > initiated using the Failover
> serviceChange. A
> > > > > > > Failover serviceChange with a
> protocol version
> > > > > > > would indicate that the MG has been
> configured
> > > > > > > with a new H.248 protocol version.
> Sent from the
> > > > > > > MG to the MGC, it indicates that the
> MG has been
> > > > > > > configured with a new H.248 protocol
> version.
> > > > > > > This serviceChange shall not
> indicate Failure of
> > > > > > > the working MG. This would require
> that for
> > > > > > > non-redundant MGs, both the primary
> IP address and
> > > > > > > the secondary IP address be the
> same.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 2- Protocol version negotiation
> could be
> > > > > > > intiated using a new serviceChange
> method:
> > > > > > > VersionNegotiation (Method 7 of the
> serviceChange
> > > > > > > command as defined in RFC3015) This
> serviceChange
> > > > > > > would be sent from the MG to the MGC
> to initiate
> > > > > > > protocol version initiation. It
> indicates that
> > > > > > > the MG has been configured with a
> new H.248
> > > > > > > protocol version. Sent from the MGC
> to the MG, it
> > > > > > > indicates that the MGC has been
> configured with a
> > > > > > > new H.248 protocol version.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Comments please.
> > > > > > > Nancy
> > > > > >
> > > >
>
> --
> Nancy Devin
> Software Designer
>
> Alcatel
> 600 March Road, P.O. Box 13600
> Kanata, Ontario, Canada
> K2K 2E6
>
> Telephone: (613) 591-3600 x6897
> Fax: (613) 599-3609
> Internet: nancy.devin at alcatel.com
>
--
Nancy Devin
Software Designer
Alcatel
600 March Road, P.O. Box 13600
Kanata, Ontario, Canada
K2K 2E6
Telephone: (613) 591-3600 x6897
Fax: (613) 599-3609
Internet: nancy.devin at alcatel.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.packetizer.com/pipermail/sg16-avd/attachments/20010301/0af076f7/attachment-0009.html>
More information about the sg16-avd
mailing list