diff options
| -rw-r--r-- | specs/RFC_3868__Signalling_Connection_Control_Part_User_Adaptation_Layer_SUA.html | 7535 |
1 files changed, 7535 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/specs/RFC_3868__Signalling_Connection_Control_Part_User_Adaptation_Layer_SUA.html b/specs/RFC_3868__Signalling_Connection_Control_Part_User_Adaptation_Layer_SUA.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000..2ed631d --- /dev/null +++ b/specs/RFC_3868__Signalling_Connection_Control_Part_User_Adaptation_Layer_SUA.html @@ -0,0 +1,7535 @@ +<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" + "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd"> +<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xml:lang="en" lang="en"> +<head profile="http://dublincore.org/documents/2008/08/04/dc-html/"> + <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8" /> + <meta name="robots" content="index,follow" /> + <meta name="creator" content="rfcmarkup version 1.116" /> + <link rel="schema.DC" href="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" /> +<meta name="DC.Relation.Replaces" content="draft-loughney-sigtran-sua" /> +<meta name="DC.Identifier" content="urn:ietf:rfc:3868" /> +<meta name="DC.Date.Issued" content="October, 2004" /> +<meta name="DC.Creator" content="Coene, Lode" /> +<meta name="DC.Creator" content="Keller, Joe" /> +<meta name="DC.Creator" content="Sidebottom, Greg" /> +<meta name="DC.Creator" content="Bidulock, Brian" /> +<meta name="DC.Creator" content="Loughney, John" /> +<meta name="DC.Description.Abstract" content="This document defines a protocol for the transport of any Signalling +Connection Control Part-User signalling over IP using the Stream +Control Transmission Protocol. The protocol is designed to be modular +and symmetric, to allow it to work in diverse architectures, such as a +Signalling Gateway to IP Signalling Endpoint architecture as well as a +peer-to-peer IP Signalling Endpoint architecture. [STANDARDS-TRACK]" /> +<meta name="DC.Title" content="Signalling Connection Control Part User Adaptation Layer (SUA)" /> + + <link rel="icon" href="/images/rfc.png" type="image/png" /> + <link rel="shortcut icon" href="/images/rfc.png" type="image/png" /> + <title>RFC 3868 - Signalling Connection Control Part User Adaptation Layer (SUA)</title> + + + <style type="text/css"> + @media only screen + and (min-width: 992px) + and (max-width: 1199px) { + body { font-size: 14pt; } + div.content { width: 96ex; margin: 0 auto; } + } + @media only screen + and (min-width: 768px) + and (max-width: 991px) { + body { font-size: 14pt; } + div.content { width: 96ex; margin: 0 auto; } + } + @media only screen + and (min-width: 480px) + and (max-width: 767px) { + body { font-size: 11pt; } + div.content { width: 96ex; margin: 0 auto; } + } + @media only screen + and (max-width: 479px) { + body { font-size: 8pt; } + div.content { width: 96ex; margin: 0 auto; } + } + @media only screen + and (min-device-width : 375px) + and (max-device-width : 667px) { + body { font-size: 9.5pt; } + div.content { width: 96ex; margin: 0 1px; } + } + @media only screen + and (min-device-width: 1200px) { + body { font-size: 10pt; margin: 0 4em; } + div.content { width: 96ex; margin: 0; } + } + h1, h2, h3, h4, h5, h6, .h1, .h2, .h3, .h4, .h5, .h6 { + font-weight: bold; + line-height: 0pt; + display: inline; + white-space: pre; + font-family: monospace; + font-size: 1em; + font-weight: bold; + } + pre { + font-size: 1em; + margin-top: 0px; + margin-bottom: 0px; + } + .pre { + white-space: pre; + font-family: monospace; + } + .header{ + font-weight: bold; + } + .newpage { + page-break-before: always; + } + .invisible { + text-decoration: none; + color: white; + } + a.selflink { + color: black; + text-decoration: none; + } + @media print { + body { + font-family: monospace; + font-size: 10.5pt; + } + h1, h2, h3, h4, h5, h6 { + font-size: 1em; + } + + a:link, a:visited { + color: inherit; + text-decoration: none; + } + .noprint { + display: none; + } + } + @media screen { + .grey, .grey a:link, .grey a:visited { + color: #777; + } + .docinfo { + background-color: #EEE; + } + .top { + border-top: 7px solid #EEE; + } + .bgwhite { background-color: white; } + .bgred { background-color: #F44; } + .bggrey { background-color: #666; } + .bgbrown { background-color: #840; } + .bgorange { background-color: #FA0; } + .bgyellow { background-color: #EE0; } + .bgmagenta{ background-color: #F4F; } + .bgblue { background-color: #66F; } + .bgcyan { background-color: #4DD; } + .bggreen { background-color: #4F4; } + + .legend { font-size: 90%; } + .cplate { font-size: 70%; border: solid grey 1px; } + } + </style> + <!--[if IE]> + <style> + body { + font-size: 13px; + margin: 10px 10px; + } + </style> + <![endif]--> + + <script type="text/javascript"><!-- + function addHeaderTags() { + var spans = document.getElementsByTagName("span"); + for (var i=0; i < spans.length; i++) { + var elem = spans[i]; + if (elem) { + var level = elem.getAttribute("class"); + if (level == "h1" || level == "h2" || level == "h3" || level == "h4" || level == "h5" || level == "h6") { + elem.innerHTML = "<"+level+">"+elem.innerHTML+"</"+level+">"; + } + } + } + } + var legend_html = "Colour legend:<br /> <table> <tr><td>Unknown:</td> <td><span class='cplate bgwhite'> </span></td></tr> <tr><td>Draft:</td> <td><span class='cplate bgred'> </span></td></tr> <tr><td>Informational:</td> <td><span class='cplate bgorange'> </span></td></tr> <tr><td>Experimental:</td> <td><span class='cplate bgyellow'> </span></td></tr> <tr><td>Best Common Practice:</td> <td><span class='cplate bgmagenta'> </span></td></tr> <tr><td>Proposed Standard:</td> <td><span class='cplate bgblue'> </span></td></tr> <tr><td>Draft Standard (old designation):</td> <td><span class='cplate bgcyan'> </span></td></tr> <tr><td>Internet Standard:</td> <td><span class='cplate bggreen'> </span></td></tr> <tr><td>Historic:</td> <td><span class='cplate bggrey'> </span></td></tr> <tr><td>Obsolete:</td> <td><span class='cplate bgbrown'> </span></td></tr> </table>"; + function showElem(id) { + var elem = document.getElementById(id); + elem.innerHTML = eval(id+"_html"); + elem.style.visibility='visible'; + } + function hideElem(id) { + var elem = document.getElementById(id); + elem.style.visibility='hidden'; + elem.innerHTML = ""; + } + // --> + </script> +</head> +<body onload="addHeaderTags()"> + <div class="content"> + <div style="height: 13px;"> + <div onmouseover="this.style.cursor='pointer';" + onclick="showElem('legend');" + onmouseout="hideElem('legend')" + style="height: 6px; position: absolute;" + class="pre noprint docinfo bgblue" + title="Click for colour legend." > </div> + <div id="legend" + class="docinfo noprint pre legend" + style="position:absolute; top: 4px; left: 4ex; visibility:hidden; background-color: white; padding: 4px 9px 5px 7px; border: solid #345 1px; " + onmouseover="showElem('legend');" + onmouseout="hideElem('legend');"> + </div> + </div> +<span class="pre noprint docinfo top">[<a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/" title="Document search and retrieval page">Docs</a>] [<a href="https://tools.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3868.txt" title="Plaintext version of this document">txt</a>|<a href="https://tools.ietf.org/pdf/rfc3868" title="PDF version of this document">pdf</a>] [<a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-sigtran-sua" title="draft-ietf-sigtran-sua">draft-ietf-sigtra...</a>] [<a href="https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?difftype=--hwdiff&url2=rfc3868" title="Inline diff (wdiff)">Diff1</a>] [<a href="https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=rfc3868" title="Side-by-side diff">Diff2</a>] [<a href="https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/?rfc=3868&submit=rfc" title="IPR disclosures related to this document">IPR</a>] </span><br /> +<span class="pre noprint docinfo"> </span><br /> +<span class="pre noprint docinfo"> PROPOSED STANDARD</span><br /> +<span class="pre noprint docinfo"> </span><br /> +<pre> +Network Working Group J. Loughney, Ed. +Request for Comments: 3868 Nokia +Category: Standards Track G. Sidebottom + Signatus Technologies + L. Coene + G. Verwimp + Siemens n.v. + J. Keller + Tekelec + B. Bidulock + OpenSS7 Corporation + October 2004 + + + <span class="h1">Signalling Connection Control Part User Adaptation Layer (SUA)</span> + +Status of this Memo + + This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the + Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for + improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet + Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state + and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited. + +Copyright Notice + + Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). + +Abstract + + This document defines a protocol for the transport of any Signalling + Connection Control Part-User signalling over IP using the Stream + Control Transmission Protocol. The protocol is designed to be + modular and symmetric, to allow it to work in diverse architectures, + such as a Signalling Gateway to IP Signalling Endpoint architecture + as well as a peer-to-peer IP Signalling Endpoint architecture. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +<span class="grey">Loughney, et al. Standards Track [Page 1]</span></pre> +<hr class='noprint' style='width: 96ex;' align='left'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><a name="page-2" id="page-2" href="#page-2" class="invisible"> </a> +<span class="grey"><a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3868">RFC 3868</a> SUA October 2004</span> + + +Table of Contents + + <a href="#section-1">1</a>. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-3">3</a> + <a href="#section-1.1">1.1</a>. Scope. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-3">3</a> + <a href="#section-1.2">1.2</a>. Abbreviations and Terminology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-4">4</a> + <a href="#section-1.3">1.3</a>. Signalling Transport Architecture. . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-6">6</a> + <a href="#section-1.4">1.4</a>. Services Provided by the SUA Layer . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-9">9</a> + <a href="#section-1.5">1.5</a>. Internal Functions Provided in the SUA Layer . . . . . . <a href="#page-11">11</a> + <a href="#section-1.6">1.6</a>. Definition of SUA Boundaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-14">14</a> + <a href="#section-2">2</a>. Conventions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-19">19</a> + <a href="#section-3">3</a>. Protocol Elements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-19">19</a> + <a href="#section-3.1">3.1</a>. Common Message Header. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-20">20</a> + <a href="#section-3.2">3.2</a>. SUA Connectionless Messages. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-24">24</a> + <a href="#section-3.3">3.3</a>. Connection Oriented Messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-27">27</a> + <a href="#section-3.4">3.4</a>. Signalling Network Management (SNM) Messages . . . . . . <a href="#page-42">42</a> + <a href="#section-3.5">3.5</a>. Application Server Process State Maintenance Messages. . <a href="#page-49">49</a> + <a href="#section-3.6">3.6</a>. ASP Traffic Maintenance Messages . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-53">53</a> + <a href="#section-3.7">3.7</a>. SUA Management Messages. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-56">56</a> + <a href="#section-3.8">3.8</a>. Routing Key Management (RKM) Messages. . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-58">58</a> + <a href="#section-3.9">3.9</a>. Common Parameters. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-61">61</a> + <a href="#section-3.10">3.10</a>. SUA-Specific parameters. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-74">74</a> + <a href="#section-4">4</a>. Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-92">92</a> + <a href="#section-4.1">4.1</a>. Procedures to Support the SUA-User Layer . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-92">92</a> + <a href="#section-4.2">4.2</a>. Receipt of Primitives from the Layer Management. . . . . <a href="#page-93">93</a> + <a href="#section-4.3">4.3</a>. AS and ASP State Maintenance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-95">95</a> + <a href="#section-4.4">4.4</a>. Routing Key Management Procedures. . . . . . . . . . . .<a href="#page-109">109</a> + 4.5. Availability and/or Congestion Status of SS7 + Destination Support101 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .<a href="#page-112">112</a> + <a href="#section-4.6">4.6</a>. MTP3 Restart . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .<a href="#page-115">115</a> + <a href="#section-4.7">4.7</a>. SCCP - SUA Interworking at the SG. . . . . . . . . . . .<a href="#page-115">115</a> + <a href="#section-5">5</a>. Examples of SUA Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .<a href="#page-117">117</a> + <a href="#section-5.1">5.1</a>. SG Architecture. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .<a href="#page-117">117</a> + <a href="#section-5.2">5.2</a> IPSP Examples. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .<a href="#page-119">119</a> + <a href="#section-6">6</a>. Security Considerations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .<a href="#page-121">121</a> + <a href="#section-7">7</a>. IANA Considerations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .<a href="#page-121">121</a> + <a href="#section-7.1">7.1</a>. SCTP Payload Protocol ID . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .<a href="#page-121">121</a> + <a href="#section-7.2">7.2</a>. Port Number. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .<a href="#page-121">121</a> + <a href="#section-7.3">7.3</a>. Protocol Extensions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .<a href="#page-121">121</a> + <a href="#section-8">8</a>. Timer Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .<a href="#page-123">123</a> + <a href="#section-9">9</a>. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .<a href="#page-123">123</a> + <a href="#section-10">10</a>. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .<a href="#page-123">123</a> + <a href="#section-10.1">10.1</a>. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .<a href="#page-123">123</a> + <a href="#section-10.2">10.2</a>. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .<a href="#page-124">124</a> + + + + + + + + +<span class="grey">Loughney, et al. Standards Track [Page 2]</span></pre> +<hr class='noprint' style='width: 96ex;' align='left'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><a name="page-3" id="page-3" href="#page-3" class="invisible"> </a> +<span class="grey"><a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3868">RFC 3868</a> SUA October 2004</span> + + + <a href="#appendix-A">Appendix A</a>. Signalling Network Architecture . . . . . . . . . . .<a href="#page-125">125</a> + <a href="#appendix-A.1">A.1</a>. Generalized Peer-to-Peer Network Architecture. . . . . .<a href="#page-125">125</a> + <a href="#appendix-A.2">A.2</a>. Signalling Gateway Network Architecture. . . . . . . . .<a href="#page-126">126</a> + A.3. Signalling Gateway Message Distribution + Recommendations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .<a href="#page-128">128</a> + Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .<a href="#page-129">129</a> + Full Copyright Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .<a href="#page-131">131</a> + +<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" name="section-1" href="#section-1">1</a>. Introduction</span> + + There is ongoing integration of switched circuit networks and IP + networks. Network service providers are designing IP-based + signalling architectures that need support for SS7 and SS7-like + signalling protocols. IP provides an effective way to transport user + data and for operators to expand their networks and build new + services. In these networks, there is need for interworking between + the SS7 and IP domains [<a href="#ref-2719" title=""Framework Architecture for Signalling Transport"">2719</a>]. + + This document defines a protocol for the transport SS7 SCCP-User + protocols [ANSI SCCP] [ITU SCCP], such as TCAP and RANAP, over IP + using the Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP) [<a href="#ref-2960" title=""Stream Control Transmission Protocol"">2960</a>]. + +<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" name="section-1.1" href="#section-1.1">1.1</a>. Scope</span> + + This document details the delivery of SCCP-user messages (MAP & CAP + over TCAP [ANSI TCAP] [ITU TCAP], RANAP [<a href="#ref-RANAP">RANAP</a>], etc.) messages over + IP between two signalling endpoints. Consideration is given for the + transport from a signalling gateway to an IP signalling node (such as + an IP-resident Database) as described in the Framework Architecture + for Signalling Transport [<a href="#ref-2719" title=""Framework Architecture for Signalling Transport"">2719</a>]. This protocol can also support + transport of SCCP-user messages between two endpoints wholly + contained within an IP network. + + The delivery mechanism addresses the following criteria: + + * Support for transfer of SCCP-User Part messages + * Support for SCCP connectionless service. + * Support for SCCP connection oriented service. + * Support for the operation of SCCP-User protocol peers. + * Support for the management of SCTP transport associations between + signalling gateways and IP-based signalling nodes. + * Support for distributed IP-based signalling nodes. + * Support for the asynchronous reporting of status changes to + management functions. + + + + + + + +<span class="grey">Loughney, et al. Standards Track [Page 3]</span></pre> +<hr class='noprint' style='width: 96ex;' align='left'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><a name="page-4" id="page-4" href="#page-4" class="invisible"> </a> +<span class="grey"><a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3868">RFC 3868</a> SUA October 2004</span> + + +<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" name="section-1.2" href="#section-1.2">1.2</a>. Abbreviations and Terminology</span> + +<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" name="section-1.2.1" href="#section-1.2.1">1.2.1</a>. Abbreviations</span> + + CAP - CAMEL Application Protocol. + + GTT - Global Title Translation. + + MAP - Mobile Application Protocol. + + PC - Signalling System no. 7 Point Code. + + RANAP - Radio Access Network Application Protocol. + + SCTP - Stream Control Transmission Protocol. + + SS7 - Signalling System no. 7. + + TCAP - Transaction Capabilities Application Protocol. + +<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" name="section-1.2.2" href="#section-1.2.2">1.2.2</a>. Terminology</span> + + Signalling Gateway (SG) - Network element that terminates switched + circuit networks and transports SCCP-User signalling over IP to an IP + signalling endpoint. A Signalling Gateway could be modeled as one or + more Signalling Gateway Processes, which are located at the border of + the SS7 and IP networks. Where an SG contains more than one SGP, the + SG is a logical entity and the contained SGPs are assumed to be + coordinated into a single management view to the SS7 network and to + the supported Application Servers. + + Application Server (AS) - A logical entity serving a specific Routing + Key. An example of an Application Server is a virtual IP database + element handling all requests for an SCCP-user. The AS contains a + set of one or more unique Application Server Processes, of which one + or more is normally actively processing traffic. + + Application Server Process (ASP) - An Application Server Process + serves as an active or backup process of an Application Server (e.g., + part of a distributed signalling node or database element). Examples + of ASPs are MGCs, IP SCPs, or IP-based HLRs. An ASP contains an SCTP + endpoint and may be configured to process traffic within more than + one Application Server. + + IP Server Process (IPSP) - A process instance of an IP-based + application. An IPSP is essentially the same as an ASP, except that + it uses SUA in a peer-to-peer fashion. Conceptually, an IPSP does + not use the services of a Signalling Gateway. + + + +<span class="grey">Loughney, et al. Standards Track [Page 4]</span></pre> +<hr class='noprint' style='width: 96ex;' align='left'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><a name="page-5" id="page-5" href="#page-5" class="invisible"> </a> +<span class="grey"><a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3868">RFC 3868</a> SUA October 2004</span> + + + Signalling Gateway Process (SGP) - A process instance of a Signalling + Gateway. It serves as an active, load-sharing or broadcast process + of a Signalling Gateway. + + Signalling Process - A process instance that uses SUA to communicate + with other signalling process. An ASP, a SGP and an IPSP are all + signalling processes. + + Association - An association refers to an SCTP association. The + association provides the transport for the delivery of SCCP-User + protocol data units and SUA layer peer messages. + + Routing Key - The Routing Key describes a set of SS7 parameters + and/or parameter ranges that uniquely defines the range of signalling + traffic configured to be handled by a particular Application Server. + An example would be where a Routing Key consists of a particular SS7 + SCCP SSN plus an identifier to uniquely mark the network that the SSN + belongs to, for which all traffic would be directed to a particular + Application Server. Routing Keys are mutually exclusive in the sense + that a received SS7 signalling message cannot be directed to more + than one Routing Key. Routing Keys can be provisioned, for example, + by a MIB or registered using SUA's dynamic registration procedures. + Routing keys MUST NOT span multiple network appearances. + + Routing Context - An Application Server Process may be configured to + process traffic within more than one Application Server. In this + case, the Routing Context parameter is exchanged between the SGP and + the ASP (or between two ASPs), identifying the relevant Application + Server. From the perspective of an SGP/ASP, the Routing Context + uniquely identifies the range of traffic associated with a particular + Application Server, which the ASP is configured to receive. There is + a 1:1 relationship between a Routing Context value and a Routing Key + within an AS. Therefore the Routing Context can be viewed as an + index into an AS Table containing the AS Routing Keys. + + Address Mapping Function (AMF) - The AMF is an implementation + dependent function that is responsible for resolving the address + presented in the incoming SCCP/SUA message to correct SCTP + association for the desired endpoint. The AMF MAY use routing + context / routing key information as selection criteria for the + appropriate SCTP association. + + Fail-over - The capability to reroute signalling traffic as required + to an alternate Application Server Process, or group of ASPs, within + an Application Server in the event of failure or unavailability of a + currently used Application Server Process. Fail-over may apply upon + the return to service of a previously unavailable Application Server + Process. + + + +<span class="grey">Loughney, et al. Standards Track [Page 5]</span></pre> +<hr class='noprint' style='width: 96ex;' align='left'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><a name="page-6" id="page-6" href="#page-6" class="invisible"> </a> +<span class="grey"><a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3868">RFC 3868</a> SUA October 2004</span> + + + Host - The computing platform that the SGP or ASP process is running + on. + + Layer Management - Layer Management is a nodal function that handles + the inputs and outputs between the SUA layer and a local management + entity. + + Network Appearance - The Network Appearance is an SUA local reference + (typically an integer) shared by SG and AS that together with a + Signalling Point Code uniquely identifies an SS7 node by indicating + the specific SS7 network it belongs to. + + Network Byte Order - Most significant byte first, a.k.a. Big Endian. + + Stream - A stream refers to an SCTP stream; a unidirectional logical + channel established from one SCTP endpoint to another associated SCTP + endpoint, within which all user messages are delivered sequenced + except for those submitted to the unordered delivery service. + + Transport address - an address that serves as a source or destination + for the unreliable packet transport service used by SCTP. In IP + networks, a transport address is defined by the combination of an IP + address and an SCTP port number. Note, only one SCTP port may be + defined for each endpoint, but each SCTP endpoint may have multiple + IP addresses. + +<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" name="section-1.3" href="#section-1.3">1.3</a>. Signalling Transport Architecture</span> + + The framework architecture that has been defined for switched circuit + networks signalling transport over IP [<a href="#ref-2719" title=""Framework Architecture for Signalling Transport"">2719</a>] uses multiple + components, including an IP transport protocol, a signalling common + transport protocol and an adaptation module to support the services + expected by a particular switched circuit networks signalling + protocol from its underlying protocol layer. + + In general terms, the SUA architecture can be modeled as a peer-to- + peer architecture. The first section considers the SS7 to IP + interworking architectures for connectionless and connection-oriented + transport. For this case, it is assumed that the ASP initiates the + establishment of the SCTP association with SG. + +<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" name="section-1.3.1" href="#section-1.3.1">1.3.1</a>. Protocol Architecture for Connectionless Transport</span> + + In this architecture, the SCCP and SUA layers interface in the SG. + Interworking between the SCCP and SUA layers is needed to provide for + the transfer of the user messages as well as the management messages. + + + + + +<span class="grey">Loughney, et al. Standards Track [Page 6]</span></pre> +<hr class='noprint' style='width: 96ex;' align='left'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><a name="page-7" id="page-7" href="#page-7" class="invisible"> </a> +<span class="grey"><a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3868">RFC 3868</a> SUA October 2004</span> + + + ******** SS7 *************** IP ******** + * SEP *---------* *--------* * + * or * * SG * * ASP * + * STP * * * * * + ******** *************** ******** + + +------+ +------+ + | SUAP | | SUAP | + +------+ +------+------+ +------+ + | SCCP | | SCCP | SUA | | SUA | + +------+ +------+------+ +------+ + | MTP3 | | MTP3 | | | | + +------+ +------+ SCTP | | SCTP | + | MTP2 | | MTP2 | | | | + +------+ +------+------+ +------+ + | L1 | | L1 | IP | | IP | + +------+ +------+------+ +------+ + | | | | + +---------------+ +------------+ + + SUAP - SCCP/SUA User Protocol (TCAP, for example) + STP - SS7 Signalling Transfer Point + + See <a href="#appendix-A.3.1">Appendix A.3.1</a> for operation recommendations. + +<span class="h5"><a class="selflink" name="section-1.3.1.1" href="#section-1.3.1.1">1.3.1.1</a>. SG as endpoint</span> + + In this case, the connectionless SCCP messages are routed on point + code (PC) and subsystem number (SSN). The subsystem identified by + SSN and Routing Context is regarded as local to the SG. This means + from SS7 point of view, the SCCP-user is located at the SG. + +<span class="h5"><a class="selflink" name="section-1.3.1.2" href="#section-1.3.1.2">1.3.1.2</a>. Signalling Gateway as relay-point</span> + + A Global Title translation is executed at the signalling gateway, + before the destination of the message can be determined. The actual + location of the SCCP-user is irrelevant to the SS7 network. GT + Translation yields an "SCCP entity set", from which an Application + Server can be derived. Selection of the Application Server is based + on the SCCP called party address (and possibly other SS7 parameters + depending on the implementation). + + + + + + + + + + +<span class="grey">Loughney, et al. Standards Track [Page 7]</span></pre> +<hr class='noprint' style='width: 96ex;' align='left'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><a name="page-8" id="page-8" href="#page-8" class="invisible"> </a> +<span class="grey"><a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3868">RFC 3868</a> SUA October 2004</span> + + +<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" name="section-1.3.2" href="#section-1.3.2">1.3.2</a>. Protocol Architecture for Connection-Oriented Transport</span> + + In this architecture, the SCCP and SUA layers share an interface in + the signalling gateway process to associate the two connection + sections needed for the connection-oriented data transfer between SEP + and ASP. Both connection sections are setup when routing the Connect + Request messages from the signalling end point via signalling gateway + process to ASP and visa versa. The routing of the Connect Request + message is performed in the same way as described in 1.3.1. + + ******** SS7 *************** IP ******** + * SEP/ *---------* SG *--------* ASP * + * STP * * * * * + ******** *************** ******** + + +------+ +------+ + | SUAP | | SUAP | + +------+ +------+------+ +------+ + | SCCP | | SCCP | SUA | | SUA | + +------+ +------+------+ +------+ + | MTP3 | | MTP3 | | | | + +------| +------+ SCTP | | SCTP | + | MTP2 | | MTP2 | | | | + +------+ +------+------+ +------+ + | L1 | | L1 | IP | | IP | + +------+ +------+------+ +------+ + | | | | + +---------------+ +------------+ + + SUAP - SCCP/SUA Application Protocol (e.g., - RANAP/RNSAP) + STP - SS7 Signalling Transfer Point + + See <a href="#appendix-A.3.2">Appendix A.3.2</a> for operation recommendations. + +<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" name="section-1.3.3" href="#section-1.3.3">1.3.3</a>. All IP Architecture</span> + + This architecture can be used to carry a protocol that uses the + transport services of SCCP within an IP network. This allows + flexibility in developing networks, especially when interaction + between legacy signalling is not needed. The architecture removes + the need for signalling gateway functionality. + + + + + + + + + + +<span class="grey">Loughney, et al. Standards Track [Page 8]</span></pre> +<hr class='noprint' style='width: 96ex;' align='left'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><a name="page-9" id="page-9" href="#page-9" class="invisible"> </a> +<span class="grey"><a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3868">RFC 3868</a> SUA October 2004</span> + + + ******** IP ******** + * IPSP *--------* IPSP * + ******** ******** + + +------+ +------+ + | SUAP | | SUAP | + +------+ +------+ + | SUA | | SUA | + +------+ +------+ + | SCTP | | SCTP | + +------+ +------+ + | IP | | IP | + +------+ +------+ + | | + +----------------+ + + SUAP - SCCP/SUA Application Protocol (e.g., - RANAP/RNSAP) + +<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" name="section-1.3.4" href="#section-1.3.4">1.3.4</a>. ASP Fail-over Model and Terminology</span> + + The SUA protocol supports ASP fail-over functions to support a high + availability of transaction processing capability. + + An Application Server can be considered as a list of all ASPs + configured/registered to handle SCCP-user messages within a certain + range of routing information, known as a Routing Key. One or more + ASPs in the list may normally be active to handle traffic, while + others may be inactive but available in the event of failure or + unavailability of the active ASP(s). + + For operation recommendations, see <a href="#appendix-A">Appendix A</a>. + +<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" name="section-1.4" href="#section-1.4">1.4</a>. Services Provided by the SUA Layer</span> + +<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" name="section-1.4.1" href="#section-1.4.1">1.4.1</a>. Support for the transport of SCCP-User Messages</span> + + The SUA supports the transfer of SCCP-user messages. The SUA layer + at the signalling gateway and at the ASP support the seamless + transport of user messages between the signalling gateway and the + ASP. + +<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" name="section-1.4.2" href="#section-1.4.2">1.4.2</a>. SCCP Protocol Class Support</span> + + Depending upon the SCCP-users supported, the SUA supports the 4 + possible SCCP protocol classes transparently. The SCCP protocol + classes are defined as follows: + + + + + +<span class="grey">Loughney, et al. Standards Track [Page 9]</span></pre> +<hr class='noprint' style='width: 96ex;' align='left'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><a name="page-10" id="page-10" href="#page-10" class="invisible"> </a> +<span class="grey"><a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3868">RFC 3868</a> SUA October 2004</span> + + + * Protocol class 0 provides unordered transfer of SCCP-user messages + in a connectionless manner. + + * Protocol class 1 allows the SCCP-user to select the sequenced + delivery of SCCP-user messages in a connectionless manner. + + * Protocol class 2 allows the bidirectional transfer of SCCP-user + messages by setting up a temporary or permanent signalling + connection. + + * Protocol class 3 allows the features of protocol class 2 with the + inclusion of flow control. Detection of message loss or mis- + sequencing is included. + + Protocol classes 0 and 1 make up the SCCP connectionless service. + Protocol classes 2 and 3 make up the SCCP connection-oriented + service. + +<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" name="section-1.4.3" href="#section-1.4.3">1.4.3</a>. Native Management Functions</span> + + The SUA layer provides the capability to indicate errors associated + with the SUA-protocol messages and to provide notification to local + management and the remote peer as is necessary. + +<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" name="section-1.4.4" href="#section-1.4.4">1.4.4</a>. Interworking with SCCP Network Management Functions</span> + + SUA uses the existing ASP management messages for ASP status + handling. The interworking with SCCP management messages consists of + DUNA, DAVA, DAUD, DRST, DUPU or SCON messages (defined in <a href="#section-3">section 3</a>) + on receipt of SSP, SSA, SST or SSC (defined by SCCP) to the + appropriate ASPs. See also chapter 1.4.5. The primitives below are + sent between the SCCP and SUA management functions in the SG to + trigger events in the IP and SS7 domain. + + Generic |Specific | + Name |Name |ANSI/ITU Reference + ----------+-----------+--------------------------------------------- + N-State |Request |ITU-Q.711 Chap 6.3.2.3.2 (Tab 16/Q.711) + |Indication |ANSI-T1.112 Chap 2.3.2.3.2 (Tab 8E/T1.112.1) + ----------+-----------+--------------------------------------------- + N-PCstate |Indication |ITU-Q.711 Chap 6.3.2.3.3 (Tab 1/Q.711) + | |ANSI-T1.112 Chap 2.3.2.3.4 (Tab 8G/T1.112.1) + ----------+-----------+--------------------------------------------- + N-Coord |Request |ITU-Q.711 Chap 6.3.2.3.1 (Tab 15/Q.711) + |Indication |ANSI-T1.112 Chap 2.3.2.3.3 (Tab 8F/T1.112.1) + |Response | + |Confirm | + + + + +<span class="grey">Loughney, et al. Standards Track [Page 10]</span></pre> +<hr class='noprint' style='width: 96ex;' align='left'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><a name="page-11" id="page-11" href="#page-11" class="invisible"> </a> +<span class="grey"><a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3868">RFC 3868</a> SUA October 2004</span> + + +<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" name="section-1.4.5" href="#section-1.4.5">1.4.5</a>. Support for the management between the SGP and ASP.</span> + + The SUA layer provides interworking with SCCP management functions at + the SG for operation between the switched circuit networks and the IP + network. It should: + + * Provide an indication to the SCCP-user at an ASP that a SS7 + endpoint/peer is unreachable. + * Provide an indication to the SCCP-user at an ASP that a SS7 + endpoint/peer is reachable. + * Provide congestion indication to SCCP-user at an ASP. + * Provide the initiation of an audit of SS7 endpoints at the SG. + +<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" name="section-1.4.6" href="#section-1.4.6">1.4.6</a>. Relay function</span> + + For network scalability purposes, the SUA may be enhanced with a + relay functionality to determine the next hop SCTP association toward + the destination SUA endpoint. + + The determination of the next hop may be based on Global Title + information (e.g., E.164 number), in analogy with SCCP GTT in SS7 + networks, modeled in [ITU-T Q.714]. It may also be based on Hostname + information, IP address or pointcode contained in the called party + address. + + This allows for greater scalability, reliability and flexibility in + wide-scale deployments of SUA. The usage of a relay function is a + deployment decision. + +<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" name="section-1.5" href="#section-1.5">1.5</a>. Internal Functions Provided in the SUA Layer</span> + + To perform its addressing and relaying capabilities, the SUA makes + use of an Address Mapping Function (AMF). This function is + considered part of SUA, but the way it is realized is left + implementation / deployment dependent (local tables, DNS [<a href="#ref-3761" title=""The E.164 to Uniform Resource Identifiers (URI) Dynamic Delegation Discovery System (DDDS) Application (ENUM)"">3761</a>], + LDAP, etc.) + + The AMF is invoked when a message is received at the incoming + interface. The AMF is responsible for resolving the address + presented in the incoming SCCP/SUA message to SCTP associations to + destinations within the IP network. The AMF will select the + appropriate SCTP association based upon routing context / routing key + information available. The destination might be the end SUA node or + a SUA relay node. The Routing Keys reference an Application Server, + which will have one or more ASPs processing traffic for the AS. The + availability and status of the ASPs is handled by SUA ASP management + messages. + + + + +<span class="grey">Loughney, et al. Standards Track [Page 11]</span></pre> +<hr class='noprint' style='width: 96ex;' align='left'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><a name="page-12" id="page-12" href="#page-12" class="invisible"> </a> +<span class="grey"><a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3868">RFC 3868</a> SUA October 2004</span> + + + Possible SS7 address/routing information that comprise a Routing Key + entry includes, for example, OPC, DPC, SIO found in the MTP3 routing + label, SCCP subsystem number, or Transaction ID. IP addresses and + hostnames can also be used as Routing Key Information. + + It is expected that the routing keys be provisioned via a MIB, + dynamic registration or external process, such as a database. + +<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" name="section-1.5.1" href="#section-1.5.1">1.5.1</a>. Address Mapping at the SG</span> + + Normally, one or more ASPs are active in the AS (i.e., currently + processing traffic) but in certain failure and transition cases it is + possible that there may not be an active ASP available. The SGP will + buffer the message destined for this AS for a time T(r) or until an + ASP becomes available. When no ASP becomes available before expiry + of T(r), the SGP will flush the buffered messages and initiate the + appropriate return or refusal procedures. + + If there is no address mapping match for an incoming message, a + default treatment MAY be specified. Possible solutions are to + provide a default Application Server to direct all unallocated + traffic to a (set of) default ASP(s), or to drop the messages and + provide a notification to management. The treatment of unallocated + traffic is implementation dependent. + +<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" name="section-1.5.2" href="#section-1.5.2">1.5.2</a>. Address Mapping at the ASP</span> + + To direct messages to the SS7 network, the ASP MAY perform an address + mapping to choose the proper SGP for a given message. This is + accomplished by observing the Destination Point Code and other + elements of the outgoing message, SS7 network status, SGP + availability, and Routing Context configuration tables. + + A Signalling Gateway may be composed of one or more SGPs. There is, + however, no SUA messaging to manage the status of an SGP. Whenever + an SCTP association to an SGP exists, it is assumed to be available. + Also, every SGP of one SG communicating with one ASP regarding one AS + provides identical SS7 connectivity to this ASP. + + An ASP routes responses to the SGP that it received messages from; + within the routing context which it is currently active and receiving + traffic. + +<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" name="section-1.5.3" href="#section-1.5.3">1.5.3</a>. Address Mapping Function at a Relay Node</span> + + The relay function is invoked when: + + - Routing is on Global Title + + + +<span class="grey">Loughney, et al. Standards Track [Page 12]</span></pre> +<hr class='noprint' style='width: 96ex;' align='left'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><a name="page-13" id="page-13" href="#page-13" class="invisible"> </a> +<span class="grey"><a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3868">RFC 3868</a> SUA October 2004</span> + + + - Routing is on Hostname + - Routing is on SSN and PC or SSN and IP Address and the address + presented is not the one of the relay node + + Translation/resolution of the above address information yields one of + the following: + + - Route on SSN: SCTP association ID toward the destination node, SSN + and optionally Routing Context and/or IP address. + - Route on GT: SCTP association ID toward next relay node, (new) GT + and optionally SSN and/or Routing Context. + - Routing on Hostname: SCTP association ID toward next relay node, + (new) Hostname and optionally SSN and/or Routing Context. + - A local SUA-user (combined relay/end node) + + To prevent looping, an SS7 hop counter is used. The originating end + node (be it an SS7 or an IP node) sets the value of the SS7 hop + counter to the maximum value (15 or less). Each time the relay + function is invoked within an intermediate (relay) node, the SS7 hop + counter is decremented. When the value reaches zero, the return or + refusal procedures are invoked with reason "Hop counter violation". + +<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" name="section-1.5.4" href="#section-1.5.4">1.5.4</a>. SCTP Stream Mapping</span> + + The SUA supports SCTP streams. Signalling Gateway SG and Application + Servers need to maintain a list of SCTP and SUA-users for mapping + purposes. SCCP-users requiring sequenced message transfer need to be + sent over a stream with sequenced delivery. + + SUA uses stream 0 for SUA management messages. It is OPTIONAL that + sequenced delivery be used to preserve the order of management + message delivery. + + Stream selection based on protocol class: + + - Protocol class 0: SUA MAY select unordered delivery. The stream + selected is based on traffic information available to the SGP or + ASP. + + - Protocol class 1: SUA MUST select ordered delivery. The stream + selected is based upon the sequence parameter given by the upper + layer over the primitive interface and other traffic information + available to the SGP or ASP + + - Protocol classes 2 and 3: SUA MUST select ordered delivery. The + stream selected is based upon the source local reference of the + connection and other traffic information available to the SGP or + ASP. + + + +<span class="grey">Loughney, et al. Standards Track [Page 13]</span></pre> +<hr class='noprint' style='width: 96ex;' align='left'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><a name="page-14" id="page-14" href="#page-14" class="invisible"> </a> +<span class="grey"><a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3868">RFC 3868</a> SUA October 2004</span> + + +<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" name="section-1.5.5" href="#section-1.5.5">1.5.5</a>. Flow Control</span> + + Local Management at an ASP may wish to stop traffic across an SCTP + association to temporarily remove the association from service or to + perform testing and maintenance activity. The function could + optionally be used to control the start of traffic on to a newly + available SCTP association. + +<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" name="section-1.5.6" href="#section-1.5.6">1.5.6</a>. Congestion Management</span> + + The SUA layer is informed of local and IP network congestion by means + of an implementation-dependent function (e.g., an implementation- + dependent indication from the SCTP of IP network congestion). + + At an ASP or IPSP, the SUA layer indicates congestion to local SCCP- + Users by means of an appropriate SCCP primitive (e.g., N-INFORM, N- + NOTICE), as per current SCCP procedures, to invoke appropriate upper + layer responses. When an SG determines that the transport of SS7 + messages is encountering congestion, the SG MAY trigger SS7 SCCP + Congestion messages to originating SS7 nodes, per the congestion + procedures of the relevant SCCP standard. The triggering of SS7 SCCP + Management messages from an SG is an implementation-dependent + function. + + The SUA layer at an ASP or IPSP MAY indicate local congestion to an + SUA peer with an SCON message. When an SG receives a congestion + message (SCON) from an ASP, and the SG determines that an endpoint is + now encountering congestion, it MAY trigger congestion procedures of + the relevant SCCP standard. + +<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" name="section-1.6" href="#section-1.6">1.6</a>. Definition of SUA Boundaries</span> + +<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" name="section-1.6.1" href="#section-1.6.1">1.6.1</a>. Definition of the upper boundary</span> + + The following primitives are supported between the SUA and an SCCP- + user (a reference to ITU and ANSI sections where these primitives and + corresponding parameters are described, is also given): + + Generic |Specific | + Name |Name |ANSI/ITU Reference + ------------+----------+------------------------------------------- + N-CONNECT |Request |ITU-Q.711 Chap 6.1.1.2.2 (Tab 2/Q.711) + |Indication|ANSI-T1.112 Chap 2.1.1.2.2 (Tab 2/T1.112.1) + |Response | + |Confirm | + ------------+----------+------------------------------------------- + N-DATA |Request |ITU-Q.711 Chap 6.1.1.2.3 (Tab 3/Q.711) + |Indication|ANSI-T1.112 Chap 2.1.1.2.3 (Tab 3/T1.112.1) + + + +<span class="grey">Loughney, et al. Standards Track [Page 14]</span></pre> +<hr class='noprint' style='width: 96ex;' align='left'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><a name="page-15" id="page-15" href="#page-15" class="invisible"> </a> +<span class="grey"><a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3868">RFC 3868</a> SUA October 2004</span> + + + ------------+----------+------------------------------------------- + N-EXPEDITED |Request |ITU-Q.711 Chap 6.1.1.2.3 (Tab 4/Q.711) + DATA |Indication|ANSI-T1.112 Chap 2.1.1.2.3 (Tab 4/T1.112.1) + ------------+----------+------------------------------------------- + N-RESET |Request |ITU-Q.711 Chap 6.1.1.2.3 (Tab 5/Q.711) + |Indication|ANSI-T1.112 Chap 2.1.1.2.3 (Tab 5/T1.112.1) + |Response | + |Confirm | + ------------+----------+------------------------------------------- + N-DISCONNECT|Request |ITU-Q.711 Chap 6.1.1.2.4 (Tab 6/Q.711) + |Indication|ANSI-T1.112 Chap 2.1.1.2.4 (Tab 6/T1.112.1) + ------------+----------+------------------------------------------- + N-INFORM |Request |ITU-Q.711 Chap 6.1.1.3.2 (Tab 8/Q.711) + |Indication|ANSI-T1.112 Chap 2.1.1.2.5 (Tab 6A/T1.112.1) + ------------+----------+------------------------------------------- + N-UNITDATA |Request |ITU-Q.711 Chap 6.2.2.3.1 (Tab 12/Q.711) + |Indication|ANSI-T1.112 Chap 2.2.2.3.1 (Tab 8A/T1.112.1) + ------------+----------+------------------------------------------- + N-NOTICE |Indication|ITU-Q.711 Chap 6.2.2.3.2 (Tab 13/Q.711) + | |ANSI-T1.112 Chap 2.2.2.3.2 (Tab 8B/T1.112.1) + ------------+----------+-------------------------------------------- + N-STATE |Request |ITU-Q.711 Chap 6.3.2.3.2 (Tab 16/Q.711) + |Indication|ANSI-T1.112 Chap 2.3.2.3.2 (Tab 8E/T1.112.1) + ------------+----------+-------------------------------------------- + N-PCSTATE |Indication|ITU-Q.711 Chap 6.3.2.3.3 (Tab 17/Q.711) + | |ANSI-T1.112 Chap 2.3.2.3.4 (Tab 8G/T1.112.1) + ------------+----------+-------------------------------------------- + N-COORD |Request |ITU-Q.711 Chap 6.3.2.3.1 (Tab 15/Q.711) + |Indication|ANSI-T1.112 Chap 2.3.2.3.3 (Tab 8F/T1.112.1) + |Response | + |Confirm | + +<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" name="section-1.6.2" href="#section-1.6.2">1.6.2</a>. Definition of the lower boundary</span> + + The upper layer primitives provided by the SCTP are provided in + [SCTP]. + +<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" name="section-1.6.3" href="#section-1.6.3">1.6.3</a>. Definition of the Boundary between SUA and Layer Management</span> + + M-SCTP_ESTABLISH request + Direction: LM -> SUA + Purpose: LM requests ASP to establish an SCTP association with its + peer. + + M-SCTP_ESTABLISH confirm + Direction: SUA -> LM + Purpose: ASP confirms to LM that it has established an SCTP + association with its peer. + + + +<span class="grey">Loughney, et al. Standards Track [Page 15]</span></pre> +<hr class='noprint' style='width: 96ex;' align='left'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><a name="page-16" id="page-16" href="#page-16" class="invisible"> </a> +<span class="grey"><a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3868">RFC 3868</a> SUA October 2004</span> + + + + M-SCTP_ESTABLISH indication + Direction: SUA -> LM + Purpose: SUA informs LM that a remote ASP has established an SCTP + association. + + M-SCTP_RELEASE request + Direction: LM -> SUA + Purpose: LM requests ASP to release an SCTP association with its + peer. + + M-SCTP_RELEASE confirm + Direction: SUA -> LM + Purpose: ASP confirms to LM that it has released SCTP association + with its peer. + + M-SCTP_RELEASE indication + Direction: SUA -> LM + Purpose: SUA informs LM that a remote ASP has released an SCTP + Association or the SCTP association has failed. + + M-SCTP RESTART indication + Direction: SUA -> LM + Purpose: SUA informs LM that an SCTP restart indication has been + received. + + M-SCTP_STATUS request + Direction: LM -> SUA + Purpose: LM requests SUA to report the status of an SCTP + association. + + M-SCTP_STATUS confirm + Direction: SUA -> LM + Purpose: SUA responds with the status of an SCTP association. + + M-SCTP STATUS indication + Direction: SUA -> LM + Purpose: SUA reports the status of an SCTP association. + + M-ASP_STATUS request + Direction: LM -> SUA + Purpose: LM requests SUA to report the status of a local or remote + ASP. + + M-ASP_STATUS confirm + Direction: SUA -> LM + Purpose: SUA reports status of local or remote ASP. + + + + +<span class="grey">Loughney, et al. Standards Track [Page 16]</span></pre> +<hr class='noprint' style='width: 96ex;' align='left'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><a name="page-17" id="page-17" href="#page-17" class="invisible"> </a> +<span class="grey"><a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3868">RFC 3868</a> SUA October 2004</span> + + + M-AS_STATUS request + Direction: LM -> SUA + Purpose: LM requests SUA to report the status of an AS. + + M-AS_STATUS confirm + Direction: SUA -> LM + Purpose: SUA reports the status of an AS. + + M-NOTIFY indication + Direction: SUA -> LM + Purpose: SUA reports that it has received a Notify message from its + peer. + + M-ERROR indication + Direction: SUA -> LM + Purpose: SUA reports that it has received an Error message from its + peer or that a local operation has been unsuccessful. + + M-ASP_UP request + Direction: LM -> SUA + Purpose: LM requests ASP to start its operation and send an ASP Up + message to its peer. + + M-ASP_UP confirm + Direction: SUA -> LM + Purpose: ASP reports that is has received an ASP UP Ack message + from its peer. + + M-ASP_UP indication + Direction: SUA -> LM + Purpose: SUA reports it has successfully processed an incoming ASP + Up message from its peer. + + M-ASP_DOWN request + Direction: LM -> SUA + Purpose: LM requests ASP to stop its operation and send an ASP Down + message to its peer. + + M-ASP_DOWN confirm + Direction: SUA -> LM + Purpose: ASP reports that is has received an ASP Down Ack message + from its peer. + + M-ASP_DOWN indication + Direction: SUA -> LM + Purpose: SUA reports it has successfully processed an incoming ASP + Down message from its peer, or the SCTP association has + been lost/reset. + + + +<span class="grey">Loughney, et al. Standards Track [Page 17]</span></pre> +<hr class='noprint' style='width: 96ex;' align='left'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><a name="page-18" id="page-18" href="#page-18" class="invisible"> </a> +<span class="grey"><a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3868">RFC 3868</a> SUA October 2004</span> + + + + M-ASP_ACTIVE request + Direction: LM -> SUA + Purpose: LM requests ASP to send an ASP Active message to its peer. + + M-ASP_ACTIVE confirm + Direction: SUA -> LM + Purpose: ASP reports that is has received an ASP Active Ack message + from its peer. + + M-ASP_ACTIVE indication + Direction: SUA -> LM + Purpose: SUA reports it has successfully processed an incoming ASP + Active message from its peer. + + M-ASP_INACTIVE request + Direction: LM -> SUA + Purpose: LM requests ASP to send an ASP Inactive message to its + peer. + + M-ASP_INACTIVE confirm + Direction: LM -> SUA + Purpose: ASP reports that is has received an ASP Inactive + Ack message from its peer. + + M-ASP_INACTIVE indication + Direction: SUA -> LM + Purpose: SUA reports it has successfully processed an incoming ASP + Inactive message from its peer. + + M-AS_ACTIVE indication + Direction: SUA -> LM + Purpose: SUA reports that an AS has moved to the AS-ACTIVE state. + + M-AS_INACTIVE indication + Direction: SUA -> LM + Purpose: SUA reports that an AS has moved to the AS-INACTIVE state. + + M-AS_DOWN indication + Direction: SUA -> LM + Purpose: SUA reports that an AS has moved to the AS-DOWN state. + + + + + + + + + + +<span class="grey">Loughney, et al. Standards Track [Page 18]</span></pre> +<hr class='noprint' style='width: 96ex;' align='left'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><a name="page-19" id="page-19" href="#page-19" class="invisible"> </a> +<span class="grey"><a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3868">RFC 3868</a> SUA October 2004</span> + + + If the SUA layer supports dynamic registration of Routing Key, the + layer MAY support the following additional primitives: + + M-RK_REG request + Direction: LM -> SUA + Purpose: LM requests ASP to register RK(s) with its peer by sending + REG REQ message. + + M-RK_REG confirm + Direction: SUA -> LM + Purpose: ASP reports that it has received REG RSP message with + registration status as successful from its peer. + + M-RK_REG indication + Direction: SUA -> LM + Purpose: SUA informs LM that it has successfully processed an + incoming REG REQ message. + + M-RK_DEREG request + Direction: LM -> SUA + Purpose: LM requests ASP to deregister RK(s) with its peer by + sending DEREG REQ message. + + M-RK_DEREG confirm + Direction: SUA -> LM + Purpose: ASP reports that it has received DEREG RESP message with + deregistration status as successful from its peer. + + M-RK_DEREG indication + Direction: SUA -> LM + Purpose: SUA informs LM that it has successfully processed an + incoming DEREG REQ from its peer. + +<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" name="section-2" href="#section-2">2</a>. Conventions</span> + + The keywords MUST, MUST NOT, REQUIRED, SHALL, SHALL NOT, SHOULD, + SHOULD NOT, RECOMMENDED, NOT RECOMMENDED, MAY, and OPTIONAL, when + they appear in this document, are to be interpreted as described in + <a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/bcp14">BCP 14</a>, <a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2119">RFC 2119</a> [<a href="#ref-2119" title=""Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels"">2119</a>]. + +<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" name="section-3" href="#section-3">3</a>. Protocol Elements</span> + + The general message format includes a Common Message Header together + with a list of zero or more parameters as defined by the Message + Type. + + For forward compatibility, all Message Types may have attached + parameters even if none are specified in this version. + + + +<span class="grey">Loughney, et al. Standards Track [Page 19]</span></pre> +<hr class='noprint' style='width: 96ex;' align='left'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><a name="page-20" id="page-20" href="#page-20" class="invisible"> </a> +<span class="grey"><a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3868">RFC 3868</a> SUA October 2004</span> + + + The Reserved field is set to 0 in messages sent and is not to be + examined in messages received. + +<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" name="section-3.1" href="#section-3.1">3.1</a>. Common Message Header</span> + + The protocol messages for the SCCP-User Adaptation Protocol requires + a message structure which contains a version, message class, message + type, message length and message contents. This message header is + common among all signalling protocol adaptation layers: + + 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 | Reserved | Message Class | Message Type | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Message Length | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Message Data | + + Note that the 'data' portion of SUA messages SHALL contain SCCP-User + data, not the encapsulated SCCP message. + + Optional parameters can only occur at most once in an SUA message. + +<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" name="section-3.1.1" href="#section-3.1.1">3.1.1</a>. SUA Protocol Version</span> + + The version field (ver) contains the version of the SUA adaptation + layer. The supported versions are: + + 1 SUA version 1.0 + +<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" name="section-3.1.2" href="#section-3.1.2">3.1.2</a>. Message Classes</span> + + Message Classes + + 0 SUA Management (MGMT) Message + 1 Reserved + 2 Signalling Network Management (SNM) Messages + 3 ASP State Maintenance (ASPSM) Messages + 4 ASP Traffic Maintenance (ASPTM) Messages + 5 Reserved + 6 Reserved + 7 Connectionless Messages + 8 Connection-Oriented Messages + 9 Routing Key Management (RKM) Messages. + 10 - 127 Reserved by the IETF + 128 - 255 Reserved for IETF-Defined Message Class Extensions + + + + +<span class="grey">Loughney, et al. Standards Track [Page 20]</span></pre> +<hr class='noprint' style='width: 96ex;' align='left'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><a name="page-21" id="page-21" href="#page-21" class="invisible"> </a> +<span class="grey"><a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3868">RFC 3868</a> SUA October 2004</span> + + +<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" name="section-3.1.3" href="#section-3.1.3">3.1.3</a>. Message Types</span> + + SUA Management Messages + + 0 Error (ERR) + 1 Notify (NTFY) + 2 - 127 Reserved by the IETF + 128- 255 Reserved for IETF-Defined Message Class Extensions + + Signalling Network Management (SNM) Messages + + 0 Reserved + 1 Destination Unavailable (DUNA) + 2 Destination Available (DAVA) + 3 Destination State Audit (DAUD) + 4 Signalling Congestion (SCON) + 5 Destination User Part Unavailable (DUPU) + 6 Destination Restricted (DRST) + 7 - 127 Reserved by the IETF + 128 - 255 Reserved for IETF-Defined Message Class Extensions + + Application Server Process State Maintenance (ASPSM) Messages + + 0 Reserved + 1 ASP Up (UP) + 2 ASP Down (DOWN) + 3 Heartbeat (BEAT) + 4 ASP Up Ack (UP ACK) + 5 ASP Down Ack (DOWN ACK) + 6 Heartbeat Ack (BEAT ACK) + 7 - 127 Reserved by the IETF + 128 - 255 Reserved for IETF-Defined Message Class Extensions + + ASP Traffic Maintenance (ASPTM) Messages + + 0 Reserved + 1 ASP Active (ACTIVE) + 2 ASP Inactive (INACTIVE) + 3 ASP Active Ack (ACTIVE ACK) + 4 ASP Inactive Ack (INACTIVE ACK) + 5 - 127 Reserved by the IETF + 128 - 255 Reserved for IETF-Defined Message Class Extensions + + + + + + + + + +<span class="grey">Loughney, et al. Standards Track [Page 21]</span></pre> +<hr class='noprint' style='width: 96ex;' align='left'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><a name="page-22" id="page-22" href="#page-22" class="invisible"> </a> +<span class="grey"><a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3868">RFC 3868</a> SUA October 2004</span> + + + Routing Key Management (RKM) Messages + + 0 Reserved + 1 Registration Request (REG REQ) + 2 Registration Response (REG RSP) + 3 Deregistration Request (DEREG REQ) + 4 Deregistration Response (DEREG RSP) + 5 - 127 Reserved by the IETF + 128 - 255 Reserved for IETF-Defined Message Class Extensions + + Connectionless (CL) Messages + + 0 Reserved + 1 Connectionless Data Transfer (CLDT) + 2 Connectionless Data Response (CLDR) + 3 - 127 Reserved by the IETF + 128 - 255 Reserved for IETF-Defined Message Class Extensions + + Connection-Oriented (CO) Messages + + 0 Reserved + 1 Connection Request (CORE) + 2 Connection Acknowledge (COAK) + 3 Connection Refused (COREF) + 4 Release Request (RELRE) + 5 Release Complete (RELCO) + 6 Reset Confirm (RESCO) + 7 Reset Request (RESRE) + 8 Connection Oriented Data Transfer (CODT) + 9 Connection Oriented Data Acknowledge (CODA) + 10 Connection Oriented Error (COERR) + 11 Inactivity Test (COIT) + 12 - 127 Reserved by the IETF + 128 - 255 Reserved for IETF-Defined Message Class Extensions + +<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" name="section-3.1.4" href="#section-3.1.4">3.1.4</a>. Message Length</span> + + The Message Length defines the length of the message in octets, + including the header and including all padding bytes. Message Length + is a 32-bit identifier. + +<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" name="section-3.1.5" href="#section-3.1.5">3.1.5</a>. Tag-Length-Value Format</span> + + SUA messages consist of a Common Header followed by zero or more + parameters, as defined by the message type. The Tag-Length-Value + (TLV) parameters contained in a message are defined in a Tag-Length- + Value format as shown below. + + + + +<span class="grey">Loughney, et al. Standards Track [Page 22]</span></pre> +<hr class='noprint' style='width: 96ex;' align='left'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><a name="page-23" id="page-23" href="#page-23" class="invisible"> </a> +<span class="grey"><a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3868">RFC 3868</a> SUA October 2004</span> + + + 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 + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Parameter Tag | Parameter Length | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + \ \ + / Parameter Value / + \ \ + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + + Parameter Tag: 16 bits (unsigned integer) + + Tag field is a 16-bit identifier of the type of parameter. It + takes a value of 0 to 65535. + + Parameter Length: 16 bits (unsigned integer) + + The Parameter Length field contains the size of the parameter in + bytes, including the Parameter Tag, Parameter Length, and + Parameter Value fields. The Parameter Length does not include any + padding bytes. However, composite parameters will contain all + padding bytes, since all parameters contained within this + composite parameter will be considered multiples of 4 bytes. + + Parameter Value: variable-length. + + The Parameter Value field contains the actual information to be + transfered in the parameter. + + The total length of a parameter (including Tag, Parameter Length + and Value fields) MUST be a multiple of 4 bytes. If the length of + the parameter is not a multiple of 4 bytes, the sender pads the + parameter at the end (i.e., after the Parameter Value field) with + all zero bytes. The length of the padding is NOT included in the + parameter length field. A sender SHOULD NOT pad with more than 3 + bytes. The receiver MUST ignore the padding bytes. + + Implementation note: The use of TLV in principle allows the + parameters to be placed in a random order in the message. However, + some guidelines should be considered for easy processing in the + following order: + + - Parameters needed to correctly process other message parameters, + preferably should precede these parameters (such as Routing + Context). + - Mandatory parameters preferably SHOULD precede any optional + parameters. + - The data parameter will normally be the final one in the message. + + + +<span class="grey">Loughney, et al. Standards Track [Page 23]</span></pre> +<hr class='noprint' style='width: 96ex;' align='left'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><a name="page-24" id="page-24" href="#page-24" class="invisible"> </a> +<span class="grey"><a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3868">RFC 3868</a> SUA October 2004</span> + + + - The receiver SHOULD accept parameters in any order, except where + explicitly mandated. + +<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" name="section-3.2" href="#section-3.2">3.2</a>. SUA Connectionless Messages</span> + + The following section describes the SUA Connectionless transfer + messages and parameter contents. The general message format includes + a Common Message Header together with a list of zero or more + parameters as defined by the Message Type. All Message Types can + have attached parameters. + +<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" name="section-3.2.1" href="#section-3.2.1">3.2.1</a>. Connectionless Data Transfer (CLDT)</span> + + This message transfers data between one SUA to another. + + 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 | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + / Routing Context / + \ \ + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Tag = 0x0115 | Length | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Protocol Class | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Tag = 0x0102 | Length | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + / Source Address / + \ \ + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Tag = 0x0103 | Length | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + / Destination Address / + \ \ + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Tag = 0x0116 | Length | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Sequence Control | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Tag = 0x0101 | Length | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | SS7 Hop Count | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Tag = 0x0113 | Length | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Importance | + + + +<span class="grey">Loughney, et al. Standards Track [Page 24]</span></pre> +<hr class='noprint' style='width: 96ex;' align='left'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><a name="page-25" id="page-25" href="#page-25" class="invisible"> </a> +<span class="grey"><a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3868">RFC 3868</a> SUA October 2004</span> + + + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Tag = 0x0114 | Length | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Message Priority | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Tag = 0x0013 | Length | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Correlation ID | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Tag = 0x0117 | Length | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Segmentation | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Tag = 0x010B | Length | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + / Data / + \ \ + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + + Parameters + Routing Context Mandatory + Protocol Class Mandatory + Source Address Mandatory + Destination Address Mandatory + Sequence Control Mandatory + SS7 Hop Count Optional + Importance Optional + Message Priority Optional + Correlation ID Optional + Segmentation Optional + Data Mandatory + + Implementation note: This message covers the following SCCP messages: + unitdata (UDT), extended unitdata (XUDT), long unitdata (LUDT). + +<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" name="section-3.2.2" href="#section-3.2.2">3.2.2</a>. Connectionless Data Response (CLDR)</span> + + This message is used as a response message by the peer to report + errors in the received CLDT message, when the return on error option + is set. + + + + + + + + + + + +<span class="grey">Loughney, et al. Standards Track [Page 25]</span></pre> +<hr class='noprint' style='width: 96ex;' align='left'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><a name="page-26" id="page-26" href="#page-26" class="invisible"> </a> +<span class="grey"><a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3868">RFC 3868</a> SUA October 2004</span> + + + 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 | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + / Routing Context / + \ \ + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Tag = 0x0106 | Length | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | SCCP Cause | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Tag = 0x0102 | Length | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + / Source Address / + \ \ + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Tag = 0x0103 | Length | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + / Destination Address / + \ \ + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Tag = 0x0101 | Length | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | SS7 Hop Count | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Tag = 0x0113 | Length | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Importance | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Tag = 0x0114 | Length | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Message Priority | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Tag = 0x0013 | Length | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Correlation ID | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Tag = 0x0117 | Length | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Segmentation | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Tag = 0x010b | Length | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+- + / Data / + \ \ + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + + + + +<span class="grey">Loughney, et al. Standards Track [Page 26]</span></pre> +<hr class='noprint' style='width: 96ex;' align='left'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><a name="page-27" id="page-27" href="#page-27" class="invisible"> </a> +<span class="grey"><a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3868">RFC 3868</a> SUA October 2004</span> + + + Parameters + Routing Context Mandatory + SCCP Cause Mandatory + Source Address Mandatory + Destination Address Mandatory + SS7 Hop Count Optional + Importance Optional + Message Priority Optional + Correlation ID Optional + Segmentation Optional + Data Optional + + Implementation note: This message covers the following SCCP messages: + unitdata service (UDTS), extended unitdata service (XUDTS) and long + unitdata service (LUDTS). + +<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" name="section-3.3" href="#section-3.3">3.3</a>. Connection Oriented Messages</span> + +<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" name="section-3.3.1" href="#section-3.3.1">3.3.1</a>. Connection Oriented Data Transfer (CODT)</span> + + This message transfers data between one SUA to another for + connection-oriented service. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +<span class="grey">Loughney, et al. Standards Track [Page 27]</span></pre> +<hr class='noprint' style='width: 96ex;' align='left'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><a name="page-28" id="page-28" href="#page-28" class="invisible"> </a> +<span class="grey"><a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3868">RFC 3868</a> SUA October 2004</span> + + + 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 | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + / Routing Context / + \ \ + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Tag = 0x0107 | Length | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Sequence Number | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Tag = 0x0105 | Length | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Destination Reference Number | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Tag = 0x0114 | Length | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Message Priority | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Tag = 0x0013 | Length | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Correlation ID | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Tag = 0x010b | Length | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + / Data / + \ \ + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + + Parameters + Routing Context Mandatory + Sequence Number Optional *1 + Destination Reference Number Mandatory + Message Priority Optional + Correlation ID Optional + Data Mandatory + + NOTE *1: This parameter is not present in case of Expedited Data + (ED). + + Implementation note: For the CODT to represent DT1, DT2 and ED + messages, the following conditions MUST be met: + + DT1 is represented by a CODT when: + Sequence Number parameter is present (contains "more" indicator). + + + + + +<span class="grey">Loughney, et al. Standards Track [Page 28]</span></pre> +<hr class='noprint' style='width: 96ex;' align='left'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><a name="page-29" id="page-29" href="#page-29" class="invisible"> </a> +<span class="grey"><a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3868">RFC 3868</a> SUA October 2004</span> + + + DT2 is represented by a CODT when: + Sequence Number parameter is present (contains P(S), P(R) and more + indicator) + + ED is represented by a CODT with: + Sequence Number parameter is not present + +<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" name="section-3.3.2" href="#section-3.3.2">3.3.2</a>. Connection Oriented Data Acknowledge (CODA)</span> + + The peer uses this message to acknowledge receipt of data. This + message is used only with protocol class 3. + + 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 | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + / Routing Context / + \ \ + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Tag = 0x0105 | Length | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Destination Reference Number | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Tag = 0x0108 | Length | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Receive Sequence Number | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Tag = 0x010A | Length | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Credit | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + + Parameters + Routing Context Mandatory + Destination Reference Number Mandatory + Receive Sequence Number Optional *1 + Credit Mandatory *1 + + NOTE *1: Mandatory when representing Data Acknowledgement (AK). + + Implementation note: For the CODA to represent DA and EA messages, + the following conditions MUST be met: + + DA is represented by a CODA when: + Receive Sequence Number parameter is present (contains P(S), P(R) + and more indicator) + + + + +<span class="grey">Loughney, et al. Standards Track [Page 29]</span></pre> +<hr class='noprint' style='width: 96ex;' align='left'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><a name="page-30" id="page-30" href="#page-30" class="invisible"> </a> +<span class="grey"><a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3868">RFC 3868</a> SUA October 2004</span> + + + EA is represented by a CODA when: + Receive Sequence Number parameter is not present + +<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" name="section-3.3.3" href="#section-3.3.3">3.3.3</a>. Connection Request (CORE)</span> + + This message is used for establishing a signalling connection between + two peer endpoints. + + 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 | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + / Routing Context / + \ \ + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Tag = 0x0115 | Length | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Protocol Class | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Tag = 0x0104 | Length | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Source Reference Number | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Tag = 0x0103 | Length | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + / Destination Address / + \ \ + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Tag = 0x0116 | Length | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Sequence Control | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Tag = 0x0107 | Length | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Sequence Number | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Tag = 0x0102 | Length | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + / Source Address / + \ \ + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Tag = 0x0101 | Length | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | SS7 Hop Count | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Tag = 0x0113 | Length | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + + + +<span class="grey">Loughney, et al. Standards Track [Page 30]</span></pre> +<hr class='noprint' style='width: 96ex;' align='left'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><a name="page-31" id="page-31" href="#page-31" class="invisible"> </a> +<span class="grey"><a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3868">RFC 3868</a> SUA October 2004</span> + + + | Importance | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Tag = 0x0114 | Length | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Message Priority | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Tag = 0x010A | Length | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Credit | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Tag = 0x010b | Length | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + / Data / + \ \ + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + + Parameters + Routing Context Mandatory + Protocol Class Mandatory + Source Reference Number Mandatory + Destination Address Mandatory + Sequence Control Mandatory + Sequence Number Optional *1 + Source Address Optional + SS7 Hop Count Optional + Importance Optional + Message Priority Optional + Credit Optional *1 + Data Optional + + NOTE *1: Mandatory for protocol class 3 only. + + Implementation note: This message covers the following SCCP message: + Connection Request (CR). + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +<span class="grey">Loughney, et al. Standards Track [Page 31]</span></pre> +<hr class='noprint' style='width: 96ex;' align='left'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><a name="page-32" id="page-32" href="#page-32" class="invisible"> </a> +<span class="grey"><a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3868">RFC 3868</a> SUA October 2004</span> + + +<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" name="section-3.3.4" href="#section-3.3.4">3.3.4</a>. Connection Acknowledge (COAK)</span> + + This message is used to acknowledge a connection request from the + peer endpoint. + + 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 | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + / Routing Context / + \ \ + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Tag = 0x0115 | Length | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Protocol Class | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Tag = 0x0105 | Length | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Destination Reference Number | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Tag = 0x0104 | Length | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Source Reference Number | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Tag = 0x01116 | Length | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Sequence Control | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Tag = 0x010A | Length | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Credit | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Tag = 0x0102 | Length | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + / Source Address / + \ \ + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Tag = 0x0113 | Length | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Importance | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Tag = 0x0114 | Length | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Message Priority | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Tag = 0x0103 | Length | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + + + +<span class="grey">Loughney, et al. Standards Track [Page 32]</span></pre> +<hr class='noprint' style='width: 96ex;' align='left'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><a name="page-33" id="page-33" href="#page-33" class="invisible"> </a> +<span class="grey"><a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3868">RFC 3868</a> SUA October 2004</span> + + + / Destination Address / + \ \ + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Tag = 0x010b | Length | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + / Data / + \ \ + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + + Parameters + Routing Context Mandatory + Protocol Class Mandatory + Destination Reference Number Mandatory + Source Reference Number Mandatory + Sequence Control Mandatory + Credit Mandatory *2 + Source Address Optional + Importance Optional + Message Priority Optional + Destination Address Optional *1 + Data Optional + + NOTE *1: Destination Address parameter will be present in case + that the received CORE message conveys the Source + Address parameter. + + NOTE *2: Only applicable for protocol class 3. + + Implementation note: This message covers the following SCCP message: + Connection Confirm (CC). + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +<span class="grey">Loughney, et al. Standards Track [Page 33]</span></pre> +<hr class='noprint' style='width: 96ex;' align='left'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><a name="page-34" id="page-34" href="#page-34" class="invisible"> </a> +<span class="grey"><a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3868">RFC 3868</a> SUA October 2004</span> + + +<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" name="section-3.3.5" href="#section-3.3.5">3.3.5</a>. Connection Refused (COREF)</span> + + This message is used to refuse a connection request between two peer + endpoints. + + 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 | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + / Routing Context / + \ \ + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Tag = 0x0105 | Length | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Destination Reference Number | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Tag = 0x0106 | Length | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | SCCP Cause | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Tag = 0x0102 | Length | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + / Source Address / + \ \ + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Tag = 0x0103 | Length | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + / Destination Address / + \ \ + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Tag = 0x0113 | Length = 8 | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Importance | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Tag = 0x010B | Length | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + / Data / + \ \ + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + + + + + + + + + + + +<span class="grey">Loughney, et al. Standards Track [Page 34]</span></pre> +<hr class='noprint' style='width: 96ex;' align='left'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><a name="page-35" id="page-35" href="#page-35" class="invisible"> </a> +<span class="grey"><a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3868">RFC 3868</a> SUA October 2004</span> + + + Parameters + Routing Context Mandatory + Destination Reference Number Mandatory + SCCP Cause Mandatory + Source Address Optional + Destination Address Optional *1 + Importance Optional + Data Optional + + Note *1: Destination Address parameter will be present in case + that the received CORE message conveys the Source Address + parameter. + + Implementation note: This message covers the following SCCP message: + Connection REFused (CREF). + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +<span class="grey">Loughney, et al. Standards Track [Page 35]</span></pre> +<hr class='noprint' style='width: 96ex;' align='left'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><a name="page-36" id="page-36" href="#page-36" class="invisible"> </a> +<span class="grey"><a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3868">RFC 3868</a> SUA October 2004</span> + + +<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" name="section-3.3.6" href="#section-3.3.6">3.3.6</a>. Release Request (RELRE)</span> + + This message is used to request a signalling connection between two + peer endpoints be released. All associated resources can then be + released. + + 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 | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + / Routing Context / + \ \ + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Tag = 0x0105 | Length | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Destination Reference Number | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Tag = 0x0104 | Length | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Source Reference Number | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Tag = 0x0106 | Length | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | SCCP Cause | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Tag = 0x0113 | Length = 8 | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Importance | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Tag = 0x010b | Length | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + / Data / + \ \ + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + + Parameters + Routing Context Mandatory + Destination Reference Number Mandatory + Source Reference Number Mandatory + SCCP Cause Mandatory + Importance Optional + Data Optional + + Implementation note: This message covers the following SCCP message: + connection ReLeaSeD (RLSD). + + + + + +<span class="grey">Loughney, et al. Standards Track [Page 36]</span></pre> +<hr class='noprint' style='width: 96ex;' align='left'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><a name="page-37" id="page-37" href="#page-37" class="invisible"> </a> +<span class="grey"><a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3868">RFC 3868</a> SUA October 2004</span> + + +<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" name="section-3.3.7" href="#section-3.3.7">3.3.7</a>. Release Complete (RELCO)</span> + + This message is used to acknowledge the release of a signalling + connection between two peer endpoints. All associated resources + should be released. + + 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 | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + / Routing Context / + \ \ + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Tag = 0x0105 | Length | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Destination Reference Number | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Tag = 0x0104 | Length | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Source Reference Number | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Tag = 0x0113 | Length = 8 | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Importance | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + + Parameters + Routing Context Mandatory + Destination Reference Number Mandatory + Source Reference Number Mandatory + Importance Optional + + Implementation note: This message covers the following SCCP message: + ReLease Complete (RLC). + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +<span class="grey">Loughney, et al. Standards Track [Page 37]</span></pre> +<hr class='noprint' style='width: 96ex;' align='left'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><a name="page-38" id="page-38" href="#page-38" class="invisible"> </a> +<span class="grey"><a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3868">RFC 3868</a> SUA October 2004</span> + + +<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" name="section-3.3.8" href="#section-3.3.8">3.3.8</a>. Reset Request (RESRE)</span> + + This message is used to indicate that the sending SCCP/SUA wants to + initiate a reset procedure (reinitialization of sequence numbers) to + the peer endpoint. + + 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 | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + / Routing Context / + \ \ + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Tag = 0x0105 | Length | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Destination Reference Number | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Tag = 0x0104 | Length | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Source Reference Number | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Tag = 0x0106 | Length | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | SCCP Cause | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + + Parameters + Routing Context Mandatory + Destination Reference Number Mandatory + Source Reference Number Mandatory + SCCP Cause Mandatory + + Implementation note: This message covers the following SCCP message: + ReSet Request (RSR). + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +<span class="grey">Loughney, et al. Standards Track [Page 38]</span></pre> +<hr class='noprint' style='width: 96ex;' align='left'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><a name="page-39" id="page-39" href="#page-39" class="invisible"> </a> +<span class="grey"><a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3868">RFC 3868</a> SUA October 2004</span> + + +<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" name="section-3.3.9" href="#section-3.3.9">3.3.9</a>. Reset Confirm (RESCO)</span> + + This message is used to confirm the Reset Request. + + 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 | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + / Routing Context / + \ \ + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Tag = 0x0105 | Length | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Destination Reference Number | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Tag = 0x0104 | Length | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Source Reference Number | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + + Parameters + Routing Context Mandatory + Destination Reference Number Mandatory + Source Reference Number Mandatory + + Implementation note: This message covers the following SCCP message: + ReSet Confirmation (RSC). + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +<span class="grey">Loughney, et al. Standards Track [Page 39]</span></pre> +<hr class='noprint' style='width: 96ex;' align='left'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><a name="page-40" id="page-40" href="#page-40" class="invisible"> </a> +<span class="grey"><a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3868">RFC 3868</a> SUA October 2004</span> + + +<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" name="section-3.3.10" href="#section-3.3.10">3.3.10</a>. Connection Oriented Error (COERR)</span> + + The COERR message is sent to indicate a protocol data unit error. + + 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 | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + / Routing Context / + \ \ + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Tag = 0x0105 | Length | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Destination Reference Number | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Tag = 0x0106 | Length | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | SCCP Cause | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + + Parameters + Routing Context Mandatory + Destination Reference Number Mandatory + SCCP Cause Mandatory + + Implementation note: This message covers the following SCCP message: + Protocol Data Unit ERRor (ERR). + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +<span class="grey">Loughney, et al. Standards Track [Page 40]</span></pre> +<hr class='noprint' style='width: 96ex;' align='left'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><a name="page-41" id="page-41" href="#page-41" class="invisible"> </a> +<span class="grey"><a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3868">RFC 3868</a> SUA October 2004</span> + + +<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" name="section-3.3.11" href="#section-3.3.11">3.3.11</a>. Connection Oriented Inactivity Test (COIT)</span> + + This message is used for auditing the signalling connection state and + the consistency of connection data at both ends of the signalling + connection. + + 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 | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + / Routing Context / + \ \ + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Tag = 0x0115 | Length | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Protocol Class | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Tag = 0x0104 | Length | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Source Reference Number | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Tag = 0x0105 | Length | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Destination Reference number | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Tag = 0x0107 | Length | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Sequence number | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Tag = 0x010A | Length | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Credit | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + + Parameters + Routing Context Mandatory + Protocol Class Mandatory + Source Reference Number Mandatory + Destination Reference number Mandatory + Sequence Number Mandatory *1 + Credit Mandatory *1 + + NOTE *1: Information in these parameter fields reflects those + values sent in the last data form 2 or data + acknowledgement message. They are ignored if the + protocol class indicates class 2. + + + + +<span class="grey">Loughney, et al. Standards Track [Page 41]</span></pre> +<hr class='noprint' style='width: 96ex;' align='left'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><a name="page-42" id="page-42" href="#page-42" class="invisible"> </a> +<span class="grey"><a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3868">RFC 3868</a> SUA October 2004</span> + + + Implementation note: This message covers the following SCCP message: + Inactivity Test (IT). + +<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" name="section-3.4" href="#section-3.4">3.4</a>. Signalling Network Management (SNM) Messages</span> + +<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" name="section-3.4.1" href="#section-3.4.1">3.4.1</a>. Destination Unavailable (DUNA)</span> + + In the scope of SUA, this message is covered by the PC- or N-state + indication passed between SCCP and local SCCP-user. The DUNA message + is sent from the SG or relay node to all concerned ASPs (servicing + SCCP-users considered local to the SG or relay node, see chapter + 1.3.1.1), when a destination or SCCP-user has become unreachable. The + SUA-User at the ASP is expected to stop traffic to the affected + destination or SCCP-user through the SG or relay node initiating the + DUNA. + + The format for DUNA Message parameters 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 + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Tag = 0x0006 | Length | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + / Routing Context / + \ \ + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Tag = 0x0012 | Length | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + / Affected Point Code / + \ \ + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Tag = 0x8003 | Length | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | SSN | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Tag = 0x0112 | Length | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | SMI | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Tag = 0x0004 | Length | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + / Info String / + \ \ + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + + + + + + + +<span class="grey">Loughney, et al. Standards Track [Page 42]</span></pre> +<hr class='noprint' style='width: 96ex;' align='left'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><a name="page-43" id="page-43" href="#page-43" class="invisible"> </a> +<span class="grey"><a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3868">RFC 3868</a> SUA October 2004</span> + + + Parameters + Routing Context Optional + Affected Point Code Mandatory *1 + SSN Optional *1 + SMI Optional + Info String Optional + + Note 1: When the SSN is included, the DUNA message + corresponds to the SCCP N-STATE primitive. When SSN + is not, the DUNA message corresponds to the SCCP N-PCSTATE + primitive. The Affected Point Code parameter can only + contain one point code when SSN is present. + +<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" name="section-3.4.2" href="#section-3.4.2">3.4.2</a>. Destination Available (DAVA)</span> + + In the scope of SUA, this message is covered by the PC- and N-state + indication passed between SCCP and local SCCP-user. The DAVA message + is sent from the SG or relay node to all concerned ASPs (servicing + SCCP-users considered local to the SG or relay node, see chapter + 1.3.1.1) to indicate that a destination (PC or SCCP-user) is now + reachable. The ASP SUA-User protocol is expected to resume traffic + to the affected destination through the SG or relay node initiating + the DAVA. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +<span class="grey">Loughney, et al. Standards Track [Page 43]</span></pre> +<hr class='noprint' style='width: 96ex;' align='left'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><a name="page-44" id="page-44" href="#page-44" class="invisible"> </a> +<span class="grey"><a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3868">RFC 3868</a> SUA October 2004</span> + + + 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 | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + / Routing Context / + \ \ + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Tag = 0x0012 | Length | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + / Affected Point Code / + \ \ + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Tag = 0x8003 | Length | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | SSN | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Tag = 0x0112 | Length | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | SMI | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Tag = 0x0004 | Length | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + / Info String / + \ \ + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + + Parameters + Routing Context Optional + Affected Point Code Mandatory *1 + SSN Optional *1 + SMI Optional + Info String Optional + + Note 1: When the SSN is included, the DAVA message corresponds to + the SCCP N-STATE primitive. When SSN is not included, the + DAVA message corresponds to the SCCP N-PCSTATE primitive. + The Affected Point Code can only contain one point code + when SSN is present. + +<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" name="section-3.4.3" href="#section-3.4.3">3.4.3</a>. Destination State Audit (DAUD)</span> + + The DAUD message can be sent from the ASP to the SG (or relay node) + to query the availability state of the routes to an affected + destination. A DAUD may be sent periodically after the ASP has + received a DUNA, until a DAVA is received. The DAUD can also be sent + when an ASP recovers from isolation from the SG (or relay node). + + + + +<span class="grey">Loughney, et al. Standards Track [Page 44]</span></pre> +<hr class='noprint' style='width: 96ex;' align='left'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><a name="page-45" id="page-45" href="#page-45" class="invisible"> </a> +<span class="grey"><a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3868">RFC 3868</a> SUA October 2004</span> + + + 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 | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + / Routing Context / + \ \ + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Tag = 0x0012 | Length | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + / Affected Point Code / + \ \ + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Tag = 0x8003 | Length | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | SSN | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Tag = 0x010C | Length | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | User/Cause | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Tag = 0x0004 | Length | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + / Info String / + \ \ + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + + Parameters + Routing Context Optional + Affected Point Code Mandatory *1 + SSN Optional *1 + User / Cause Optional + Info String Optional + + Note 1: If the SSN is present, the DAUD is "soliciting" N-STATE + primitives, otherwise it is "soliciting" N-PCSTATE + primitives. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +<span class="grey">Loughney, et al. Standards Track [Page 45]</span></pre> +<hr class='noprint' style='width: 96ex;' align='left'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><a name="page-46" id="page-46" href="#page-46" class="invisible"> </a> +<span class="grey"><a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3868">RFC 3868</a> SUA October 2004</span> + + +<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" name="section-3.4.4" href="#section-3.4.4">3.4.4</a>. Signalling Congestion (SCON)</span> + + The SCON message can be sent from the SG or relay node to all + concerned ASPs to indicate that the congestion level in the SS7 + network to a specified destination has changed. + + 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 | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + / Routing Context / + \ \ + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Tag = 0x0012 | Length | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + / Affected Point Code / + \ \ + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Tag = 0x8003 | Length | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | SSN | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Tag = 0x0118 | Length | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Congestion Level | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Tag = 0x0112 | Length | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | SMI | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Tag = 0x0004 | Length | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + / Info String / + \ \ + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + + Parameters + Routing Context Optional + Affected Point Code Mandatory *1 + SSN Optional *1 + Congestion Level Mandatory + SMI Optional + Info String Optional + + Note 1: When the SSN is included, the SCON message corresponds to + the SCCP N-STATE primitive. When the SSN is not + included, the SCON message corresponds to the SCCP + + + +<span class="grey">Loughney, et al. Standards Track [Page 46]</span></pre> +<hr class='noprint' style='width: 96ex;' align='left'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><a name="page-47" id="page-47" href="#page-47" class="invisible"> </a> +<span class="grey"><a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3868">RFC 3868</a> SUA October 2004</span> + + + N-PCSTATE primitive reporting signalling point or network + congestion status. + +<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" name="section-3.4.5" href="#section-3.4.5">3.4.5</a>. Destination User Part Unavailable (DUPU)</span> + + The DUPU message is used by an SG to inform an ASP that a remote peer + at an SS7 node is unavailable. + + The format for DUPU message parameters 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 + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Tag = 0x0006 | Length | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + / Routing Context / + \ \ + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Tag = 0x0012 | Length | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + / Affected Point Code / + \ \ + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Tag = 0x010C | Length | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | User/Cause | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Tag = 0x0004 | Length | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + \ \ + / INFO String / + \ \ + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + + Parameters + Routing Context Optional + Affected Point Code Mandatory *1 + User/Cause Mandatory + Info String Optional + + Note 1: The DUPU corresponds to the SCCP N-PCSTATE primitive. + +<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" name="section-3.4.6" href="#section-3.4.6">3.4.6</a>. Destination Restricted (DRST)</span> + + The DRST message is optionally sent from the SG to all concerned ASPs + to indicate that the SG has determined that one or more destinations + are now restricted from the point of view of the SG, or in response + to a DAUD message if appropriate. The SUA layer at the ASP is + + + +<span class="grey">Loughney, et al. Standards Track [Page 47]</span></pre> +<hr class='noprint' style='width: 96ex;' align='left'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><a name="page-48" id="page-48" href="#page-48" class="invisible"> </a> +<span class="grey"><a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3868">RFC 3868</a> SUA October 2004</span> + + + expected to send traffic to the affected destination via an alternate + SG of equal priority, but only if such an alternate route exists and + is available. If the ASP currently considers the affected + destination unavailable, the peer should be informed that traffic to + the affected destination could be resumed. In this case, the SUA + layer should route the traffic through the SG initiating the DRST + message. + + This message is optional for the SG to send and it is optional for + the ASP to act on any information received in the message. + + 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 | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + / Routing Context / + \ \ + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Tag = 0x0012 | Length | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + / Affected Point Code / + \ \ + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Tag = 0x8003 | Length | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | SSN | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Tag = 0x0112 | Length = 8 | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Reserved | SMI | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Tag = 0x0004 | Length | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + / Info String / + \ \ + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + + Parameters + Routing Context Optional + Affected Point Code Mandatory *1 + SSN Optional *1 + SMI Optional *1 + Info String Optional + + Note 1: The Affected Point Code refers to the node to which + become restricted or which has requested coordinated + service outage. When SSN is included in the message + + + +<span class="grey">Loughney, et al. Standards Track [Page 48]</span></pre> +<hr class='noprint' style='width: 96ex;' align='left'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><a name="page-49" id="page-49" href="#page-49" class="invisible"> </a> +<span class="grey"><a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3868">RFC 3868</a> SUA October 2004</span> + + + parameter, the DRST message corresponds to the SCCP + N-COORD primitive. If the SMI parameter is also included + in the message, the DRST message corresponds to the + N-COORD Request and N-COORD Indication primitives, + otherwise, the DRST message correspondence to the N-COORD + Response and N-COORD Confirm primitives. The Affected + Point Code can only contain one point code when SSN is + present. When SSN is not present, DRST corresponds to + N-PCSTATE primitive. + +<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" name="section-3.5" href="#section-3.5">3.5</a>. Application Server Process State Maintenance Messages</span> + +<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" name="section-3.5.1" href="#section-3.5.1">3.5.1</a>. ASP Up (UP)</span> + + The ASP UP (UP) message is used to indicate to a remote SUA peer that + the Adaptation layer is up and running. + + 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 = 0x0011 | Length | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | ASP Identifier | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Tag = 0x0004 | Length | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + / Info String / + \ \ + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + + Parameters + ASP Identifier Optional *1 + Info String Optional + + Note 1: ASP Identifier MUST be used where the IPSP/SGP cannot + identify the ASP by provisioned address/port number + information (e.g., where an ASP is resident on a Host + using dynamic address/port number assignment). + + + + + + + + + + + + + +<span class="grey">Loughney, et al. Standards Track [Page 49]</span></pre> +<hr class='noprint' style='width: 96ex;' align='left'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><a name="page-50" id="page-50" href="#page-50" class="invisible"> </a> +<span class="grey"><a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3868">RFC 3868</a> SUA October 2004</span> + + +<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" name="section-3.5.2" href="#section-3.5.2">3.5.2</a>. ASP Up Ack (UP ACK)</span> + + The ASP UP Ack message is used to acknowledge an ASP-Up message + received from a remote SUA peer. + + 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 = 0x0004 | Length | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + / Info String / + + \ \ + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + + Parameters + Info String Optional + +<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" name="section-3.5.3" href="#section-3.5.3">3.5.3</a>. ASP Down (DOWN)</span> + + The ASP Down (DOWN) message is used to indicate to a remote SUA peer + that the adaptation layer is not running. + + 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 = 0x0004 | Length | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + / Info String / + \ \ + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + + Parameters + Info String Optional + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +<span class="grey">Loughney, et al. Standards Track [Page 50]</span></pre> +<hr class='noprint' style='width: 96ex;' align='left'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><a name="page-51" id="page-51" href="#page-51" class="invisible"> </a> +<span class="grey"><a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3868">RFC 3868</a> SUA October 2004</span> + + +<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" name="section-3.5.4" href="#section-3.5.4">3.5.4</a>. ASP Down Ack (DOWN ACK)</span> + + The ASP DOWN Ack message is used to acknowledge an ASP-Down message + received from a remote SUA peer. + + 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 = 0x0004 | Length | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + / Info String / + \ \ + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + + Parameters + Info String Optional + + Note: ASP DOWN ACK will always be sent to acknowledge an ASP DOWN. + +<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" name="section-3.5.5" href="#section-3.5.5">3.5.5</a>. Heartbeat (BEAT)</span> + + The Heartbeat message is optionally used to ensure that the SUA peers + are still available to each other. + + The format for the BEAT 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 + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Tag = 0x0009 | Length | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + / Heartbeat Data / + \ \ + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + + Parameters + Heartbeat Data Optional + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +<span class="grey">Loughney, et al. Standards Track [Page 51]</span></pre> +<hr class='noprint' style='width: 96ex;' align='left'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><a name="page-52" id="page-52" href="#page-52" class="invisible"> </a> +<span class="grey"><a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3868">RFC 3868</a> SUA October 2004</span> + + +<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" name="section-3.5.6" href="#section-3.5.6">3.5.6</a>. Heartbeat Ack (BEAT ACK)</span> + + The Heartbeat ACK message is sent in response to a BEAT message. A + peer MUST send a BEAT ACK in response to a BEAT message. It includes + all the parameters of the received Heartbeat message, without any + change. + + The format for the BEAT ACK 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 + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Tag = 0x0009 | Length | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + / Heartbeat Data / + \ \ + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + + Parameters + Heartbeat Data Optional + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +<span class="grey">Loughney, et al. Standards Track [Page 52]</span></pre> +<hr class='noprint' style='width: 96ex;' align='left'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><a name="page-53" id="page-53" href="#page-53" class="invisible"> </a> +<span class="grey"><a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3868">RFC 3868</a> SUA October 2004</span> + + +<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" name="section-3.6" href="#section-3.6">3.6</a>. ASP Traffic Maintenance Messages</span> + +<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" name="section-3.6.1" href="#section-3.6.1">3.6.1</a>. ASP Active (ACTIVE)</span> + + The ASPAC message is sent by an ASP to indicate to a remote SUA peer + that it is Active and ready to process signalling traffic for a + particular Application Server. + + The format for the ACTIVE 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 + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Tag = 0x000B | Length | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Traffic Mode Type | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Tag = 0x0006 | Length | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + / Routing Context / + \ \ + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Tag = 0x0110 | Length | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | TID Label | + +-------------------------------+-------------------------------+ + | Tag = 0x010F | Length | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | DRN Label | + +-------------------------------+-------------------------------+ + | Tag = 0x0004 | Length | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + / Info String / + \ \ + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + + Parameters + Traffic Mode Type Optional + Routing Context Optional + TID Label Optional + DRN Label Optional + Info String Optional + + + + + + + + + +<span class="grey">Loughney, et al. Standards Track [Page 53]</span></pre> +<hr class='noprint' style='width: 96ex;' align='left'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><a name="page-54" id="page-54" href="#page-54" class="invisible"> </a> +<span class="grey"><a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3868">RFC 3868</a> SUA October 2004</span> + + +<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" name="section-3.6.2" href="#section-3.6.2">3.6.2</a>. ASP Active Ack (ACTIVE ACK)</span> + + The ASPAC Ack message is used to acknowledge an ASP-Active message + received from a remote SUA peer. + + The format for the ACTIVE Ack 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 + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Tag = 0x000B | Length | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Traffic Mode Type | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Tag = 0x0006 | Length | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + / Routing Context / + \ \ + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Tag = 0x0004 | Length | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + / Info String / + \ \ + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + + Parameters + Traffic Mode Type Optional + Routing Context Mandatory + Info String Optional + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +<span class="grey">Loughney, et al. Standards Track [Page 54]</span></pre> +<hr class='noprint' style='width: 96ex;' align='left'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><a name="page-55" id="page-55" href="#page-55" class="invisible"> </a> +<span class="grey"><a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3868">RFC 3868</a> SUA October 2004</span> + + +<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" name="section-3.6.3" href="#section-3.6.3">3.6.3</a>. ASP Inactive (INACTIVE)</span> + + The INACTIVE message is sent by an ASP to indicate to a remote SUA + peer that it is no longer processing signalling traffic within a + particular Application Server. + + The format for the ASPIA message parameters 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 + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Tag = 0x0006 | Length | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + / Routing Context / + \ \ + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Tag = 0x0004 | Length | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + / INFO String / + \ \ + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + + Parameters + Routing Context Optional + INFO String Optional + +<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" name="section-3.6.4" href="#section-3.6.4">3.6.4</a>. ASP Inactive Ack (INACTIVE ACK)</span> + + The INACTIVE Ack message is used to acknowledge an ASP-Inactive + message received from a remote SUA peer. + + The format for the INACTIVE Ack 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 + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Tag = 0x0006 | Length | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + / Routing Context / + \ \ + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Tag = 0x0004 | Length | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + / INFO String / + \ \ + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + + + + + +<span class="grey">Loughney, et al. Standards Track [Page 55]</span></pre> +<hr class='noprint' style='width: 96ex;' align='left'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><a name="page-56" id="page-56" href="#page-56" class="invisible"> </a> +<span class="grey"><a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3868">RFC 3868</a> SUA October 2004</span> + + + Parameters + Routing Context Optional + INFO String Optional + +<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" name="section-3.7" href="#section-3.7">3.7</a>. SUA Management Messages</span> + + These messages are used for managing SUA and the representations of + the SCCP subsystems in the SUA layer. + +<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" name="section-3.7.1" href="#section-3.7.1">3.7.1</a>. Error (ERR)</span> + + The ERR message is sent between two SUA peers to indicate an error + situation. The Diagnostic Information parameter is optional, + possibly used for error logging and/or debugging. + + 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 = 0x000C | Length | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Error Code | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Tag = 0x0006 | Length | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + / Routing Context / + \ \ + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Tag = 0x0012 | Length | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Mask | Affected PC 1 | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + / ... / + \ \ + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Mask | Affected PC n | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Tag = 0x010D | Length = 8 | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Network Appearance | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Tag = 0x0007 | Length | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + / Diagnostic Info / + \ \ + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + + + + + + +<span class="grey">Loughney, et al. Standards Track [Page 56]</span></pre> +<hr class='noprint' style='width: 96ex;' align='left'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><a name="page-57" id="page-57" href="#page-57" class="invisible"> </a> +<span class="grey"><a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3868">RFC 3868</a> SUA October 2004</span> + + + Parameters + Error Code Mandatory + Routing Context Mandatory *1 + Network Appearance Mandatory *1 + Affected Point Code Mandatory *1 + Diagnostic Information Optional + + Note 1: Only mandatory for specific error codes. + +<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" name="section-3.7.2" href="#section-3.7.2">3.7.2</a>. Notify (NTFY)</span> + + The Notify message used to provide an autonomous indication of SUA + events to an SUA peer. + + 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 = 0x000D | Length | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Status | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Tag = 0x0011 | Length | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | ASP Identifier | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+- + | Tag = 0x0006 | Length | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + / Routing Context / + \ \ + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Tag = 0x0004 | Length | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + / Info String / + \ \ + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + + The NTFY message contains the following parameters: + + Parameters + Status Mandatory + ASP Identifier Optional *1 + Routing Context Optional + Info String Optional + + Note 1: ASP Identifier MUST be used where the IPSP/SGP cannot + identify the ASP by provisioned address/port number + information (e.g., where an ASP is resident on a Host + using dynamic address/port number assignment). + + + +<span class="grey">Loughney, et al. Standards Track [Page 57]</span></pre> +<hr class='noprint' style='width: 96ex;' align='left'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><a name="page-58" id="page-58" href="#page-58" class="invisible"> </a> +<span class="grey"><a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3868">RFC 3868</a> SUA October 2004</span> + + +<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" name="section-3.8" href="#section-3.8">3.8</a>. Routing Key Management (RKM) Messages</span> + +<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" name="section-3.8.1" href="#section-3.8.1">3.8.1</a>. Registration Request (REG REQ)</span> + + The REG REQ message is sent by an ASP to indicate to a remote SUA + peer that it wishes to register one or more given Routing Keys with + the remote peer. Typically, an ASP would send this message to an + SGP, and expects to receive a REG RSP message in return with an + associated Routing Context value. + + The format for the REG REQ 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 + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Tag = 0x010E | Length | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + / Routing Key 1 / + \ \ + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + / ... / + \ \ + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Tag = 0x010E | Length | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + / Routing Key n / + \ \ + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Tag = 0x0109 | Length | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | ASP Capabilities | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + + The REG REQ message contains the following parameters: + + Parameters + Routing Key Mandatory *1 + ASP Capabilities Optional + + Note 1: One or more Routing Key parameters MAY be included in a + single REG REQ message. + + + + + + + + + + +<span class="grey">Loughney, et al. Standards Track [Page 58]</span></pre> +<hr class='noprint' style='width: 96ex;' align='left'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><a name="page-59" id="page-59" href="#page-59" class="invisible"> </a> +<span class="grey"><a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3868">RFC 3868</a> SUA October 2004</span> + + +<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" name="section-3.8.2" href="#section-3.8.2">3.8.2</a>. Registration Response (REG RSP)</span> + + The REG RSP message is sent by an SG to an ASP indicate the result of + a previous REG REQ from an ASP. It contains indications of + success/failure for registration requests and returns a unique + Routing Context value for successful registration requests, to be + used in subsequent SUA Traffic Management protocol messages. + + The format for the REG RSP 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 + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Tag = 0x0014 | Length | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Registration Result 1 | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + / ... / + \ \ + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Tag = 0x0014 | Length | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Registration Result n | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + + The REG RSP message contains the following parameters: + + Parameters + Registration Result Mandatory *1 + + Note 1: One or more Registration Result parameters MAY be included + in a single REG RSP message. The number of results in a + single REG RSP message can be anywhere from one to the + total number of Routing Key parameters found in the + corresponding REG REQ message. + +<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" name="section-3.8.3" href="#section-3.8.3">3.8.3</a>. Deregistration Request (DEREG REQ)</span> + + The DEREG REQ message is sent by an ASP to indicate to a remote SUA + peer that it wishes to deregister a given Routing Key. Typically, an + ASP would send this message to an SGP, and expects to receive a DEREG + RSP message in return with the associated Routing Context value. + + + + + + + + + +<span class="grey">Loughney, et al. Standards Track [Page 59]</span></pre> +<hr class='noprint' style='width: 96ex;' align='left'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><a name="page-60" id="page-60" href="#page-60" class="invisible"> </a> +<span class="grey"><a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3868">RFC 3868</a> SUA October 2004</span> + + + The format for the DEREG REQ 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 + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Tag = 0x0006 | Length | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + / Routing Context / + \ \ + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + + The DEREG REQ message contains the following parameters: + + Parameters + Routing Context Mandatory + +<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" name="section-3.8.4" href="#section-3.8.4">3.8.4</a>. Deregistration Response (DEREG RSP)</span> + + The DEREG RSP message is used as a response to the DEREG REQ message + from a remote SUA peer. + + The format for the DEREG RSP 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 + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Tag = 0x0015 | Length | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Deregistration Result 1 | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + / ... / + \ \ + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Tag = 0x0015 | Length | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Deregistration Result n | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + + The DEREG RSP message contains the following parameters: + + Parameters + Deregistration Result Mandatory *1 + + Note 1: One or more Deregistration Result parameters MAY be + included in one DEREG RSP message. The number of results + in a single DEREG RSP message can be anywhere from one to + the total number of Routing Context parameters found in + the corresponding DEREG REQ message. + + + +<span class="grey">Loughney, et al. Standards Track [Page 60]</span></pre> +<hr class='noprint' style='width: 96ex;' align='left'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><a name="page-61" id="page-61" href="#page-61" class="invisible"> </a> +<span class="grey"><a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3868">RFC 3868</a> SUA October 2004</span> + + +<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" name="section-3.9" href="#section-3.9">3.9</a>. Common Parameters</span> + + These TLV parameters are common across the different adaptation + layers. + + Parameter Name Parameter ID + ============== ============ + Reserved 0x0000 + Not used in SUA 0x0001 + Not used in SUA 0x0002 + Not used in SUA 0x0003 + Info String 0x0004 + Not used in SUA 0x0005 + Routing Context 0x0006 + Diagnostic Info 0x0007 + Not used in SUA 0x0008 + Heartbeat Data 0x0009 + Not Used in SUA 0x000A + Traffic Mode Type 0x000B + Error Code 0x000C + Status 0x000D + Not used in SUA 0x000E + Not used in SUA 0x000F + Not used in SUA 0x0010 + ASP Identifier 0x0011 + Affected Point Code 0x0012 + Correlation ID 0x0013 + Registration Result 0x0014 + Deregistration Result 0x0015 + Registration Status 0x0016 + Deregistration Status 0x0017 + Local Routing Key Identifier 0x0018 + +<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" name="section-3.9.1" href="#section-3.9.1">3.9.1</a>. Not Used</span> + + Use of Parameter ID 0x0001 in SUA messages is not supported. + +<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" name="section-3.9.2" href="#section-3.9.2">3.9.2</a>. Not Used</span> + + Use of Parameter ID 0x0002 in SUA messages is not supported. + +<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" name="section-3.9.3" href="#section-3.9.3">3.9.3</a>. Not Used</span> + + Use of Parameter ID 0x0003 in SUA messages is not supported. + + + + + + + +<span class="grey">Loughney, et al. Standards Track [Page 61]</span></pre> +<hr class='noprint' style='width: 96ex;' align='left'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><a name="page-62" id="page-62" href="#page-62" class="invisible"> </a> +<span class="grey"><a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3868">RFC 3868</a> SUA October 2004</span> + + +<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" name="section-3.9.4" href="#section-3.9.4">3.9.4</a>. Info String</span> + + The optional INFO String parameter can carry any meaningful UTF-8 + [<a href="#ref-3629" title=""UTF-8, a transformation format of ISO 10646"">3629</a>] character string along with the message. Length of the INFO + String parameter is from 0 to 255 octets. No procedures are + presently identified for its use but service providers may use the + INFO String for debugging purposes. + + 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 = 0x0004 | Length | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + / Info String / + + \ \ + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + +<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" name="section-3.9.5" href="#section-3.9.5">3.9.5</a>. Not Used in SUA</span> + + Use of Parameter ID 0x0005 in SUA messages is not supported. + +<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" name="section-3.9.6" href="#section-3.9.6">3.9.6</a>. Routing Context</span> + + 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 | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + / Routing Context / + \ \ + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + + The Routing Context parameter contains (a list of) 4-byte unsigned + integers indexing the Application Server traffic that the sending ASP + is configured/registered to receive. There is a one-to-one + relationship between an index entry and a Routing Key or AS Name. + + An Application Server Process may be configured to process traffic + for more than one logical Application Server. From the perspective + of an ASP, a Routing Context defines a range of signalling traffic + that the ASP is currently configured to receive from the SG. + + Additionally, the Routing Context parameter identifies the SS7 + network context for the message, for the purposes of logically + separating the signalling traffic between the SGP and the Application + Server Process over a common SCTP Association, when needed. An + example is where an SGP is logically partitioned to appear as an + + + +<span class="grey">Loughney, et al. Standards Track [Page 62]</span></pre> +<hr class='noprint' style='width: 96ex;' align='left'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><a name="page-63" id="page-63" href="#page-63" class="invisible"> </a> +<span class="grey"><a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3868">RFC 3868</a> SUA October 2004</span> + + + element in several different national SS7 networks. It implicitly + defines the SS7 Point Code format used, the SS7 Network Indicator + value and SCCP protocol type/variant/version used within a separate + SS7 network. It also defines the network context for the PC and SSN + values. Where an SGP operates in the context of a single SS7 + network, or individual SCTP associations are dedicated to each SS7 + network context, this functionality is not needed. + + If the Routing Context parameter is present, it SHOULD be the first + parameter in the message as it defines the format and/or + interpretation of the parameters containing a PC or SSN value. + +<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" name="section-3.9.7" href="#section-3.9.7">3.9.7</a>. Diagnostic Information</span> + + The Diagnostic Information can be used to convey any information + relevant to an error condition, to assist in the identification of + the error condition. In the case of an Adaptation Layer Identifier + or Traffic Handling Mode, the Diagnostic Information includes the + received parameter. In the other cases, the Diagnostic information + may be the first 40 bytes of the offending message. + + 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 = 0x0007 | Length | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + / Diagnostic Information / + \ \ + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + +<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" name="section-3.9.8" href="#section-3.9.8">3.9.8</a>. Not Used</span> + + Parameter ID 0x0008 is not used in SUA. + +<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" name="section-3.9.9" href="#section-3.9.9">3.9.9</a>. Heartbeat Data</span> + + The sending node defines the Heartbeat Data field contents. It may + include a Heartbeat Sequence Number and/or Timestamp, or other + implementation specific details. + + The receiver of a Heartbeat message does not process this field as it + is only of significance to the sender. The receiver echoes the + content of the Heartbeat Data in a BEAT-Ack message. + + + + + + + + +<span class="grey">Loughney, et al. Standards Track [Page 63]</span></pre> +<hr class='noprint' style='width: 96ex;' align='left'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><a name="page-64" id="page-64" href="#page-64" class="invisible"> </a> +<span class="grey"><a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3868">RFC 3868</a> SUA October 2004</span> + + + 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 = 0x0009 | Length | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + / Heartbeat Data / + \ \ + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + + The data field can be used to store information in the heartbeat + message useful to the sending node (e.g., the data field can contain + a time stamp, a sequence number, etc.). + +<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" name="section-3.9.10" href="#section-3.9.10">3.9.10</a>. Not Used</span> + + Parameter ID 0x000A is not used in SUA. + +<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" name="section-3.9.11" href="#section-3.9.11">3.9.11</a>. Traffic Mode Type</span> + + The Traffic Mode Type parameter identifies the traffic mode of + operation of the ASP within an AS. + + 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 | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + + The valid values for Type are shown in the following table. + + 1 Override + 2 Loadshare + 3 Broadcast + + Within a Routing Context, Override, Loadshare Types and Broadcast + cannot be mixed. The Override value indicates that the ASP is + operating in Override mode, and the ASP wishes to take over all + traffic for an Application Server (i.e., primary/backup operation), + overriding any currently active ASP in the AS. In Loadshare mode, + the ASP wishes to share in the traffic distribution with any other + currently active ASPs. In Broadcast mode, the ASP wishes to receive + the same traffic as any other currently active ASPs. When there are + insufficient ASPs, the sender may immediately move the ASP to Active. + + + + + + +<span class="grey">Loughney, et al. Standards Track [Page 64]</span></pre> +<hr class='noprint' style='width: 96ex;' align='left'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><a name="page-65" id="page-65" href="#page-65" class="invisible"> </a> +<span class="grey"><a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3868">RFC 3868</a> SUA October 2004</span> + + +<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" name="section-3.9.12" href="#section-3.9.12">3.9.12</a>. Error Code</span> + + 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 =0x000C | Length = 8 | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Error Code | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + + The Error Code parameter indicates the reason for the Error Message. + The Error parameter value can be one of the following values: + + 0x01 Invalid Version + 0x02 Not Used in SUA + 0x03 Unsupported Message Class + 0x04 Unsupported Message Type + 0x05 Unsupported Traffic Handling Mode + 0x06 Unexpected Message + 0x07 Protocol Error + 0x08 Not used in SUA + 0x09 Invalid Stream Identifier + 0x0a Not used in SUA + 0x0b Not used in SUA + 0x0c Not used in SUA + 0x0d Refused - Management Blocking + 0x0e ASP Identifier Required + 0x0f Invalid ASP Identifier + 0x10 Not Used in SUA + 0x11 Invalid Parameter Value + 0x12 Parameter Field Error + 0x13 Unexpected Parameter + 0x14 Destination Status Unknown + 0x15 Invalid Network Appearance + 0x16 Missing Parameter + 0x17 Not Used in SUA + 0x18 Not Used in SUA + 0x19 Invalid Routing Context + 0x1a No Configured AS for ASP + 0x1b Subsystem Status Unknown + 0x1c Invalid loadsharing label + + The "Invalid Version" error is sent if a message was received with an + invalid or unsupported version. The Error message contains the + supported version in the Common header. The Error message could + optionally provide the unsupported version in the Diagnostic + information area. + + + + +<span class="grey">Loughney, et al. Standards Track [Page 65]</span></pre> +<hr class='noprint' style='width: 96ex;' align='left'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><a name="page-66" id="page-66" href="#page-66" class="invisible"> </a> +<span class="grey"><a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3868">RFC 3868</a> SUA October 2004</span> + + + The "Unsupported Message Class" error is sent if a message with an + unexpected or unsupported Message Class is received. + + The "Unsupported Message Type" error is sent if a message with an + unexpected or unsupported Message Type is received. + + The "Unsupported Traffic Handling Mode" error is sent by a SGP if an + ASP sends an ASP Active message with an unsupported Traffic Mode Type + or a Traffic Mode Type that is inconsistent with the presently + configured mode for the Application Server. An example would be a + case in which the SGP did not support loadsharing. + + The "Unexpected Message" error MAY be sent if a defined and + recognized message is received that is not expected in the current + state (in some cases the ASP may optionally silently discard the + message and not send an Error message). For example, silent discard + is used by an ASP if it received a DATA message from an SGP while it + was in the ASP-INACTIVE state. If the Unexpected message contained + Routing Context(s), the Routing Context(s) SHOULD be included in the + Error message. + + The "Protocol Error" error is sent for any protocol anomaly (i.e., + reception of a parameter that is syntactically correct but unexpected + in the current situation. + + The "Invalid Stream Identifier" error is sent if a message is + received on an unexpected SCTP stream. + + The "Refused - Management Blocking" error is sent when an ASP Up or + ASP Active message is received and the request is refused for + management reasons (e.g., management lockout"). If this error is in + response to an ASP Active message, the Routing Context(s) in the ASP + Active message SHOULD be included in the Error message. + + The "ASP Identifier Required" is sent by a SGP in response to an ASP + Up message that does not contain an ASP Identifier parameter when the + SGP requires one. The ASP SHOULD resend the ASP Up message with an + ASP Identifier. + + The "Invalid ASP Identifier" is send by a SGP in response to an ASP + Up message with an invalid ASP Identifier. + + The "Invalid Parameter Value" error is sent if a message is received + with an invalid parameter value (e.g., a DUPU message was received + with a Mask value other than "0". + + The "Parameter Field Error" would be sent if a message is received + with a parameter having a wrong length field. + + + +<span class="grey">Loughney, et al. Standards Track [Page 66]</span></pre> +<hr class='noprint' style='width: 96ex;' align='left'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><a name="page-67" id="page-67" href="#page-67" class="invisible"> </a> +<span class="grey"><a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3868">RFC 3868</a> SUA October 2004</span> + + + The "Unexpected Parameter" error would be sent if a message contains + an invalid parameter. + + The "Invalid Network Appearance" error is sent by a SGP if an ASP + sends a message with an invalid (not configured) Network Appearance + value. For this error, the invalid (not configured) Network + Appearance MUST be included in the Network Appearance parameter. + + The "Missing Parameter" error would be sent if a mandatory parameter + were not included in a message. + + The "Invalid Routing Context" error would be sent by a SG if an ASP + sends a message with an invalid (not configured) Routing Context + value. For this error, the invalid (not configured) Routing + Context(s) MUST be included in the Routing Context parameter. + + The "No Configured AS for ASP" error is sent if a message is received + from a peer without a Routing Context parameter and it is not known + by configuration data, which Application Servers are referenced. + + The "Destination Status Unknown" Error MAY be sent if a DAUD is + received at an SG inquiring of the availability or congestion status + of a destination, and the SG does not wish to provide the status + (e.g., the sender is not authorized to know the status). For this + error, the invalid or unauthorized Point Code(s) MUST be included + along with the Network Appearance and Routing Context associated with + the Point Code(s). + + The "Subsystem Status Unknown" Error MAY be sent if a DAUD is + received at an SG inquiring of the availability or congestion status + of a subsystem, and the SG does not wish to provide the status (e.g., + the sender is not authorized to know the status). For this error, + the invalid or unauthorized Point Code and Subsystem Number MUST be + included along with the Network Appearance and Routing Context + associated with the Point Code and Subsystem Number. + +<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" name="section-3.9.13" href="#section-3.9.13">3.9.13</a>. Status</span> + + The Status parameter identifies the type of the status that is being + notified and the Status ID. + + 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 = 0x000D | Length = 8 | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Status Type | Status ID | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + + + +<span class="grey">Loughney, et al. Standards Track [Page 67]</span></pre> +<hr class='noprint' style='width: 96ex;' align='left'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><a name="page-68" id="page-68" href="#page-68" class="invisible"> </a> +<span class="grey"><a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3868">RFC 3868</a> SUA October 2004</span> + + + The valid values for Status Type (16 bit unsigned integer) are: + + 1 Application Server state change (AS_State_Change) + 2 Other + + The Status ID parameter contains more detailed information for the + notification, based on the value of the Status Type. + + If the Status Type is AS_STATE_CHANGE, then the Status ID (16 bit + unsigned integer) values are: + + 1 reserved + 2 Application Server Inactive (AS-Inactive) + 3 Application Server Active (AS-Active) + 4 Application Server Pending (AS-Pending) + + These notifications are sent from an SGP to an ASP upon a change in + status of a particular Application Server. The value reflects the + new state of the Application Server. + + If the Status Type is "Other", then the following Status Information + values are defined: + + 1 Insufficient ASP resources active in AS + 2 Alternate ASP Active + 3 ASP failure + + These notifications are not based on the SGP reporting the state + change of an ASP or AS. In the Insufficient ASP Resources case, the + SGP is indicating to an "Inactive" ASP(s) in the AS that another ASP + is required to handle the load of the AS (Loadsharing mode or + Broadcast mode). For the Alternate ASP Active case, an ASP is + informed when an alternate ASP transitions to the ASP-Active state in + Override mode. + +<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" name="section-3.9.14" href="#section-3.9.14">3.9.14</a>. Not Used in SUA</span> + + Parameter ID 0x000E is not used in SUA. + + + + + + + + + + + + + +<span class="grey">Loughney, et al. Standards Track [Page 68]</span></pre> +<hr class='noprint' style='width: 96ex;' align='left'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><a name="page-69" id="page-69" href="#page-69" class="invisible"> </a> +<span class="grey"><a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3868">RFC 3868</a> SUA October 2004</span> + + +<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" name="section-3.9.15" href="#section-3.9.15">3.9.15</a>. Not Used in SUA</span> + + Parameter ID 0x000F is not used in SUA. + +<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" name="section-3.9.16" href="#section-3.9.16">3.9.16</a>. Not Used in SUA</span> + + Parameter ID 0x0010 is not used in SUA. + +<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" name="section-3.9.17" href="#section-3.9.17">3.9.17</a>. ASP Identifier</span> + + 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 = 0x0011 | Length = 8 | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | ASP Identifier | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + + ASP Identifier field: 32-bits (unsigned integer) + + The ASP Identifier field contains a unique value that is locally + significant among the ASPs that support an AS. The SGP should save + the ASP Identifier to be used, if necessary, with the Notify message + (see <a href="#section-3.7.2">Section 3.7.2</a>). + +<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" name="section-3.9.18" href="#section-3.9.18">3.9.18</a>. Affected Point Code</span> + + The Affected Point Code Destinations parameter contains a list of + Affected Point Code fields, each a three-octet parameter to allow for + 14-, 16- and 24-bit binary formatted SS7 Point Codes. Affected Point + Codes that are less than 24-bits are padded on the left to the 24-bit + boundary. + + 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 = 0x0012 | Length | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Mask | Affected PC 1 | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + / . . . / + \ \ + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + + The encoding is shown below for ANSI and ITU Point Code examples. + + + + + + +<span class="grey">Loughney, et al. Standards Track [Page 69]</span></pre> +<hr class='noprint' style='width: 96ex;' align='left'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><a name="page-70" id="page-70" href="#page-70" class="invisible"> </a> +<span class="grey"><a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3868">RFC 3868</a> SUA October 2004</span> + + + ANSI 24-bit Point Code: + + 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 + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Mask | Network | Cluster | Member | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + |MSB-----------------------------------------LSB| + + ITU 14-bit Point Code: + + 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 + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Mask |0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0|Zone | Region | SP | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + |MSB--------------------LSB| + + It is OPTIONAL for an implementation to generate an Affected Point + Code parameter with more than on Affected PC but the implementation + MUST accept and process an Affected Point Code parameter with more + than one Affected PC. + + Mask: 8-bits + + The Mask parameter can be used to identify a contiguous range of + Affected Destination Point Codes, independent of the point code + format. Identifying a contiguous range of Affected PCs may be useful + when reception of an MTP3 management message or a linkset event + simultaneously affects the availability status of a series of + destinations at an SG. + + The Mask parameter is an integer representing a bit mask that can be + applied to the related Affected PC field. The bit mask identifies + how many bits of the Affected PC field are significant and which are + effectively "wild-carded". For example, a mask of "8" indicates that + the last eight bits of the PC is "wild-carded". For an ANSI 24-bit + Affected PC, this is equivalent to signalling that all PCs in an ANSI + Cluster are unavailable. A mask of "3" indicates that the last three + bits of the PC is "wild-carded". For a 14-bit ITU Affected PC, this + is equivalent to signalling that an ITU Region is unavailable. + + + + + + + + + + +<span class="grey">Loughney, et al. Standards Track [Page 70]</span></pre> +<hr class='noprint' style='width: 96ex;' align='left'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><a name="page-71" id="page-71" href="#page-71" class="invisible"> </a> +<span class="grey"><a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3868">RFC 3868</a> SUA October 2004</span> + + +<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" name="section-3.9.19" href="#section-3.9.19">3.9.19</a>. Correlation ID</span> + + 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 = 0x0013 | Length = 8 | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Correlation ID | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + + The Correlation ID is a 32-bit identifier that is attached to CLDT + messages to indicate to a newly entering ASP in a Broadcast AS where + in the traffic flow of CLDT messages the ASP is joining. It is + attached to the first CLDT message sent to an ASP by an SG after + sending an ASP Active Ack or otherwise starting traffic to an ASP. + The Correlation ID is only significant within a Routing Context. + + Implementation note: Correlation ID parameter can be used for + features like Synchronisation of ASPs/SGPs in a Broadcast Mode AS/SG; + avoid message duplication and mis-sequencing in case of failover of + association from one ASP/SGP to other ASP/SGP etc. + +<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" name="section-3.9.20" href="#section-3.9.20">3.9.20</a>. Registration Result</span> + + 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 = 0x0018 | Length | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Routing Key Identifier | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Tag = 0x0016 | Length | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Registration Status | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Tag = 0x0006 | Length | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Routing Context | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + + Routing Key Identifier contains the same TLV formatted parameter + value as found in the matching Routing Key parameter in the REG REQ + message. + + Routing Context contains the same TLV formatted Routing Context + parameter for the associated Routing Key if the registration was + successful. It is set to "0" if the registration was not successful. + + + + +<span class="grey">Loughney, et al. Standards Track [Page 71]</span></pre> +<hr class='noprint' style='width: 96ex;' align='left'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><a name="page-72" id="page-72" href="#page-72" class="invisible"> </a> +<span class="grey"><a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3868">RFC 3868</a> SUA October 2004</span> + + +<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" name="section-3.9.21" href="#section-3.9.21">3.9.21</a>. Deregistration Result</span> + + 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 | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Routing Context | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Tag = 0x0017 | Length | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Deregistration Status | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + + Routing Context: 32-bit integer + + Routing Context contains the Routing Context value of the matching + Routing key to deregister, as found in the DEREG REQ message. + + Deregistration Status: 32-bit integer + + Deregistration Status parameter indicates the success or the + reason for failure of the deregistration. + +<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" name="section-3.9.22" href="#section-3.9.22">3.9.22</a>. Registration Status</span> + + 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 = 0x0016 | Length = 8 | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Registration Status | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + + Registration Status: 32-bits (unsigned integer) + + The Registration Status field indicates the success or the reason + for failure of a registration request. + + Its values may be: + 0 Successfully Registered + 1 Error - Unknown + 2 Error - Invalid Destination Address + 3 Error - Invalid Network Appearance + 4 Error - Invalid Routing Key + 5 Error - Permission Denied + 6 Error - Cannot Support Unique Routing + 7 Error - Routing Key not Currently Provisioned + + + +<span class="grey">Loughney, et al. Standards Track [Page 72]</span></pre> +<hr class='noprint' style='width: 96ex;' align='left'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><a name="page-73" id="page-73" href="#page-73" class="invisible"> </a> +<span class="grey"><a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3868">RFC 3868</a> SUA October 2004</span> + + + 8 Error - Insufficient Resources + 9 Error - Unsupported RK parameter Field + 10 Error - Unsupported/Invalid Traffic Mode Type + 11 Error - Routing Key Change Refused + +<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" name="section-3.9.23" href="#section-3.9.23">3.9.23</a>. Deregistration Status</span> + + 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 = 0x0017 | Length = 8 | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Deregistration Status | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + + Deregistration Status: 32-bit integer + + The Deregistration Result Status field indicates the success or the + reason for failure of the deregistration. + + Its values may be: + + 0 Successfully Deregistered + 1 Error - Unknown + 2 Error - Invalid Routing Context + 3 Error - Permission Denied + 4 Error - Not Registered + 5 Error - ASP Currently Active for Routing Context + +<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" name="section-3.9.24" href="#section-3.9.24">3.9.24</a>. Local Routing Key Identifier</span> + + 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 = 0x0018 | Length = 8 | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Local Routing Key Identifier | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + + The Local Routing Key Identifier field is a 32-bits unsigned integer. + The Identifier value is assigned by the ASP and is used to correlate + the response in a REG RSP message with the original registration + request. The Identifier value must remain unique until the REG RSP + message is received. + + + + + + + +<span class="grey">Loughney, et al. Standards Track [Page 73]</span></pre> +<hr class='noprint' style='width: 96ex;' align='left'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><a name="page-74" id="page-74" href="#page-74" class="invisible"> </a> +<span class="grey"><a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3868">RFC 3868</a> SUA October 2004</span> + + +<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" name="section-3.10" href="#section-3.10">3.10</a>. SUA-Specific parameters</span> + + These TLV parameters are specific to the SUA protocol. + + Parameter Name Parameter ID + ============== ============ + SS7 Hop Counter 0x0101 + Source Address 0x0102 + Destination Address 0x0103 + Source Reference Number 0x0104 + Destination Reference Number 0x0105 + SCCP Cause 0x0106 + Sequence Number 0x0107 + Receive Sequence Number 0x0108 + ASP Capabilities 0x0109 + Credit 0x010A + Data 0x010B + User/Cause 0x010C + Network Appearance 0x010D + Routing Key 0x010E + DRN Label 0x010F + TID Label 0x0110 + Address Range 0x0111 + SMI 0x0112 + Importance 0x0113 + Message Priority 0x0114 + Protocol Class 0x0115 + Sequence Control 0x0116 + Segmentation 0x0117 + Congestion Level 0x0118 + + Destination/Source Address Sub-Parameters + =========================================== + Global Title 0x8001 + Point Code 0x8002 + Subsystem Number 0x8003 + IPv4 Address 0x8004 + Hostname 0x8005 + IPv6 Addresses 0x8006 + + + + + + + + + + + + +<span class="grey">Loughney, et al. Standards Track [Page 74]</span></pre> +<hr class='noprint' style='width: 96ex;' align='left'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><a name="page-75" id="page-75" href="#page-75" class="invisible"> </a> +<span class="grey"><a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3868">RFC 3868</a> SUA October 2004</span> + + +<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" name="section-3.10.1" href="#section-3.10.1">3.10.1</a>. SS7 Hop counter</span> + + 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 = 0x0101 | Length = 8 | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Reserved | SS7 Hop Count | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + + SS7 Hop Counter (3.18/Q.713) + + The value of the SS7 Hop Counter is decremented with each global + title translation and is in the range 15 to 1. + +<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" name="section-3.10.2" href="#section-3.10.2">3.10.2</a>. Source Address</span> + + 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 = 0x0102 | Parameter Length | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Routing Indicator | Address Indicator | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + / Address parameter(s) / + \ \ + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + + The following combinations of address parameters are valid: + + - Global Title (e.g., E.164 number) + optional PC and/or SSN, SSN + may be zero, when routing is done on Global Title + + - SSN (non-zero) + optional PC and/or Global Title, when routing is + done on PC + SSN. The PC is mandatory in the source address when + sending from SGP to ASP, and in the destination address when + sending from ASP to SGP to reach the SS7 SEP. + + - Hostname + optional SSN, when routing is done by Hostname + + - SSN (non-zero) and optional IP address (IPv4 or IPv6) when routing + is done on IP address + SSN + + + + + + + + + +<span class="grey">Loughney, et al. Standards Track [Page 75]</span></pre> +<hr class='noprint' style='width: 96ex;' align='left'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><a name="page-76" id="page-76" href="#page-76" class="invisible"> </a> +<span class="grey"><a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3868">RFC 3868</a> SUA October 2004</span> + + +<span class="h5"><a class="selflink" name="section-3.10.2.1" href="#section-3.10.2.1">3.10.2.1</a>. Routing Indicator</span> + + The following values are valid for the routing indicator: + + Reserved 0 + Route on Global Title 1 + Route on SSN + PC 2 + Route on Hostname 3 + Route on SSN + IP Address 4 + + The routing indicator determines which address parameters need to be + present in the address parameters field. + +<span class="h5"><a class="selflink" name="section-3.10.2.2" href="#section-3.10.2.2">3.10.2.2</a>. Address Indicator</span> + + This parameter is needed for interworking with SS7 networks. The + address indicator specifies what address parameters are actually + received in the SCCP address from the SS7 network, or are to be + populated in the SCCP address when the message is sent into the SS7 + network. The value of the routing indicator needs to be taken into + account. It is used in the ASP to SG direction. For example, the PC + parameter is present in the destination address of the CLDT sent from + ASP->SG, but bit 2 is set to "0" meaning "do not populate this in the + SCCP called party address". The effect is that the SG only uses the + PC to populate the MTP routing label DPC field, but does not include + it in the SCCP called party address. + + In the SG->ASP direction, the source address PC parameter is present + (PC of SS7 SEP). However, this may have been populated from the OPC + in the received MTP routing label, not from the PC field in the SCCP + calling party address. In this case, bit 2 = "0" denotes that. The + AI gives further instructions to the SG how and when to populate the + SCCP addresses; in the SG->ASP direction, the AI gives information to + the ASP as to what was actually present in the received SCCP + addresses. + + The address indicator is coded as follows: + + Bit 1 is used to indicate inclusion of the SSN + + 0 Do not include SSN when optional + 1 Include SSN + + Bit 2 is used to indicate inclusion of the PC + + 0 Do not include PC, regardless of the routing indicator + value + 1 Include PC + + + +<span class="grey">Loughney, et al. Standards Track [Page 76]</span></pre> +<hr class='noprint' style='width: 96ex;' align='left'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><a name="page-77" id="page-77" href="#page-77" class="invisible"> </a> +<span class="grey"><a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3868">RFC 3868</a> SUA October 2004</span> + + + Bit 3 is used to indicate inclusion of the Global Title + + 0 Do not include GT when optional (routing indicator /= 1) + 1 Include GT + + The remaining bits are spare and SHOULD be coded zero, and MUST be + ignored by the receiver. + +<span class="h5"><a class="selflink" name="section-3.10.2.3" href="#section-3.10.2.3">3.10.2.3</a>. Global Title</span> + + 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 = 0x8001 | Length | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Reserved | GTI | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | No. Digits | Trans. type | Num. Plan | Nature of Add | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + / Global Title Digits / + \ \ + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + + Number of Digits: + + This is the number of digits contained in the Global Title. + + GTI (Global Title Indicator, defined in chapter 3.4.2.3 of Q.713). + + 0000 Invalid + 0001 Nature of Address is taken over. It is implicitly assumed + that the Translation Type = Unknown and Numbering Plan = + E.164 (value 1). + 0010 This is most commonly used in North American networks. + The Translation Type implicitly determines Nature of + Address and Numbering Plan. This data can be configured + in the SG. The number of digits is always even and + determined by the SCCP address length. + 0011 Numbering Plan and Translation Type are taken over. It is + implicitly assumed that the Nature of Address = Unknown. + 0100 This format is used in international networks and most + commonly in networks outside North America. All + information to populate the source address is present in + the SCCP Address. + + + + + + + +<span class="grey">Loughney, et al. Standards Track [Page 77]</span></pre> +<hr class='noprint' style='width: 96ex;' align='left'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><a name="page-78" id="page-78" href="#page-78" class="invisible"> </a> +<span class="grey"><a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3868">RFC 3868</a> SUA October 2004</span> + + + Translation type: + + 0 Unknown + 1 - 63 International services + 64 - 127 Spare + 128 - 254 National network specific + 255 Reserved + + Numbering Plan: + + 0 unknown + 1 ISDN/telephony numbering plan (Recommendations E.163 and + E.164) + 2 generic numbering plan + 3 data numbering plan (Recommendation X.121) + 4 telex numbering plan (Recommendation F.69) + 5 maritime mobile numbering plan (Recommendations E.210, + E.211) + 6 land mobile numbering plan (Recommendation E.212) + 7 ISDN/mobile numbering plan (Recommendation E.214) + 8 - 13 spare + 14 private network or network-specific numbering plan + 15 - 126 spare + 127 reserved. + + Nature of Address: + + 0 unknown + 1 subscriber number + 2 reserved for national use + 3 national significant number + 4 international number + 5 - 255 Spare + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +<span class="grey">Loughney, et al. Standards Track [Page 78]</span></pre> +<hr class='noprint' style='width: 96ex;' align='left'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><a name="page-79" id="page-79" href="#page-79" class="invisible"> </a> +<span class="grey"><a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3868">RFC 3868</a> SUA October 2004</span> + + + Global Title: + + Octets contain a number of address signals and possibly filler as + shown: + + 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 + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + |2 addr.|1 addr.|4 addr.|3 addr.|6 addr.|5 addr.|8 addr.|7 addr.| + | sig. | sig. | sig. | sig. | sig. | sig. | sig. | sig. | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | ............. |filler |N addr.| filler | + | |if req | sig. | | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + + All filler bits SHOULD be set to 0. + + Address signals to be coded as defined in ITU-T Q.713 <a href="#section-3.4.2.3.1">Section</a> + <a href="#section-3.4.2.3.1">3.4.2.3.1</a>. + +<span class="h5"><a class="selflink" name="section-3.10.2.4" href="#section-3.10.2.4">3.10.2.4</a>. Point Code</span> + + 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 = 0x8002 | Length = 8 | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Point Code | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + + See chapter 3.9.18 Affected Point Code for the layout of the Point + Code field. + +<span class="h5"><a class="selflink" name="section-3.10.2.5" href="#section-3.10.2.5">3.10.2.5</a>. Subsystem Number</span> + + 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 = 0x8003 | Length = 8 | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Reserved | SSN value | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + + The internationally standardized SSN values are described in chapter + 3.4.2.2 of Q.713. + + + + + + +<span class="grey">Loughney, et al. Standards Track [Page 79]</span></pre> +<hr class='noprint' style='width: 96ex;' align='left'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><a name="page-80" id="page-80" href="#page-80" class="invisible"> </a> +<span class="grey"><a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3868">RFC 3868</a> SUA October 2004</span> + + +<span class="h5"><a class="selflink" name="section-3.10.2.6" href="#section-3.10.2.6">3.10.2.6</a>. IP Addresses</span> + + The IP address formats can use different tags. It should be noted + that if the source address is in a certain IP version, the + destination address should also be in the same IP version. + + 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 = 0x8004/0x8006 | Length | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + / IPv4 or IPv6 Address / + \ \ + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + + Note: The tag value 0x8004 is for an IPv4 address and 0x8006 is + for IPv6. + +<span class="h5"><a class="selflink" name="section-3.10.2.7" href="#section-3.10.2.7">3.10.2.7</a>. Hostname</span> + + 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 = 0x8005 | Length | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + / Host Name / + \ \ + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + + Host Name: variable length + + This field contains a host name in "host name syntax" per <a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1123#section-2.1">RFC 1123 + Section 2.1</a> [<a href="#ref-1123" title=""Requirements for Internet Hosts - Application and Support"">1123</a>]. The method for resolving the host name is out of + scope for this document. + + Note: At least one null terminator is included in the Host Name + string and must be included in the length. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +<span class="grey">Loughney, et al. Standards Track [Page 80]</span></pre> +<hr class='noprint' style='width: 96ex;' align='left'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><a name="page-81" id="page-81" href="#page-81" class="invisible"> </a> +<span class="grey"><a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3868">RFC 3868</a> SUA October 2004</span> + + +<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" name="section-3.10.3" href="#section-3.10.3">3.10.3</a>. Destination Address</span> + + 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 = 0x0103 | Parameter Length | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Routing Indicator | Address Indicator | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + / Address Parameter(s) / + \ \ + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + + The format of this parameter is identical to the Source Address + parameter. + +<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" name="section-3.10.4" href="#section-3.10.4">3.10.4</a>. Source Reference Number</span> + + 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 = 0x0104 | Length = 8 | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Source Reference Number | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + + The source reference number is a 4 octet long integer. This is + allocated by the source SUA instance. + +<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" name="section-3.10.5" href="#section-3.10.5">3.10.5</a>. Destination Reference Number</span> + + 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 = 0x0105 | Length = 8 | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Destination Reference Number | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + + The destination reference number is a 4 octet long integer. This is + allocated by the destination SUA instance. + + + + + + + + + + +<span class="grey">Loughney, et al. Standards Track [Page 81]</span></pre> +<hr class='noprint' style='width: 96ex;' align='left'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><a name="page-82" id="page-82" href="#page-82" class="invisible"> </a> +<span class="grey"><a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3868">RFC 3868</a> SUA October 2004</span> + + +<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" name="section-3.10.6" href="#section-3.10.6">3.10.6</a>. SCCP Cause</span> + + 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 = 0x0106 | Length = 8 | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Reserved | Cause Type | Cause Value | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + + This parameter bundles the SCCP parameters Release cause, Return + cause, Reset cause, Error cause and Refusal cause. + + Cause Type can have the following values: + + Return Cause 0x1 + Refusal Cause 0x2 + Release Cause 0x3 + Reset Cause 0x4 + Error Cause 0x5 + + Cause Value contains the specific cause value. Below gives examples + for ITU SCCP values. ANSI references can be found in ANSI T1.112.3 + + Cause value in Correspondence with Reference + SUA message SCCP parameter + ------------------ ----------------- --------- + CLDR Return Cause ITU-T Q.713 Chap 3.12 + COREF Refusal Cause ITU-T Q.713 Chap 3.15 + RELRE Release Cause ITU-T Q.713 Chap 3.11 + RESRE Reset Cause ITU-T Q.713 Chap 3.13 + ERR Error Cause ITU-T Q.713 Chap 3.14 + +<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" name="section-3.10.7" href="#section-3.10.7">3.10.7</a>. Sequence Number</span> + + 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 = 0x0107 | Length = 8 | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Reserved | Rec Seq Num|M| Sent Seq Num | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + + This parameter is used to indicate whether "more" data will follow in + subsequent CODT messages, and/or to number each CODT message + sequentially for the purpose of flow control. It contains the + received as well as the sent sequence number, P(R) and P(S) in Q.713, + chapters 3.7 and 3.9. + + + +<span class="grey">Loughney, et al. Standards Track [Page 82]</span></pre> +<hr class='noprint' style='width: 96ex;' align='left'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><a name="page-83" id="page-83" href="#page-83" class="invisible"> </a> +<span class="grey"><a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3868">RFC 3868</a> SUA October 2004</span> + + + As such it can also be used to acknowledge the receipt of data + transfers from the peer in case of protocol class 3. + + Sent Sequence Number is one octet and is coded as follows: + + Bits 2-8 are used to indicate the Send Sequence Number P(S). + Bit 1 (LSB) of octet 1 is spare. + + Received Sequence Number is one octet, and is coded as follows: + + Bits 2-8 are used to indicate the Received Sequence Number + P(R). + Bit 1 (LSB) is used for the more data indication, as follows: + + 0 no more data + 1 more data + +<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" name="section-3.10.8" href="#section-3.10.8">3.10.8</a>. Receive Sequence Number</span> + + 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 = 0x0108 | Length = 8 | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Reserved | Rec Seq Num | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + + This parameter is used exclusively for protocol class 3 in the data + acknowledgement message to indicate the lower edge of the receiving + window. See Q.713, chapter 3.9. + + It is a 1 octet long integer coded as follows: + + Bits 8-2 are used to indicate the Received Sequence Number P(R). + + Bit 1 is spare. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +<span class="grey">Loughney, et al. Standards Track [Page 83]</span></pre> +<hr class='noprint' style='width: 96ex;' align='left'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><a name="page-84" id="page-84" href="#page-84" class="invisible"> </a> +<span class="grey"><a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3868">RFC 3868</a> SUA October 2004</span> + + +<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" name="section-3.10.9" href="#section-3.10.9">3.10.9</a>. ASP Capabilities</span> + + This parameter is used so that the ASP can report its capabilities + regarding SUA for supporting different protocol classes and + interworking scenarios. + + 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 = 0x0109 | Length = 8 | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Reserved |0 0 0 0|a|b|c|d| Interworking | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + + Flags + + a - Protocol Class 3 + b - Protocol Class 2 + c - Protocol Class 1 + d - Protocol Class 0 + + It is mandatory to support at least Protocol Class 0. + + Interworking + + Values + + 0x0 indicates no interworking with SS7 Networks. + 0x1 indicates IP Signalling Endpoint (ASP), interworking with SS7 + networks. + 0x2 indicates Signalling Gateway. + 0x3 indicates relay node support. + +<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" name="section-3.10.10" href="#section-3.10.10">3.10.10</a>. Credit</span> + + 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 = 0x010A | Length = 8 | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Reserved | Credit | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + + The length of the credit field is one octet. See ITU-T Q.713 Chapter + 3.10. The parameter is used for protocol class 3 exclusively. + + + + + + +<span class="grey">Loughney, et al. Standards Track [Page 84]</span></pre> +<hr class='noprint' style='width: 96ex;' align='left'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><a name="page-85" id="page-85" href="#page-85" class="invisible"> </a> +<span class="grey"><a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3868">RFC 3868</a> SUA October 2004</span> + + +<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" name="section-3.10.11" href="#section-3.10.11">3.10.11</a>. Data</span> + + 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 = 0x010b | Length | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + / Data / + \ \ + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + + The Data parameter field contains the SS7 SCCP-User application + message, for example an INAP/TCAP message. + +<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" name="section-3.10.12" href="#section-3.10.12">3.10.12</a>. User/Cause</span> + + 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 = 0x010c | Length = 8 | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Cause | User | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + + "User" is coded to that SCCP's SI value. There may be several SCCP's + at a given point code, each with different SI values, although + normally there is only one with SI = 3. + + Cause may take the following values + + 0 remote SCCP unavailable, reason unknown; + 1 remote SCCP unequipped; + 2 remote SCCP inaccessible; + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +<span class="grey">Loughney, et al. Standards Track [Page 85]</span></pre> +<hr class='noprint' style='width: 96ex;' align='left'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><a name="page-86" id="page-86" href="#page-86" class="invisible"> </a> +<span class="grey"><a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3868">RFC 3868</a> SUA October 2004</span> + + +<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" name="section-3.10.13" href="#section-3.10.13">3.10.13</a>. Network Appearance</span> + + 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 = 0x010D | Length = 8 | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Network Appearance | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + + Network Appearance field: 32-bits (unsigned integer) + + The Network Appearance field identifies the SS7 network context + for the Routing Key. The Network Appearance value is of local + significance only, coordinated between the SG and ASP. Therefore, + in the case where the ASP is connected to more than one SG, the + same SS7 Network context may be identified by different Network + Appearance values depending upon to which SG the ASP is + registering. + + In the Routing Key, the Network Appearance identifies the SS7 + Point Code and Global Title Translation Type format used, and the + SCCP and possibly the SCCP-User protocol (type, variant and + version) used within the specific SS7 network. + +<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" name="section-3.10.14" href="#section-3.10.14">3.10.14</a>. Routing Key</span> + + 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 = 0x010E | Length | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Tag = 0x0018 | Length = 8 | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Local Routing Key Identifier | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + \ Key parameter(s) \ + / / + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + + Local Routing Key Identifier field: 32-bits (unsigned integer) + + Key field: variable + + + + + + + + +<span class="grey">Loughney, et al. Standards Track [Page 86]</span></pre> +<hr class='noprint' style='width: 96ex;' align='left'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><a name="page-87" id="page-87" href="#page-87" class="invisible"> </a> +<span class="grey"><a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3868">RFC 3868</a> SUA October 2004</span> + + + The Key field contains the following parameters: + + Parameter + Traffic Mode Type Optional + Network Appearance Optional *1 + Source Address Optional + Destination Address Optional + Address Range Optional + + Note 1: The Network Appearance parameter must be included in the + Routing Key when the ASP is able to register in multiple + SS7 Network contexts. + +<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" name="section-3.10.15" href="#section-3.10.15">3.10.15</a>. DRN Label</span> + + 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 = 0x010F | Length = 8 | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | start | end | label value | + +---------------+---------------+-------------------------------+ + + The Start parameter is the start position of label, between 0 (LSB) + and 23 (MSB). + + The End parameter is the end position of label, between 0 (LSB) and + 23 (MSB). + + Label value is a 16-bit integer, which is unique across an AS. + +<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" name="section-3.10.16" href="#section-3.10.16">3.10.16</a>. TID Label</span> + + 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 = 0x0110 | Length = 8 | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | start | end | label value | + +---------------+---------------+-------------------------------+ + + The Start parameter is the start position of label, between 0 (LSB) + and 31 (MSB). + + The End parameter is the end position of label, between 0 (LSB) and + 31 (MSB). + + + + + + + +<span class="grey">Loughney, et al. Standards Track [Page 87]</span></pre> +<hr class='noprint' style='width: 96ex;' align='left'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><a name="page-88" id="page-88" href="#page-88" class="invisible"> </a> +<span class="grey"><a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3868">RFC 3868</a> SUA October 2004</span> + + + Label value is a 16-bit integer, which is unique across an AS. + +<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" name="section-3.10.17" href="#section-3.10.17">3.10.17</a>. Address Range</span> + + 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 = 0x0111 | Length | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + \ Address parameter(s) \ + / / + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + + Address field: + + The Address field the following parameters: + + Parameter + Source Address Optional *1 + Destination Address Optional *1 + + Note 1: The Address field must contain pairs of Source Addresses + or pairs of Destination Addresses but MUST NOT mix Source + Addresses with Destination Addresses in the same Address + field. + +<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" name="section-3.10.18" href="#section-3.10.18">3.10.18</a>. SMI</span> + + 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 = 0x0112 | Length = 8 | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Reserved | SMI | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + + Subsystem Multiplicity Indicator (SMI) can have the following + values: + + 0x00 Reserved/Unknown + 0x01 Solitary + 0x02 Duplicated + 0x03 Triplicated + 0x04 Quadruplicated + 0xff Unspecified + + + + + + +<span class="grey">Loughney, et al. Standards Track [Page 88]</span></pre> +<hr class='noprint' style='width: 96ex;' align='left'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><a name="page-89" id="page-89" href="#page-89" class="invisible"> </a> +<span class="grey"><a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3868">RFC 3868</a> SUA October 2004</span> + + +<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" name="section-3.10.19" href="#section-3.10.19">3.10.19</a>. Importance</span> + + 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 = 0x0113 | Length = 8 | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Reserved | Importance | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + + Importance (3.19/Q.713) + + Possible values of the Importance Parameter are between 0 and 7, + where the value of 0 indicates the least important and 7 indicates + the most important. + +<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" name="section-3.10.20" href="#section-3.10.20">3.10.20</a>. Message Priority (or Priority)</span> + + 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 = 0x0114 | Length = 8 | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Reserved | Msg Priority | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + + Priority + + Priority value ranges from 0 to 3. If the Priority value has not + been specified by the SCCP user, it should be set to 0xFF. The SG + MAY take the priority into account for determining the MTP message + priority. In the all-IP case, this parameter MAY be used. + + The Message Priority parameter is optional in the CLDT, CLDR, CORE, + COAK and CODT messages. However, for networks, which support Message + Priority (e.g., ANSI), this parameter MUST be included but it is not + required for those which don't (e.g., International). + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +<span class="grey">Loughney, et al. Standards Track [Page 89]</span></pre> +<hr class='noprint' style='width: 96ex;' align='left'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><a name="page-90" id="page-90" href="#page-90" class="invisible"> </a> +<span class="grey"><a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3868">RFC 3868</a> SUA October 2004</span> + + +<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" name="section-3.10.21" href="#section-3.10.21">3.10.21</a>. Protocol Class</span> + + 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 = 0x0115 | Length = 8 | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Reserved | Protocol Cl. | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + + Protocol class (3.6/Q.713) + + Bits 1-2 indicate the protocol class. + + Value Description + 0 Class 0 (connectionless service) + 1 Class 1 (connectionless service) + 2 Class 2 (connection-oriented service) + 3 Class 3 (connection-oriented service) + + Bit 8 indicates the use of the return on error procedure. + + Value Description + 0x0 No special options + 0x1 Return message on error + + Bits 3-7 are spare and SHOULD be coded zero, and MUST be + ignored by the receiver. + +<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" name="section-3.10.22" href="#section-3.10.22">3.10.22</a>. Sequence Control</span> + + 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 = 0x0116 | Length = 8 | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Sequence Control | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + + Sequence Control (6.2.2.2.2/Q.711) + + The field is coded with the value of the sequence control parameter + associated with a group of messages and are chosen so as to ensure + proper loadsharing of message groups over SLS values while ensuring + that sequence control values within message groups have the sequence + control value coded with the same value as the initial message of the + message group. + + + + +<span class="grey">Loughney, et al. Standards Track [Page 90]</span></pre> +<hr class='noprint' style='width: 96ex;' align='left'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><a name="page-91" id="page-91" href="#page-91" class="invisible"> </a> +<span class="grey"><a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3868">RFC 3868</a> SUA October 2004</span> + + +<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" name="section-3.10.23" href="#section-3.10.23">3.10.23</a>. Segmentation</span> + + 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 = 0x0117 | Length = 32 | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | first/remain | Segmentation Reference | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + + The first/remaining segments field is formatted as follows: bit 8 + (MSB): indicates whether this is the first segment (1) or not (0) + + bits 1-7: indicate the number of remaining segments, value between 0 + and 15 + + The field would thus be coded 1000 0000 (first, no remaining + segments) for a unsegmented CLDT. + + The segmentation reference field is a 3 byte integer, assigned by the + ASP. + +<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" name="section-3.10.24" href="#section-3.10.24">3.10.24</a>. Congestion Level</span> + + 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 = 0x0118 | Length = 8 | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Congestion Level | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + + Congestion Level field: 8-bits (unsigned integer) + + The Congestion Level field contains the level at which congestion has + occurred. + + When the Congestion Level parameter is included in a SCON message + that corresponds to an N-PCSTATE primitive, the Congestion Level + field indicates the MTP congestion level experienced by the local or + affected signalling point as indicated by the Affected Point Code(s) + also in the SCON message. In this case, valid values for the + Congestion Level field are as follows: + + 0 No Congestion or Undefined + 1 Congestion Level 1 + 2 Congestion Level 2 + 3 Congestion Level 3 + + + +<span class="grey">Loughney, et al. Standards Track [Page 91]</span></pre> +<hr class='noprint' style='width: 96ex;' align='left'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><a name="page-92" id="page-92" href="#page-92" class="invisible"> </a> +<span class="grey"><a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3868">RFC 3868</a> SUA October 2004</span> + + + When the Congestion Level parameter is included in a SCON message + that corresponds to an N-STATE primitive, the Congestion Level field + indicates the SCCP restricted importance level experienced by the + local or affected subsystem as indicated by the Affected Point Code + and Subsystem Number also in the SCON message. In this case, valid + values for the Congestion Level field range from 0 to 7, where 0 + indicates the least congested and 7 indicates the most congested + subsystem. + +<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" name="section-4" href="#section-4">4</a>. Procedures</span> + + The SUA layer needs to respond to various local primitives it + receives from other layers as well as the messages that it receives + from the peer SUA layer. This section describes the SUA procedures + in response to these events. + +<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" name="section-4.1" href="#section-4.1">4.1</a>. Procedures to Support the SUA-User Layer</span> + +<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" name="section-4.1.1" href="#section-4.1.1">4.1.1</a>. Receipt of Primitives from SCCP</span> + + When an SCCP Subsystem Management (SCMG) message is received from the + SS7 network, the SGP needs to determine whether there are concerned + Application Servers interested in subsystem status changes. The SUA + management function is informed with the N-State or N-Coord primitive + upon which it formats and transfers the applicable SNMM message to + the list of concerned ASPs using stream ID "0". + + When MTP-3 Management indications are received (MTP-PAUSE, MTP- + RESUME, MTP-STATUS), SCCP Subsystem Management determines whether + there are concerned local SCCP-users. When these local SCCP-users + are in fact Application Servers, serviced by ASPs, SUA management is + informed with the N-PCSTATE indication primitive upon which it + formats and transfers the applicable SNM message (DUNA, DAVA, DRST or + SCON) to the list of concerned ASPs using stream ID "0". + + The SUA message distribution function determines the Application + Server (AS) based on comparing the information in the N-UNITDATA + request primitive with a provisioned Routing Key. + + From the list of ASPs within the AS table, an ASP in the ASP-ACTIVE + state is selected and a DATA message is constructed and issued on the + corresponding SCTP association. If more than one ASP is in the ASP- + ACTIVE state (i.e., traffic is to be load-shared across more than one + ASP), one of the ASPs in the ASP_ACTIVE state is selected from the + list. If the ASPs are in Broadcast Mode, all active ASPs will be + selected and the message sent to each of the active ASPs. The + selection algorithm is implementation dependent but could, for + example, be round robin or based on the SLS. The appropriate + + + +<span class="grey">Loughney, et al. Standards Track [Page 92]</span></pre> +<hr class='noprint' style='width: 96ex;' align='left'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><a name="page-93" id="page-93" href="#page-93" class="invisible"> </a> +<span class="grey"><a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3868">RFC 3868</a> SUA October 2004</span> + + + selection algorithm must be chosen carefully as it is dependent on + application assumptions and understanding of the degree of state + coordination between the ASP_ACTIVE ASPs in the AS. + + In addition, the message needs to be sent on the appropriate SCTP + stream, again taking care to meet the message sequencing needs of the + signalling application. DATA messages MUST be sent on an SCTP stream + other than stream '0' when there is more than one stream. + + When there is no Routing Key match, or only a partial match, for an + incoming SS7 message, a default treatment MAY be specified. Possible + solutions are to provide a default Application Server at the SGP that + directs all unallocated traffic to a (set of) default ASP(s), or to + drop the message and provide a notification to Layer Management in an + M-ERROR indication primitive. The treatment of unallocated traffic + is implementation dependent. + +<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" name="section-4.2" href="#section-4.2">4.2</a>. Receipt of Primitives from the Layer Management</span> + + On receiving primitives from the local Layer Management, the SUA + layer will take the requested action and provide an appropriate + response primitive to Layer Management. + + An M-SCTP_ESTABLISH request primitive from Layer Management at an ASP + or IPSP will initiate the establishment of an SCTP association. The + SUA layer will attempt to establish an SCTP association with the + remote SUA peer by sending an SCTP-ASSOCIATE primitive to the local + SCTP layer. + + When an SCTP association has been successfully established, the SCTP + will send an SCTP-COMMUNICATION_UP notification primitive to the + local SUA layer. At the ASP or IPSP that initiated the request, the + SUA layer will send an M-SCTP_ESTABLISH confirm primitive to Layer + Management when the association setup is complete. At the peer SUA + layer, an M-SCTP_ESTABLISH indication primitive is sent to Layer + Management upon successful completion of an incoming SCTP association + setup. + + An M-SCTP_RELEASE request primitive from Layer Management initiates + the shutdown of an SCTP association. The SUA layer accomplishes a + graceful shutdown of the SCTP association by sending an SCTP-SHUTDOWN + primitive to the SCTP layer. + + When the graceful shutdown of the SCTP association has been + accomplished, the SCTP layer returns an SCTP-SHUTDOWN_COMPLETE + notification primitive to the local SUA layer. At the SUA Layer that + initiated the request, the SUA layer will send an M-SCTP_RELEASE + confirm primitive to Layer Management when the association shutdown + + + +<span class="grey">Loughney, et al. Standards Track [Page 93]</span></pre> +<hr class='noprint' style='width: 96ex;' align='left'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><a name="page-94" id="page-94" href="#page-94" class="invisible"> </a> +<span class="grey"><a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3868">RFC 3868</a> SUA October 2004</span> + + + is complete. At the peer SUA Layer, an M-SCTP_RELEASE indication + primitive is sent to Layer Management upon abort or successful + shutdown of an SCTP association. + + An M-SCTP_STATUS request primitive supports a Layer Management query + of the local status of a particular SCTP association. The SUA layer + simply maps the M-SCTP_STATUS request primitive to an SCTP-STATUS + primitive to the SCTP layer. When the SCTP responds, the SUA layer + maps the association status information to an M-SCTP_STATUS confirm + primitive. No peer protocol is invoked. + + Similar LM-to-SUA-to-SCTP and/or SCTP-to-SUA-to-LM primitive mappings + can be described for the various other SCTP Upper Layer primitives in + <a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2960">RFC 2960</a> [<a href="#ref-2960" title=""Stream Control Transmission Protocol"">2960</a>] such as INITIALIZE, SET PRIMARY, CHANGE HEARTBEAT, + REQUEST HEARTBEAT, GET SRTT REPORT, SET FAILURE THRESHOLD, SET + PROTOCOL PARAMETERS, DESTROY SCTP INSTANCE, SEND FAILURE, AND NETWORK + STATUS CHANGE. Alternatively, these SCTP Upper Layer primitives (and + Status as well) can be considered for modeling purposes as a Layer + Management interaction directly with the SCTP Layer. + + M-NOTIFY indication and M-ERROR indication primitives indicate to + Layer Management the notification or error information contained in a + received SUA Notify or Error message respectively. These indications + can also be generated based on local SUA events. + + An M-ASP_STATUS request primitive supports a Layer Management query + of the status of a particular local or remote ASP. The SUA layer + responds with the status in an M-ASP_STATUS confirm primitive. No + SUA peer protocol is invoked. An M-AS_STATUS request supports a + Layer Management query of the status of a particular AS. The SUA + responds with an M-AS_STATUS confirm primitive. No SUA peer protocol + is invoked. + + M-ASP_UP request, M-ASP_DOWN request, M-ASP_ACTIVE request and M- + ASP_INACTIVE request primitives allow Layer Management at an ASP to + initiate state changes. Upon successful completion, a corresponding + confirm primitive is provided by the SUA layer to Layer Management. + If an invocation is unsuccessful, an Error indication primitive is + provided in the primitive. These requests result in outgoing ASP Up, + ASP Down, ASP Active and ASP Inactive messages to the remote SUA peer + at an SGP or IPSP. + + + + + + + + + + +<span class="grey">Loughney, et al. Standards Track [Page 94]</span></pre> +<hr class='noprint' style='width: 96ex;' align='left'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><a name="page-95" id="page-95" href="#page-95" class="invisible"> </a> +<span class="grey"><a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3868">RFC 3868</a> SUA October 2004</span> + + +<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" name="section-4.2.1" href="#section-4.2.1">4.2.1</a>. Receipt of SUA Peer Management Messages</span> + + Upon successful state changes resulting from reception of ASP Up, ASP + Down, ASP Active and ASP Inactive messages from a peer SUA, the SUA + layer MAY invoke corresponding M-ASP_UP, M-ASP_DOWN, M-ASP_ACTIVE and + M-ASP_INACTIVE, M-AS_ACTIVE, M-AS_INACTIVE, and M-AS_DOWN indication + primitives to the local Layer Management. + + M-NOTIFY indication and M-ERROR indication primitives indicate to + Layer Management the notification or error information contained in a + received SUA Notify or Error message. These indications can also be + generated based on local SUA events. + + All non-Transfer and non-SSNM messages, except BEAT and BEAT Ack, + SHOULD be sent with sequenced delivery to ensure ordering. All non- + Transfer messages, with the exception of ASPTM, BEAT and BEAT Ack + messages SHOULD be sent on SCTP stream '0'. ASPTM messages MAY be + sent on one of the streams used to carry data traffic related to the + Routing Context(s), to minimize possible message loss. BEAT and BEAT + Ack messages MAY be sent using out-of-order delivery, and MAY be sent + on any stream. + +<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" name="section-4.3" href="#section-4.3">4.3</a>. AS and ASP State Maintenance</span> + + The SUA layer on the SGP maintains the state of each remote ASP, in + each Application Server that the ASP is configured to receive + traffic, as input to the SUA message distribution function. + Similarly, where IPSPs use SUA in a point-to-point fashion, the SUA + layer in an IPSP maintains the state of remote IPSPs. + + Two IPSP models are defined with regards to the number of messages + that are needed to a IPSP state change. They are defined as follows: + + 1. IPSP Single Exchange (SE) model. Only a single exchange of ASPTM + or ASPSM messages is needed to change the IPSP state. This means + that a set of request from one end and acknowledge from the other + will be enough. + + 2. IPSP Double Exchange (DE) model. Both IPSPs have to send request + messages and both IPSPs have to acknowledge the request messages + from the other end. This results in a double exchange of ASPTM + and ASPSM message, one from each end. This configuration supports + dynamic routing key configuration by using RKM messages in the + same way as ASP-SGP scenario. + + To ensure interoperability, an SUA implementation supporting IPSP + communication MUST support IPSP SE model and MAY implement IPSP DE + model. + + + +<span class="grey">Loughney, et al. Standards Track [Page 95]</span></pre> +<hr class='noprint' style='width: 96ex;' align='left'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><a name="page-96" id="page-96" href="#page-96" class="invisible"> </a> +<span class="grey"><a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3868">RFC 3868</a> SUA October 2004</span> + + + In <a href="#section-4.3.1">section 4.3.1</a>: ASP/IPSP States, only the SGP-ASP and the IPSP SE + scenarios are described. For the IPSP DE model, both IPSPs MUST + follow the SGP side of the SGP-ASP procedures. + + In <a href="#section-4.3.2">section 4.3.2</a>, only the SGP-ASP scenario is described. All of the + procedures referring to an AS served by ASPs are also applicable to + ASs served by IPSPs. + + In <a href="#section-4.3.3">section 4.3.3</a>, only the Management procedures for the SGP-ASP + scenario are described. The corresponding Management procedures for + IPSPs are directly inferred. + + The remaining sections contain specific IPSP Considerations + subsections. + +<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" name="section-4.3.1" href="#section-4.3.1">4.3.1</a>. ASP States</span> + + The state of each remote ASP/IPSP, in each AS that it is configured + to operate, is maintained in the peer SUA layer (i.e., in the SGP or + peer IPSP, respectively). The state of a particular ASP/IPSP in a + particular AS changes due to events. The events include: + + * Reception of messages from the peer SUA layer at the ASP/IPSP; + * Reception of some messages from the peer SUA layer at other + ASPs/IPSPs in the AS (e.g., ASP Active message indicating + "Override"); + * Reception of indications from the SCTP layer; or + * Local Management intervention. + + The ASP/IPSP state transition diagram is shown in Figure 1. The + possible states of an ASP/IPSP are: + + ASP-DOWN: The remote SUA peer at the ASP/IPSP is unavailable and/or + the related SCTP association is down. Initially all ASPs/IPSPs will + be in this state. An ASP/IPSP in this state SHOULD NOT be sent any + SUA messages, with the exception of Heartbeat, ASP Down Ack and Error + messages. + + ASP-INACTIVE: The remote SUA peer at the ASP/IPSP is available (and + the related SCTP association is up) but application traffic is + stopped. In this state the ASP/IPSP SHOULD NOT be sent any DATA or + SSNM messages for the AS for which the ASP/IPSP is inactive. + + ASP-ACTIVE: The remote SUA peer at the ASP/IPSP is available and + application traffic is active (for a particular Routing Context or + set of Routing Contexts). + + + + + +<span class="grey">Loughney, et al. Standards Track [Page 96]</span></pre> +<hr class='noprint' style='width: 96ex;' align='left'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><a name="page-97" id="page-97" href="#page-97" class="invisible"> </a> +<span class="grey"><a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3868">RFC 3868</a> SUA October 2004</span> + + + Figure 1: ASP/IPSP State Transition Diagram, per AS + + +--------------+ + | | + +----------------------| ASP-ACTIVE | + | Other ASP/ +-------| | + | IPSP in AS | +--------------+ + | Overrides | ^ | + | | ASPAC/ | | ASPIA/ + | |[ASPAC-Ack]| | [ASPIA-Ack] + | | | v + | | +--------------+ + | | | | + | +------>| ASP-INACTIVE | + | | | + | +--------------+ + | ^ | + ASPDN/ | | | ASPDN / + [ASPDN-Ack/]| ASPUP/ | | [ASPDN-Ack /] + SCTP CDI/ | [ASPUP-Ack] | | SCTP CDI/ + SCTP RI | | | SCTP RI + | | v + | +--------------+ + | | | + +--------------------->| ASP-DOWN | + | | + +--------------+ + + + The transitions in brackets are just valid for the IPSP SE model + communication while the rest are valid for both ASPs and IPSPs. + + SCTP CDI: The SCTP CDI denotes the local SCTP layer's Communication + Down Indication to the Upper Layer Protocol (SUA) on an SGP. The + local SCTP layer will send this indication when it detects the loss + of connectivity to the ASP's peer SCTP layer. SCTP CDI is understood + as either a SHUTDOWN_COMPLETE notification or COMMUNICATION_LOST + notification from the SCTP layer. + + SCTP RI: The local SCTP layer's Restart indication to the upper layer + protocol (SUA) on an SG. The local SCTP will send this indication + when it detects a restart from the ASP's peer SCTP layer. + +<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" name="section-4.3.2" href="#section-4.3.2">4.3.2</a>. AS States</span> + + The state of the AS is maintained in the SUA layer on the SGP. The + state of an AS changes due to events. These events include: + + + + +<span class="grey">Loughney, et al. Standards Track [Page 97]</span></pre> +<hr class='noprint' style='width: 96ex;' align='left'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><a name="page-98" id="page-98" href="#page-98" class="invisible"> </a> +<span class="grey"><a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3868">RFC 3868</a> SUA October 2004</span> + + + * ASP state transitions + * Recovery timer triggers + + The possible states of an AS are: + + AS-DOWN: The Application Server is unavailable. This state + implies that all related ASPs are in the ASP-DOWN state + for this AS. Initially the AS will be in this state. + An Application Server is in the AS-DOWN state before it + can be removed from a configuration. + + AS-INACTIVE: The Application Server is available but no application + traffic is active (i.e., one or more related ASPs are in + the ASP-INACTIVE state, but none in the ASP-ACTIVE + state). The recovery timer T(r) is not running or has + expired. + + AS-ACTIVE : The Application Server is available and application + traffic is active. This state implies that at least one + ASP is in the ASP-ACTIVE state. + + AS-PENDING: An active ASP has transitioned to ASP-INACTIVE or ASP- + DOWN and it was the last remaining active ASP in the AS. + A recovery timer T(r) SHOULD be started and all incoming + signalling messages SHOULD be queued by the SGP. If an + ASP becomes ASP-ACTIVE before T(r) expires, the AS is + moved to the AS-ACTIVE state and all the queued messages + will be sent to the ASP. + + If T(r) expires before an ASP becomes ASP-ACTIVE, and the SGP has no + alternative, the SGP may stop queueing messages and discard all + previously queued messages. The AS will move to the AS-INACTIVE + state if at least one ASP is in ASP-INACTIVE state, otherwise it will + move to AS-DOWN state. + + Figure 2 shows an example AS state machine for the case where the + AS/ASP data is provisioned. For other cases where the AS/ASP + configuration data is created dynamically, there would be differences + in the state machine, especially at creation of the AS. + + For example, where the AS/ASP configuration data is not created until + Registration of the first ASP, the AS-INACTIVE state is entered + directly upon the first successful REG REQ from an ASP. Another + example is where the AS/ASP configuration data is not created until + the first ASP successfully enters the ASP-ACTIVE state. In this case + the AS-ACTIVE state is entered directly. + + + + + +<span class="grey">Loughney, et al. Standards Track [Page 98]</span></pre> +<hr class='noprint' style='width: 96ex;' align='left'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><a name="page-99" id="page-99" href="#page-99" class="invisible"> </a> +<span class="grey"><a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3868">RFC 3868</a> SUA October 2004</span> + + + Figure 2: AS State Transition Diagram + + +----------+ one ASP trans to ACTIVE +-------------+ + | AS- |---------------------------->| AS- | + | INACTIVE | | ACTIVE | + | |<--- | | + +----------+ \ +-------------+ + ^ | \ Tr Expiry, ^ | + | | \ at least one | | + | | \ ASP in ASP-INACTIVE | | + | | \ | | + | | \ | | + | | \ | | + one ASP | | all ASP \ one ASP | | Last ACTIVE + trans | | trans to \ trans to | | ASP trans to + to | | ASP-DOWN -------\ ASP- | | ASP-INACTIVE + ASP- | | \ ACTIVE | | or ASP-DOWN + INACTIVE| | \ | | (start Tr) + | | \ | | + | | \ | | + | v \ | v + +----------+ \ +-------------+ + | | --| | + | AS-DOWN | | AS-PENDING | + | | | (queueing) | + | |<----------------------------| | + +----------+ Tr Expiry and no ASP +-------------+ + in ASP-INACTIVE state + + Tr = Recovery Timer + +<span class="h5"><a class="selflink" name="section-4.3.2.1" href="#section-4.3.2.1">4.3.2.1</a>. IPSP Considerations</span> + + The AS state diagram for the AS-SG case is applicable for IPSP + communication. + +<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" name="section-4.3.3" href="#section-4.3.3">4.3.3</a>. SUA Management Procedures for Primitives</span> + + Before the establishment of an SCTP association the ASP state at both + the SGP and ASP is assumed to be in the state ASP-DOWN. + + Once the SCTP association is established (see <a href="#section-4.2.1">Section 4.2.1</a>) and + assuming that the local SUA-User is ready, the local SUA ASP + Maintenance (ASPM) function will initiate the relevant procedures, + using the ASP Up/ASP Down/ASP Active/ASP Inactive messages to convey + the ASP state to the SGP (see <a href="#section-4.3.4">Section 4.3.4</a>). + + + + + +<span class="grey">Loughney, et al. Standards Track [Page 99]</span></pre> +<hr class='noprint' style='width: 96ex;' align='left'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><a name="page-100" id="page-100" href="#page-100" class="invisible"> </a> +<span class="grey"><a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3868">RFC 3868</a> SUA October 2004</span> + + + If the SUA layer subsequently receives an SCTP-COMMUNICATION_DOWN or + SCTP-RESTART indication primitive from the underlying SCTP layer, it + will inform the Layer Management by invoking the M-SCTP_STATUS + indication primitive. The state of the ASP will be moved to ASP- + DOWN. + + In the case of SCTP-COMMUNICATION_DOWN, the SCTP client MAY try to + reestablish the SCTP association. This MAY be done by the SUA layer + automatically, or Layer Management MAY reestablish using the M- + SCTP_ESTABLISH request primitive. + + In the case of an SCTP-RESTART indication at an ASP, the ASP is now + considered by its SUA peer to be in the ASP-DOWN state. The ASP, if + it is to recover, must begin any recovery with the ASP-Up procedure. + +<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" name="section-4.3.4" href="#section-4.3.4">4.3.4</a>. ASPM Procedures for Peer-to-Peer Messages</span> + +<span class="h5"><a class="selflink" name="section-4.3.4.1" href="#section-4.3.4.1">4.3.4.1</a>. ASP Up Procedures</span> + + After an ASP has successfully established an SCTP association to an + SGP, the SGP waits for the ASP to send an ASP Up message, indicating + that the ASP SUA peer is available. The ASP is always the initiator + of the ASP Up message. This action MAY be initiated at the ASP by an + M-ASP_UP request primitive from Layer Management or MAY be initiated + automatically by an SUA management function. + + When an ASP Up message is received at an SGP and internally the + remote ASP is in the ASP-DOWN state and not considered locked-out for + local management reasons, the SGP marks the remote ASP in the state + ASP-INACTIVE and informs Layer Management with an M-ASP_Up indication + primitive. If the SGP is aware, via current configuration data, + which Application Servers the ASP is configured to operate in, the + SGP updates the ASP state to ASP-INACTIVE in each AS that it is a + member. + + Alternatively, the SGP may move the ASP into a pool of Inactive ASPs + available for future configuration within Application Server(s), + determined in a subsequent Registration Request or ASP Active + procedure. If the ASP Up message contains an ASP Identifier, the SGP + should save the ASP Identifier for that ASP. The SGP MUST send an + ASP Up Ack message in response to a received ASP Up message even if + the ASP is already marked as ASP-INACTIVE at the SGP. + + If for any local reason (e.g., management lock-out) the SGP cannot + respond with an ASP Up Ack message, the SGP responds to an ASP Up + message with an Error message with Reason "Refused - Management + Blocking". + + + + +<span class="grey">Loughney, et al. Standards Track [Page 100]</span></pre> +<hr class='noprint' style='width: 96ex;' align='left'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><a name="page-101" id="page-101" href="#page-101" class="invisible"> </a> +<span class="grey"><a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3868">RFC 3868</a> SUA October 2004</span> + + + At the ASP, the ASP Up Ack message received is not acknowledged. + Layer Management is informed with an M-ASP_UP confirm primitive. + + When the ASP sends an ASP Up message it starts timer T(ack). If the + ASP does not receive a response to an ASP Up message within T(ack), + the ASP MAY restart T(ack) and resend ASP Up messages until it + receives an ASP Up Ack message. T(ack) is provisioned, with a + default of 2 seconds. Alternatively, retransmission of ASP Up + messages MAY be put under control of Layer Management. In this + method, expiry of T(ack) results in an M-ASP_UP confirm primitive + carrying a negative indication. + + The ASP must wait for the ASP Up Ack message before sending any other + SUA messages (e.g., ASP Active or REG REQ). If the SGP receives any + other SUA messages before ASPUP message is received (other than ASPDN + - see <a href="#section-4.3.4.2">section 4.3.4.2</a>), the SGP SHOULD discard them. + + If an ASP Up message is received and internally the remote ASP is in + the ASP-ACTIVE state, an ASP Up Ack message is returned, as well as + an Error message ("Unexpected Message), and the remote ASP state is + changed to ASP-INACTIVE in all relevant Application Servers. + + If an ASP Up message is received and internally the remote ASP is + already in the ASP-INACTIVE state, an ASP Up Ack message is returned + and no further action is taken. + +<span class="h6"><a class="selflink" name="section-4.3.4.1.1" href="#section-4.3.4.1.1">4.3.4.1.1</a>. SUA Version Control</span> + + If an ASP Up message with an unsupported version is received, the + receiving end responds with an Error message, indicating the version + the receiving node supports and notifies Layer Management. + + This is useful when protocol version upgrades are being performed in + a network. A node upgraded to a newer version should support the + older versions used on other nodes it is communicating with. Because + ASPs initiate the ASP Up procedure it is assumed that the Error + message would normally come from the SGP. + +<span class="h6"><a class="selflink" name="section-4.3.4.1.2" href="#section-4.3.4.1.2">4.3.4.1.2</a>. IPSP Considerations</span> + + An IPSP may be considered in the ASP-INACTIVE state after and ASPUP + or ASPUP Ack has been received from it. An IPSP can be considered in + the ASP-DOWN state after an ASPDN or ASPDN Ack has been received from + it. The IPSP may inform Layer Management of the change in state of + the remote IPSP using M-ASP_UP or M-ASP_DN indication or confirmation + primitives. + + + + + +<span class="grey">Loughney, et al. Standards Track [Page 101]</span></pre> +<hr class='noprint' style='width: 96ex;' align='left'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><a name="page-102" id="page-102" href="#page-102" class="invisible"> </a> +<span class="grey"><a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3868">RFC 3868</a> SUA October 2004</span> + + + Alternatively, when using IPSP DE model, an interchange of ASP Up + messages from each end MUST be performed. Four messages are needed + for completion. + + If for any local reason (e.g., management lock-out) and IPSP cannot + respond to an ASP Up message with an ASP Up Ack message, it responds + to an ASP Up message with an Error message with Reason "Refused - + Management Blocking" and leaves the remote IPSP in the ASP-DOWN + state. + +<span class="h5"><a class="selflink" name="section-4.3.4.2" href="#section-4.3.4.2">4.3.4.2</a>. ASP Down Procedures</span> + + The ASP will send an ASP Down message to an SGP when the ASP wishes + to be removed from service in all Application Servers that it is a + member and no longer receive any Connectionless or Connection - + Oriented, SSNM or ASPTM messages. This action MAY be initiated at + the ASP by an M-ASP_DOWN request primitive from Layer Management or + MAY be initiated automatically by an SUA management function. + + Whether the ASP is permanently removed from any AS is a function of + configuration management. In the case where the ASP previously used + the Registration procedures (see <a href="#section-4.4.1">Section 4.4.1</a>) to register within + Application Servers but has not deregistered from all of them prior + to sending the ASP Down message, the SGP MUST consider the ASP as + deregistered in all Application Servers that it is still a member. + + The SGP marks the ASP as ASP-DOWN, informs Layer Management with an + M-ASP_Down indication primitive, and returns an ASP Down Ack message + to the ASP. + + The SGP MUST send an ASP Down Ack message in response to a received + ASP Down message from the ASP even if the ASP is already marked as + ASP-DOWN at the SGP. + + At the ASP, the ASP Down Ack message received is not acknowledged. + Layer Management is informed with an M-ASP_DOWN confirm primitive. If + the ASP receives an ASP Down Ack without having sent an ASP Down + message, the ASP should now consider itself as in the ASP-DOWN state. + If the ASP was previously in the ASP-ACTIVE or ASP_INACTIVE state, + the ASP should then initiate procedures to return itself to its + previous state. + + When the ASP sends an ASP Down message it starts timer T(ack). If + the ASP does not receive a response to an ASP Down message within + T(ack), the ASP MAY restart T(ack) and resend ASP Down messages until + it receives an ASP Down Ack message. T(ack) is provisioned, with a + default of 2 seconds. Alternatively, retransmission of ASP Down + + + + +<span class="grey">Loughney, et al. Standards Track [Page 102]</span></pre> +<hr class='noprint' style='width: 96ex;' align='left'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><a name="page-103" id="page-103" href="#page-103" class="invisible"> </a> +<span class="grey"><a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3868">RFC 3868</a> SUA October 2004</span> + + + messages MAY be put under control of Layer Management. In this + method, expiry of T(ack) results in an M-ASP_DOWN confirm primitive + carrying a negative indication. + +<span class="h5"><a class="selflink" name="section-4.3.4.3" href="#section-4.3.4.3">4.3.4.3</a>. ASP Active Procedures</span> + + Anytime after the ASP has received an ASP Up Ack message from the SGP + or IPSP, the ASP MAY send an ASP Active message to the SGP indicating + that the ASP is ready to start processing traffic. This action MAY + be initiated at the ASP by an M-ASP_ACTIVE request primitive from + Layer Management or MAY be initiated automatically by an SUA + management function. In the case where an ASP wishes to process the + traffic for more than one Application Server across a common SCTP + association, the ASP Active message(s) SHOULD contain a list of one + or more Routing Contexts to indicate for which Application Servers + the ASP Active message applies. It is not necessary for the ASP to + include all Routing Contexts of interest in a single ASP Active + message, thus requesting to become active in all Routing Contexts at + the same time. Multiple ASP Active messages MAY be used to activate + within the Application Servers independently, or in sets. In the + case where an ASP Active message does not contain a Routing Context + parameter, the receiver must know, via configuration data, which + Application Server(s) the ASP is a member. + + For the Application Servers that the ASP can be successfully + activated, the SGP or IPSP responds with one or more ASP Active Ack + messages, including the associated Routing Context(s) and reflecting + any Traffic Mode Type value present in the related ASP Active + message. The Routing Context parameter MUST be included in the ASP + Active Ack message(s) if the received ASP Active message contained + any Routing Contexts. Depending on any Traffic Mode Type request in + the ASP Active message, or local configuration data if there is no + request, the SGP moves the ASP to the correct ASP traffic state + within the associated Application Server(s). Layer Management is + informed with an M-ASP_Active indication. If the SGP or IPSP + receives any Data messages before an ASP Active message is received, + the SGP or IPSP MAY discard them. By sending an ASP Active Ack + message, the SGP or IPSP is now ready to receive and send traffic for + the related Routing Context(s). The ASP SHOULD NOT send Data or SSNM + messages for the related Routing Context(s) before receiving an ASP + Active Ack message, or it will risk message loss. + + Multiple ASP Active Ack messages MAY be used in response to an ASP + Active message containing multiple Routing Contexts, allowing the SGP + or IPSP to independently acknowledge the ASP Active message for + different (sets of) Routing Contexts. The SGP or IPSP MUST send an + Error message ("Invalid Routing Context") for each Routing Context + value that cannot be successfully activated. + + + +<span class="grey">Loughney, et al. Standards Track [Page 103]</span></pre> +<hr class='noprint' style='width: 96ex;' align='left'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><a name="page-104" id="page-104" href="#page-104" class="invisible"> </a> +<span class="grey"><a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3868">RFC 3868</a> SUA October 2004</span> + + + In the case where an "out-of-the-blue" ASP Active message is received + (i.e., the ASP has not registered with the SG or the SG has no static + configuration data for the ASP), the message MAY be silently + discarded. + + The SGP MUST send an ASP Active Ack message in response to a received + ASP Active message from the ASP, if the ASP is already marked in the + ASP-ACTIVE state at the SGP. + + At the ASP, the ASP Active Ack message received is not acknowledged. + Layer Management is informed with an M-ASP_ACTIVE confirm primitive. + It is possible for the ASP to receive Data message(s) before the ASP + Active Ack message as the ASP Active Ack and Data messages from an SG + or IPSP may be sent on different SCTP streams. Message loss is + possible, as the ASP does not consider itself in the ASP-ACTIVE state + until reception of the ASP Active Ack message. + + When the ASP sends an ASP Active message it starts timer T(ack). If + the ASP does not receive a response to an ASP Active message within + T(ack), the ASP MAY restart T(ack) and resend ASP Active messages + until it receives an ASP Active Ack message. T(ack) is provisioned, + with a default of 2 seconds. Alternatively, retransmission of ASP + Active messages MAY be put under control of Layer Management. In + this method, expiry of T(ack) results in an M-ASP_ACTIVE confirm + primitive carrying a negative indication. + + There are three modes of Application Server traffic handling in the + SGP SUA layer: Override, Loadshare and Broadcast. When included, the + Traffic Mode Type parameter in the ASP Active message indicates the + traffic-handling mode to be used in a particular Application Server. + If the SGP determines that the mode indicated in an ASP Active + message is unsupported or incompatible with the mode currently + configured for the AS, the SGP responds with an Error message + ("Unsupported / Invalid Traffic Handling Mode"). If the traffic- + handling mode of the Application Server is not already known via + configuration data, then the traffic-handling mode indicated in the + first ASP Active message causing the transition of the Application + Server state to AS-ACTIVE MAY be used to set the mode. + + In the case of an Override mode AS, reception of an ASP Active + message at an SGP causes the (re)direction of all traffic for the AS + to the ASP that sent the ASP Active message. Any previously active + ASP in the AS is now considered to be in state ASP-INACTIVE and + SHOULD no longer receive traffic from the SGP within the AS. The SGP + or IPSP then MUST send a Notify message ("Alternate ASP Active") to + the previously active ASP in the AS, and SHOULD stop traffic to/from + + + + + +<span class="grey">Loughney, et al. Standards Track [Page 104]</span></pre> +<hr class='noprint' style='width: 96ex;' align='left'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><a name="page-105" id="page-105" href="#page-105" class="invisible"> </a> +<span class="grey"><a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3868">RFC 3868</a> SUA October 2004</span> + + + that ASP. The ASP receiving this Notify MUST consider itself now in + the ASP-INACTIVE state, if it is not already aware of this via + inter-ASP communication with the Overriding ASP. + + In the case of a Loadshare mode AS, reception of an ASP Active + message at an SGP or IPSP causes the direction of traffic to the ASP + sending the ASP Active message, in addition to all the other ASPs + that are currently active in the AS. The algorithm at the SGP for + loadsharing traffic within an AS to all the active ASPs is + implementation dependent. The algorithm could, for example, be round + robin or based on information in the Data message (e.g., the SLS or + SSN). + + An SGP or IPSP, upon reception of an ASP Active message for the first + ASP in a Loadshare AS, MAY choose not to direct traffic to a newly + active ASP until it determines that there are sufficient resources to + handle the expected load (e.g., until there are "n" ASPs in state + ASP-ACTIVE in the AS). + + All ASPs within a load-sharing mode AS must be able to process any + Data message received for the AS, to accommodate any potential fail- + over or rebalancing of the offered load. + + In the case of a Broadcast mode AS, reception of an ASP Active + message at an SGP or IPSP causes the direction of traffic to the ASP + sending the ASP Active message, in addition to all the other ASPs + that are currently active in the AS. The algorithm at the SGP for + broadcasting traffic within an AS to all the active ASPs is a simple + broadcast algorithm, where every message is sent to each of the + active ASPs. An SGP or IPSP, upon reception of an ASP Active message + for the first ASP in a Broadcast AS, MAY choose not to direct traffic + to a newly active ASP until it determines that there are sufficient + resources to handle the expected load (e.g., until there are "n" ASPs + in state ASP-ACTIVE in the AS). + + Whenever an ASP in a Broadcast mode AS becomes ASP-ACTIVE, the SGP + MUST tag the first DATA message broadcast in each traffic flow with a + unique Correlation Id parameter. The purpose of this Correlation Id + is to permit the newly active ASP to synchronize its processing of + traffic in each traffic flow with the other ASPs in the broadcast + group. + + + + + + + + + + +<span class="grey">Loughney, et al. Standards Track [Page 105]</span></pre> +<hr class='noprint' style='width: 96ex;' align='left'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><a name="page-106" id="page-106" href="#page-106" class="invisible"> </a> +<span class="grey"><a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3868">RFC 3868</a> SUA October 2004</span> + + +<span class="h6"><a class="selflink" name="section-4.3.4.3.1" href="#section-4.3.4.3.1">4.3.4.3.1</a>. IPSP Considerations</span> + + Either of the IPSPs can initiate communication. When an IPSP + receives an ASP Active, it should mark the peer as ASP-ACTIVE and + return an ASP Active Ack message. An ASP receiving an ASP Active Ack + message may mark the peer as ASP-Active, if it is not already in the + ASP-ACTIVE state. + + Alternatively, when using IPSP DE model, an interchange of ASP Active + messages from each end MUST be performed. Four messages are needed + for completion. + +<span class="h5"><a class="selflink" name="section-4.3.4.4" href="#section-4.3.4.4">4.3.4.4</a>. ASP Inactive Procedures</span> + + When an ASP wishes to withdraw from receiving traffic within an AS, + or the ASP wants to initiate the process of deactivation, the ASP + sends an ASP Inactive message to the SGP or IPSP. + + An ASP Inactive message MUST be always responded by the peer + (although other messages may be sent in the middle): + + - If the corresponding RK is registered (statically or dynamically), + the peer should respond with an ASP Inactive Ack message. + + - If the RK is not registered, or the RC information is not valid, + the peer must respond with an ERROR message with Error Code = + "Invalid Routing Context". + + - If the RC is missing and its specification is needed according to + the used configuration, the peer must respond with an ERROR + message with Error Code = "No Configured AS for ASP". + + The action of sending the ASP Inactive message MAY be initiated at + the ASP by an M-ASP_INACTIVE request primitive from Layer Management + or MAY be initiated automatically by an SUA management function. In + the case where an ASP is processing the traffic for more than one + Application Server across a common SCTP association, the ASP Inactive + message contains one or more Routing Contexts to indicate for which + Application Servers the ASP Inactive message applies. + + In the case where an ASP Inactive message does not contain a Routing + Context parameter, the receiver must know, via configuration data, + which Application Servers the ASP is a member and move the ASP to the + ASP-INACTIVE state in each all Application Servers. + + In the case of an Override mode AS, where another ASP has already + taken over the traffic within the AS with an ASP Active ("Override") + message, the ASP that sends the ASP Inactive message is already + + + +<span class="grey">Loughney, et al. Standards Track [Page 106]</span></pre> +<hr class='noprint' style='width: 96ex;' align='left'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><a name="page-107" id="page-107" href="#page-107" class="invisible"> </a> +<span class="grey"><a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3868">RFC 3868</a> SUA October 2004</span> + + + considered by the SGP to be in state ASP-INACTIVE. An ASP Inactive + Ack message is sent to the ASP, after ensuring that all traffic is + stopped to the ASP. + + In the case of a Loadshare mode AS, the SGP moves the ASP to the + ASP-INACTIVE state and the AS traffic is reallocated across the + remaining ASPs in the state ASP-ACTIVE, as per the loadsharing + algorithm currently used within the AS. A Notify message + ("Insufficient ASP resources active in AS") MAY be sent to all + inactive ASPs, if required. An ASP Inactive Ack message is sent to + the ASP after all traffic is halted and Layer Management is informed + with an M-ASP_INACTIVE indication primitive. + + In the case of a Broadcast mode AS, the SGP moves the ASP to the + ASP-INACTIVE state and the AS traffic is broadcast only to the + remaining ASPs in the state ASP-ACTIVE. A Notify message + ("Insufficient ASP resources active in AS") MAY be sent to all + inactive ASPs, if required. An ASP Inactive Ack message is sent to + the ASP after all traffic is halted and Layer Management is informed + with an M-ASP_INACTIVE indication primitive. + + Multiple ASP Inactive Ack messages MAY be used in response to an ASP + Inactive message containing multiple Routing Contexts, allowing the + SGP or IPSP to independently acknowledge for different (sets of) + Routing Contexts. The SGP or IPSP sends an Error message ("Invalid + Routing Context") message for each invalid or not configured Routing + Context value in a received ASP Inactive message. + + The SGP MUST send an ASP Inactive Ack message in response to a + received ASP Inactive message from the ASP and the ASP is already + marked as ASP-INACTIVE at the SGP. + + At the ASP, the ASP Inactive Ack message received is not + acknowledged. Layer Management is informed with an M-ASP_INACTIVE + confirm primitive. If the ASP receives an ASP Inactive Ack without + having sent an ASP Inactive message, the ASP should now consider + itself as in the ASP-INACTIVE state. If the ASP was previously in + the ASP-ACTIVE state, the ASP should then initiate procedures to + return itself to its previous state. When the ASP sends an ASP + Inactive message it starts timer T(ack). If the ASP does not receive + a response to an ASP Inactive message within T(ack), the ASP MAY + restart T(ack) and resend ASP Inactive messages until it receives an + ASP Inactive Ack message. T(ack) is provisioned, with a default of 2 + seconds. Alternatively, retransmission of ASP Inactive messages MAY + be put under control of Layer Management. In this method, expiry of + T(ack) results in a M-ASP_Inactive confirm primitive carrying a + negative indication. + + + + +<span class="grey">Loughney, et al. Standards Track [Page 107]</span></pre> +<hr class='noprint' style='width: 96ex;' align='left'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><a name="page-108" id="page-108" href="#page-108" class="invisible"> </a> +<span class="grey"><a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3868">RFC 3868</a> SUA October 2004</span> + + + If no other ASPs in the Application Server are in the state ASP- + ACTIVE, the SGP MUST send a Notify message ("AS-Pending") to all of + the ASPs in the AS which are in the state ASP-INACTIVE. The SGP + SHOULD start buffering the incoming messages for T(r) seconds, after + which messages MAY be discarded. T(r) is configurable by the network + operator. If the SGP receives an ASP Active message from an ASP in + the AS before expiry of T(r), the buffered traffic is directed to + that ASP and the timer is cancelled. If T(r) expires, the AS is + moved to the AS-INACTIVE state. + +<span class="h6"><a class="selflink" name="section-4.3.4.4.1" href="#section-4.3.4.4.1">4.3.4.4.1</a>. IPSP Considerations</span> + + An IPSP may be considered in the ASP-INACTIVE state by a remote IPSP + after an ASP Inactive or ASP Inactive Ack message has been received + from it. + + Alternatively, when using IPSP DE model, an interchange of ASP + Inactive messages from each end MUST be performed. Four messages are + needed for completion. + +<span class="h5"><a class="selflink" name="section-4.3.4.5" href="#section-4.3.4.5">4.3.4.5</a>. Notify Procedures</span> + + A Notify message reflecting a change in the AS state MUST be sent to + all ASPs in the AS, except those in the ASP-DOWN state, with + appropriate Status Information and any ASP Identifier of the failed + ASP. At the ASP, Layer Management is informed with an M-NOTIFY + indication primitive. The Notify message must be sent whether the AS + state change was a result of an ASP failure or reception of an ASP + State management (ASPSM) / ASP Traffic Management (ASPTM) message. + In the second case, the Notify message MUST be sent after any ASP + State or Traffic Management related acknowledgement messages (e.g., + ASP Up Ack, ASP Down Ack, ASP Active Ack, or ASP Inactive Ack). + + In the case where a Notify ("AS-PENDING") message is sent by an SGP + that now has no ASPs active to service the traffic, or where a Notify + ("Insufficient ASP resources active in AS") message MUST be sent in + the Loadshare or Broadcast mode, the Notify message does not + explicitly compel the ASP(s) receiving the message to become active. + The ASPs remain in control of what (and when) traffic action is + taken. + + In the case where a Notify message does not contain a Routing Context + parameter, the receiver must know, via configuration data, of which + Application Servers the ASP is a member and take the appropriate + action in each AS. + + + + + + +<span class="grey">Loughney, et al. Standards Track [Page 108]</span></pre> +<hr class='noprint' style='width: 96ex;' align='left'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><a name="page-109" id="page-109" href="#page-109" class="invisible"> </a> +<span class="grey"><a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3868">RFC 3868</a> SUA October 2004</span> + + +<span class="h6"><a class="selflink" name="section-4.3.4.5.1" href="#section-4.3.4.5.1">4.3.4.5.1</a>. IPSP Considerations (NTFY)</span> + + Notify works in the same manner as in the SG-AS case. One of the + IPSPs can send this message to any remote IPSP that is not in the + ASP-DOWN state. + +<span class="h5"><a class="selflink" name="section-4.3.4.6" href="#section-4.3.4.6">4.3.4.6</a>. Heartbeat Procedures</span> + + The optional Heartbeat procedures MAY be used when operating over + transport layers that do not have their own heartbeat mechanism for + detecting loss of the transport association (i.e., other than SCTP). + + Either SUA peer may optionally send Heartbeat messages periodically, + subject to a provisioned timer T(beat). Upon receiving a Heartbeat + message, the SUA peer MUST respond with a Heartbeat Ack message. + + If no Heartbeat Ack message (or any other SUA message) is received + from the SUA peer within 2*T(beat), the remote SUA peer is considered + unavailable. Transmission of Heartbeat messages is stopped and the + signalling process SHOULD attempt to reestablish communication if it + is configured as the client for the disconnected SUA peer. + + The Heartbeat message may optionally contain an opaque Heartbeat Data + parameter that MUST be echoed back unchanged in the related Heartbeat + Ack message. The sender, upon examining the contents of the returned + Heartbeat Ack message, MAY choose to consider the remote SUA peer as + unavailable. The contents/format of the Heartbeat Data parameter is + implementation-dependent and only of local interest to the original + sender. The contents may be used, for example, to support a + Heartbeat sequence algorithm (to detect missing Heartbeats), and/or a + timestamp mechanism (to evaluate delays). + + Note: Heartbeat related events are not shown in Figure 2 "ASP state + transition diagram". + +<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" name="section-4.4" href="#section-4.4">4.4</a>. Routing Key Management Procedures</span> + +<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" name="section-4.4.1" href="#section-4.4.1">4.4.1</a>. Registration</span> + + An ASP MAY dynamically register with an SGP as an ASP within an + Application Server using the REG REQ message. A Routing Key + parameter in the REG REQ message specifies the parameters associated + with the Routing Key. + + The SGP examines the contents of the received Routing Key parameter + and compares it with the currently provisioned Routing Keys. If the + received Routing Key matches an existing SGP Routing Key entry, and + the ASP is not currently included in the list of ASPs for the related + + + +<span class="grey">Loughney, et al. Standards Track [Page 109]</span></pre> +<hr class='noprint' style='width: 96ex;' align='left'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><a name="page-110" id="page-110" href="#page-110" class="invisible"> </a> +<span class="grey"><a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3868">RFC 3868</a> SUA October 2004</span> + + + Application Server, the SGP MAY authorize the ASP to be added to the + AS. Or, if the Routing Key does not currently exist and the received + Routing Key data is valid and unique, an SGP supporting dynamic + configuration MAY authorize the creation of a new Routing Key and + related Application Server and add the ASP to the new AS. In either + case, the SGP returns a Registration Response message to the ASP, + containing the same Local-RK-Identifier as provided in the initial + request, and a Registration Result "Successfully Registered". A + unique Routing Context value assigned to the SGP Routing Key is + included. The method of Routing Context value assignment at the SGP + is implementation dependent but must be guaranteed to be unique for + each Application Server or Routing Key supported by the SGP. If the + SGP determines that the received Routing Key data is invalid, or + contains invalid parameter values, the SGP returns a Registration + Response message to the ASP, containing a Registration Result "Error + - Invalid Routing Key", "Error - Invalid DPC", "Error - Invalid + Network Appearance" as appropriate. + + If the SGP does not support the registration procedure, the SGP + returns an Error message to the ASP, with an error code of + "Unsupported Message Type". + + If the SGP determines that a unique Routing Key cannot be created, + the SGP returns a Registration Response message to the ASP, with a + Registration Status of "Error - Cannot Support Unique Routing". An + incoming signalling message received at an SGP should not match + against more than one Routing Key. + + If the SGP does not authorize the registration request, the SGP + returns a REG RSP message to the ASP containing the Registration + Result "Error - Permission Denied". + + If an SGP determines that a received Routing Key does not currently + exist and the SGP does not support dynamic configuration, the SGP + returns a Registration Response message to the ASP, containing a + Registration Result "Error - Routing Key not Currently Provisioned". + + If an SGP determines that a received Routing Key does not currently + exist and the SGP supports dynamic configuration but does not have + the capacity to add new Routing Key and Application Server entries, + the SGP returns a Registration Response message to the ASP, + containing a Registration Result "Error - Insufficient Resources". + + If an SGP determines that one or more of the Routing Key parameters + are not supported for the purpose of creating new Routing Key + entries, the SGP returns a Registration Response message to the ASP, + + + + + +<span class="grey">Loughney, et al. Standards Track [Page 110]</span></pre> +<hr class='noprint' style='width: 96ex;' align='left'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><a name="page-111" id="page-111" href="#page-111" class="invisible"> </a> +<span class="grey"><a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3868">RFC 3868</a> SUA October 2004</span> + + + containing a Registration Result "Error - Unsupported RK parameter + field". This result MAY be used if, for example, the SGP does not + support RK Address parameter. + + A Registration Response "Error - Unsupported Traffic Handling Mode" + is returned if the Routing Key in the REG REQ contains a Traffic + Handling Mode that is inconsistent with the presently configured mode + for the matching Application Server. + + An ASP MAY register multiple Routing Keys at once by including a + number of Routing Key parameters in a single REG REQ message. The + SGP MAY respond to each registration request in a single REG RSP + message, indicating the success or failure result for each Routing + Key in a separate Registration Result parameter. Alternatively the + SGP MAY respond with multiple REG RSP messages, each with one or more + Registration Result parameters. The ASP uses the Local-RK-Identifier + parameter to correlate the requests with the responses. + + An ASP MAY modify an existing Routing Key by including a Routing + Context parameter in the REG REQ. If the SGP determines that the + Routing Context applies to an existing Routing Key, the SG MAY adjust + the existing Routing Key to match the new information provided in the + Routing Key parameter. A Registration Response "Routing Key Change + Refused" is returned if the SGP does not accept the modification of + the Routing Key. + + Upon successful registration of an ASP in an AS, the SGP can now send + related SS7 Signalling Network Management messaging, if this did not + previously start upon the ASP transitioning to state ASP-INACTIVE. + +<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" name="section-4.4.2" href="#section-4.4.2">4.4.2</a>. Deregistration</span> + + An ASP MAY dynamically deregister with an SGP as an ASP within an + Application Server using the DEREG REQ message. A Routing Context + parameter in the DEREG REQ message specifies which Routing Keys to + deregister. An ASP SHOULD move to the ASP-INACTIVE state for an + Application Server before attempting to deregister the Routing Key + (i.e., deregister after receiving an ASP Inactive Ack). Also, an ASP + SHOULD deregister from all Application Servers that it is a member + before attempting to move to the ASP-Down state. + + The SGP examines the contents of the received Routing Context + parameter and validates that the ASP is currently registered in the + Application Server(s) related to the included Routing Context(s). If + validated, the ASP is deregistered as an ASP in the related + Application Server. + + + + + +<span class="grey">Loughney, et al. Standards Track [Page 111]</span></pre> +<hr class='noprint' style='width: 96ex;' align='left'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><a name="page-112" id="page-112" href="#page-112" class="invisible"> </a> +<span class="grey"><a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3868">RFC 3868</a> SUA October 2004</span> + + + The deregistration procedure does not necessarily imply the deletion + of Routing Key and Application Server configuration data at the SGP. + Other ASPs may continue to be associated with the Application Server, + in which case the Routing Key data SHOULD NOT be deleted. If a + Deregistration results in no more ASPs in an Application Server, an + SGP MAY delete the Routing Key data. + + The SGP acknowledges the deregistration request by returning a DEREG + RSP message to the requesting ASP. The result of the deregistration + is found in the Deregistration Result parameter, indicating success + or failure with cause. + + An ASP MAY deregister multiple Routing Contexts at once by including + a number of Routing Contexts in a single DEREG REQ message. The SGP + MAY respond to each deregistration request in a single DEREG RSP + message, indicating the success or failure result for each Routing + Context in a separate Deregistration Result parameter. + +<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" name="section-4.4.3" href="#section-4.4.3">4.4.3</a>. IPSP Considerations (REG/DEREG)</span> + + The Registration/Deregistration procedures work in the IPSP cases in + the same way as in AS-SG cases. An IPSP may register an RK in the + remote IPSP. An IPSP is responsible for deregistering the RKs that + it has registered. + +<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" name="section-4.5" href="#section-4.5">4.5</a>. Availability and/or Congestion Status of SS7 Destination Support</span> + +<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" name="section-4.5.1" href="#section-4.5.1">4.5.1</a>. At an SGP</span> + + On receiving a N-STATE, N-PCSTATE and N-INFORM indication primitive + from the nodal interworking function at an SGP, the SGP SUA layer + will send a corresponding SS7 Signalling Network Management (SNM) + DUNA, DAVA, SCON, or DUPU message (see <a href="#section-3.4">Section 3.4</a>) to the SUA peers + at concerned ASPs. The SUA layer must fill in various fields of the + SNM messages consistently with the information received in the + primitives. + + The SGP SUA layer determines the set of concerned ASPs to be informed + based on the specific SS7 network for which the primitive indication + is relevant. In this way, all ASPs configured to send/receive + traffic within a particular network appearance are informed. If the + SGP operates within a single SS7 network appearance, then all ASPs + are informed. + + DUNA, DAVA, SCON, and DRST messages are sent sequentially and + processed at the receiver in the order sent. SCTP stream 0 SHOULD + NOT be used. The Unordered bit in the SCTP DATA chunk MAY be used + for the SCON message. + + + +<span class="grey">Loughney, et al. Standards Track [Page 112]</span></pre> +<hr class='noprint' style='width: 96ex;' align='left'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><a name="page-113" id="page-113" href="#page-113" class="invisible"> </a> +<span class="grey"><a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3868">RFC 3868</a> SUA October 2004</span> + + + Sequencing is not required for the DUPU or DAUD messages, which MAY + be sent unordered. SCTP stream 0 is used, with optional use of the + Unordered bit in the SCTP DATA chunk. + +<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" name="section-4.5.2" href="#section-4.5.2">4.5.2</a>. At an ASP</span> + +<span class="h5"><a class="selflink" name="section-4.5.2.1" href="#section-4.5.2.1">4.5.2.1</a>. Single SG Configurations</span> + + At an ASP, upon receiving an SS7 Signalling Network Management (SSNM) + message from the remote SUA Peer, the SUA layer invokes the + appropriate primitive indications to the resident SUA-Users. Local + management is informed. + + In the case where a local event has caused the unavailability or + congestion status of SS7 destinations, the SUA layer at the ASP + SHOULD pass up appropriate indications in the primitives to the SUA + User, as though equivalent SSNM messages were received. For example, + the loss of an SCTP association to an SGP may cause the + unavailability of a set of SS7 destinations. N-PCSTATE indication + primitives to the SUA User are appropriate. + + Implementation Note: To accomplish this, the SUA layer at an ASP + maintains the status of routes via the SG. + +<span class="h5"><a class="selflink" name="section-4.5.2.2" href="#section-4.5.2.2">4.5.2.2</a>. Multiple SG Configurations</span> + + At an ASP, upon receiving a Signalling Network Management message + from the remote SUA Peer, the SUA layer updates the status of the + affected route(s) via the originating SG and determines, whether or + not the overall availability or congestion status of the effected + destination(s) has changed. If so, the SUA layer invokes the + appropriate primitive indications to the resident SUA-Users. Local + management is informed. + +<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" name="section-4.5.3" href="#section-4.5.3">4.5.3</a>. ASP Auditing</span> + + An ASP may optionally initiate an audit procedure to inquire of an + SGP the availability and, if the national congestion method with + multiple congestion levels and message priorities is used, congestion + status of an SS7 destination or set of destinations. A Destination + Audit (DAUD) message is sent from the ASP to the SGP requesting the + current availability and congestion status of one or more SS7 + destinations or subsystems. + + The DAUD message MAY be sent unordered. The ASP MAY send the DAUD in + the following cases: + + + + + +<span class="grey">Loughney, et al. Standards Track [Page 113]</span></pre> +<hr class='noprint' style='width: 96ex;' align='left'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><a name="page-114" id="page-114" href="#page-114" class="invisible"> </a> +<span class="grey"><a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3868">RFC 3868</a> SUA October 2004</span> + + + - Periodic. A Timer originally set upon reception of a DUNA, SCON or + DRST message has expired without a subsequent DAVA, + DUNA, SCON or DRST message updating the + availability/congestion status of the affected + Destination Point Code. The Timer is reset upon issuing + a DAUD. In this case the DAUD is sent to the SGP that + originally sent the SSNM message. + + - Isolation. The ASP is newly ASP-ACTIVE or has been isolated from an + SGP for an extended period. The ASP MAY request the + availability/congestion status of one or more SS7 + destinations to which it expects to communicate. + + Implementation Note: + + In the first of the cases above, the auditing procedure must not + be invoked for the case of a received SCON message containing a + congestion level value of "no congestion" or undefined" (i.e., + congestion Level = "0"). This is because the value indicates + either congestion abatement or that the ITU MTP3 international + congestion method is being used. In the international congestion + method, the MTP3 layer at the SGP does not maintain the congestion + status of any destinations and therefore the SGP cannot provide + any congestion information in response to the DAUD. For the same + reason, in the second of the cases above a DAUD message cannot + reveal any congested destination(s). + + The SGP SHOULD respond to a DAUD message with the availability and + congestion status of the subsystem. The status of each SS7 + destination or subsystem requested is indicated in a DUNA message (if + unavailable), a DAVA message (if available), or a DRST (if restricted + and the SGP supports this feature). If the SS7 destination or + subsystem is available and congested, the SGP responds with an SCON + message in addition to the DAVA message. If the SS7 destination or + subsystem is restricted and congested, the SGP responds with an SCON + message in addition to the DRST. If the SGP has no information on + the availability / congestion status of the SS7 destination or + subsystem, the SGP responds with a DUNA message, as it has no routing + information to allow it to route traffic to this destination or + subsystem. + + An SG MAY refuse to provide the availability or congestion status of + a destination or subsystem if, for example, the ASP is not authorized + to know the status of the destination or subsystem. The SG MAY + respond with an Error Message (Error Code = "Destination Status + Unknown") or Error Message (Error Code = "Subsystem Status Unknown"). + + + + + +<span class="grey">Loughney, et al. Standards Track [Page 114]</span></pre> +<hr class='noprint' style='width: 96ex;' align='left'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><a name="page-115" id="page-115" href="#page-115" class="invisible"> </a> +<span class="grey"><a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3868">RFC 3868</a> SUA October 2004</span> + + +<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" name="section-4.6" href="#section-4.6">4.6</a>. MTP3 Restart</span> + + In the case where the MTP3 in the SG undergoes an MTP restart, event + communication SHOULD be handled as follows: + + When the SG discovers SS7 network isolation, the SGPs send an + indication to all concerned available ASPs (i.e., ASPs in the ASP- + ACTIVE state) using DUNA messages for the concerned destinations. + When the SG has completed the MTP Restart procedure, the SUA layer at + the SGPs inform all concerned ASPs in the ASP-ACTIVE state of any + available/restricted SS7 destinations using the DAVA/DRST message. + No message is necessary for those destinations still unavailable + after the restart procedure. + + When the SUA layer at an ASP receives a DUNA message indicating SS7 + destination unavailability at an SG, SCCP Users will receive an N- + PCSTATE indication and will stop any affected traffic to this + destination. When the SUA receives a DAVA/DRST message, SCCP Users + will receive an N-PCSTATE indication and can resume traffic to the + newly available SS7 destination via this SGP, provided the ASP is in + the ASP-ACTIVE state toward this SGP. + + The ASP MAY choose to audit the availability of unavailable + destinations by sending DAUD messages. This would be for example the + case when an AS becomes active at an ASP and does not have current + destination statuses. If MTP restart is in progress at the SG, the + SGP returns a DUNA message for that destination, even if it received + an indication that the destination became available or restricted. + +<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" name="section-4.7" href="#section-4.7">4.7</a>. SCCP - SUA Interworking at the SG</span> + +<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" name="section-4.7.1" href="#section-4.7.1">4.7.1</a>. Segmenting / Reassembly</span> + + When it is expected that signalling messages will not fit into a PDU + of the most restrictive transport technology used (e.g., 272-SIF of + MTP3), then segmenting/reassembly could be performed at the SG, ASP + or IPSP. If the SG, ASP or IPSP is incapable of performing a + necessary segmentation/reassembly, it can inform the peer of the + failure using the appropriate error in a CLDR or RESRE/COERR message. + +<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" name="section-4.7.2" href="#section-4.7.2">4.7.2</a>. Support for Loadsharing</span> + + Within an AS (identified by RK/RC parameters) several loadsharing + ASPs may be active. + + + + + + + +<span class="grey">Loughney, et al. Standards Track [Page 115]</span></pre> +<hr class='noprint' style='width: 96ex;' align='left'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><a name="page-116" id="page-116" href="#page-116" class="invisible"> </a> +<span class="grey"><a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3868">RFC 3868</a> SUA October 2004</span> + + + However, to assure the correct processing of TCAP transactions or + SCCP connections, the loadsharing scheme used at the SG must make + sure that messages continuing or ending the transactions/connections + arrive at the same ASP where the initial message (TC_Query, TC_Begin, + CR) was sent to/received from. + + When the ASP can be identified uniquely based on RK parameters (e.g., + unique DPC or GT), loadsharing is not required. When the ASPs in the + AS share state or use an internal distribution mechanism, the SG must + only take into account the in-sequence-delivery requirement. In case + of SCCP CO traffic, when the coupled approach is used, loadsharing of + messages other than CR is not required. + + If these assumptions cannot be made, both SG and ASP should support + the following general procedure in a loadsharing environment. + +<span class="h5"><a class="selflink" name="section-4.7.2.1" href="#section-4.7.2.1">4.7.2.1</a>. Association Setup, ASP going active</span> + + After association setup and registration, an ASP normally goes active + for each AS it registered for. In the ASPAC message, the ASP + includes a TID and/or DRN Label Parameter, if applicable for the AS + in question. All the ASPs within the AS must specify a unique label + at a fixed position in the TID or DRN parameter. The same ASPAC + message is sent to each SG used for interworking with the SS7 + network. + + The SG builds, per RK, a list of ASPs that have registered for it. + The SG can now build up and update a distribution table for a certain + Routing Context, any time the association is (re-)established and the + ASP goes active. The SG has to perform some trivial plausibility + checks on the parameters: + + - Start and End parameters values are between 0 and 31 for TID. + - Start and End parameters values are between 0 and 23 for DRN + - 0 < (Start - End + 1) <= 16 (label length maximum 16-bit) + - Start values are the same for each ASP within a RC + - End values are the same for each ASP within a RC + - TID and DRN Label values must be unique across the RC + + If any of these checks fail, the SG refuses the ASPAC request, with + an error, "Invalid loadsharing label." + + + + + + + + + + +<span class="grey">Loughney, et al. Standards Track [Page 116]</span></pre> +<hr class='noprint' style='width: 96ex;' align='left'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><a name="page-117" id="page-117" href="#page-117" class="invisible"> </a> +<span class="grey"><a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3868">RFC 3868</a> SUA October 2004</span> + + +<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" name="section-4.7.3" href="#section-4.7.3">4.7.3</a>. Routing and message distribution at the SG</span> + +<span class="h5"><a class="selflink" name="section-4.7.3.1" href="#section-4.7.3.1">4.7.3.1</a>. TCAP traffic</span> + + Messages not containing a destination (or "responding") TID, i.e., + Query, Begin, Unidirectional, are loadshared among the available + ASPs. Any scheme permitting a fair load distribution among the ASPs + is allowed (e.g., round robin). + + When a destination TID is present, the SG extracts the label and + selects the ASP that corresponds with it. + + If an ASP is not available, the SG may generate (X)UDTS "routing + failure", if the return option is used. + +<span class="h5"><a class="selflink" name="section-4.7.3.2" href="#section-4.7.3.2">4.7.3.2</a>. SCCP Connection Oriented traffic</span> + + Messages not containing a destination reference number (DRN), i.e., a + Connection Request, MAY be loadshared among the available ASPs. The + load distribution mechanism is an implementation issue. When a DRN + is present, the SG extracts the label and selects the ASP that + corresponds with it. If an ASP is not available, the SG discards the + message. + +<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" name="section-4.7.4" href="#section-4.7.4">4.7.4</a>. Multiple SGs, SUA Relay Function</span> + + It is important that each ASP send its unique label (within the AS) + to each SGP. For a better robustness against association failures, + the SGs MAY cooperate to provide alternative routes toward an ASP. + Mechanisms for SG cooperation/coordination are outside of the scope + of this document. + +<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" name="section-5" href="#section-5">5</a>. Examples of SUA Procedures</span> + + The following sequence charts overview the procedures of SUA. These + are meant as examples, they do not, in and of themselves, impose + additional requirements upon an instance of SUA. + +<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" name="section-5.1" href="#section-5.1">5.1</a>. SG Architecture</span> + + The sequences below outline logical steps for a variety of scenarios + within a SG architecture. Please note that these scenarios cover a + Primary/Backup configuration. Where there is a load-sharing + configuration then the SGP can declare availability when 1 ASP issues + ASPAC but can only declare unavailability when all ASPs have issued + ASPIA. + + + + + +<span class="grey">Loughney, et al. Standards Track [Page 117]</span></pre> +<hr class='noprint' style='width: 96ex;' align='left'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><a name="page-118" id="page-118" href="#page-118" class="invisible"> </a> +<span class="grey"><a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3868">RFC 3868</a> SUA October 2004</span> + + +<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" name="section-5.1.1" href="#section-5.1.1">5.1.1</a>. Establishment of SUA connectivity</span> + + The following is established before traffic can flow. + + Each node is configured (via MIB, for example) with the connections + that need to be setup. + + ASP-a1 ASP-a2 SG SEP + (Primary) (Backup) + |------Establish SCTP Association------| + |--Estab. SCTP Ass--| + |--Align SS7 link---| + +----------------ASP Up----------------> + <--------------ASP Up Ack--------------+ + +------ASP Up-------> + <---ASP Up Ack------+ + +-------------ASP Active---------------> + <----------ASP Active Ack--------------+ + <----------NTFY (ASP Active)-----------+ + <-NTFY (ASP Active)-+ + +--------SSA--------> + <--------SSA--------+ + <-----------------DAVA-----------------+ + +-----------------CLDT-----------------> + +--------UDT--------> + +<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" name="section-5.1.2" href="#section-5.1.2">5.1.2</a>. Fail-over scenarios</span> + + The following sequences address fail-over of SEP and ASP. + +<span class="h5"><a class="selflink" name="section-5.1.2.1" href="#section-5.1.2.1">5.1.2.1</a>. SEP Fail-over</span> + + The SEP knows that the SGP is 'concerned' about its availability. + Similarly, the SGP knows that ASP-a1 is concerned about the SEPs + availability. + + ASP-a1 ASP-a2 SG SEP + (Primary) (Backup) + <--------SSP--------+ + <-----------------DUNA-----------------+ + +-----------------DAUD-----------------> + +--------SST--------> + + + + + + + + + +<span class="grey">Loughney, et al. Standards Track [Page 118]</span></pre> +<hr class='noprint' style='width: 96ex;' align='left'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><a name="page-119" id="page-119" href="#page-119" class="invisible"> </a> +<span class="grey"><a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3868">RFC 3868</a> SUA October 2004</span> + + +<span class="h5"><a class="selflink" name="section-5.1.2.2" href="#section-5.1.2.2">5.1.2.2</a>. Successful ASP Fail-over scenario</span> + + The following is an example of a successful fail-over scenario, where + there is a fail-over from ASP-a1 to ASP-a2, i.e., Primary to Backup. + During the fail-over, the SGP buffers any incoming data messages from + the SEP, forwarding them when the Backup becomes available. + + ASP-a1 ASP-a2 SG SEP + (Primary) (Backup) + +-------------ASP Inactive-------------> + <-----------ASP Inactive ACK-----------+ + <--------------------NTFY (AS Pending)-+ + <-NTFY (AS Pending)-+ + +----ASP Active-----> + <--ASP Active Ack---+ + <-NTFY (AS Active)--+ + <----------NTFY (AS Active)------------+ + +<span class="h5"><a class="selflink" name="section-5.1.2.3" href="#section-5.1.2.3">5.1.2.3</a>. Unsuccessful ASP Fail-over scenario</span> + + ASP-a1 ASP-a2 SG SEP + (Primary) (Backup) + +-------------ASP Inactive-------------> + <-----------ASP Inactive ACK-----------+ + <--------------------NTFY (AS Pending)-+ + <--NTFY (AS Pending)-+ + After some time elapses (i.e., timeout). + +--------SSP--------> + <--------SST--------+ + <-------------------NTFY (AS Inactive)-+ + <-NTFY (AS Inactive)-+ + +<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" name="section-5.2" href="#section-5.2">5.2</a>. IPSP Examples</span> + + The sequences below outline logical steps for a variety of scenarios + within an IP-IP architecture. Please note that these scenarios cover + a Primary/Backup configuration. Where there is a load-sharing + configuration then the AS can declare availability when 1 ASP issues + ASPAC but can only declare unavailability when all ASPs have issued + ASPIA. + +<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" name="section-5.2.1" href="#section-5.2.1">5.2.1</a>. Establishment of SUA connectivity</span> + + The following shows an example establishment of SUA connectivity. In + this example, each IPSP consists of an Application Server and two + ASPs. The following is established before SUA traffic can flow. A + connectionless flow is shown for simplicity. + + + + +<span class="grey">Loughney, et al. Standards Track [Page 119]</span></pre> +<hr class='noprint' style='width: 96ex;' align='left'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><a name="page-120" id="page-120" href="#page-120" class="invisible"> </a> +<span class="grey"><a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3868">RFC 3868</a> SUA October 2004</span> + + + Establish SCTP Connectivity - as per <a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2960">RFC 2960</a>. Note that SCTP + connections are bidirectional. The endpoint that establishes SCTP + connectivity MUST also establish UA connectivity (see <a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2960#section-5.2.1">RFC 2960, + section 5.2.1</a> for handling collisions) [<a href="#ref-2960" title=""Stream Control Transmission Protocol"">2960</a>]. + + IP SEP A IP SEP B + AS A AS B + ASP-a1 ASP-a2 ASP-b2 ASP-b1 + + [All ASPs are in the ASP-DOWN state] + + +-------------------------------ASP Up--------------------------> + <-----------------------------ASP Up Ack------------------------+ + + +--------------ASP Up---------------> + <------------ASP Up Ack-------------+ + + +---------------------------ACTIVE-------------------------------> + <-------------------------ACTIVE Ack-----------------------------+ + + [Traffic can now flow directly between ASPs] + + +-----------------------------CLDT-------------------------------> + +<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" name="section-5.2.2" href="#section-5.2.2">5.2.2</a>. Fail-over scenarios</span> + + The following sequences address fail-over of ASP. + +<span class="h5"><a class="selflink" name="section-5.2.2.1" href="#section-5.2.2.1">5.2.2.1</a>. Successful ASP Fail-over scenario</span> + + The following is an example of a successful fail-over scenario, where + there is a fail-over from ASP-a1 to ASP-a2, i.e., Primary to Backup. + Since data transfer passes directly between peer ASPs, ASP-b1 is + notified of the fail-over of ASP-a1 and buffers outgoing data + messages until ASP-a2 becomes available. + + IP SEP A IP SEP B + ASP-a1 ASP-a2 ASP-b2 ASP-b1 + + +-----------------------------ASP Inact------------------------> + <---------------------------ASP Inact Ack----------------------+ + <---------------NTFY (ASP-a1 Inactive)--------------+ + +---------------------ASP Act-----------------------> + <-------------------ASP Act Ack---------------------+ + + + + + + + +<span class="grey">Loughney, et al. Standards Track [Page 120]</span></pre> +<hr class='noprint' style='width: 96ex;' align='left'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><a name="page-121" id="page-121" href="#page-121" class="invisible"> </a> +<span class="grey"><a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3868">RFC 3868</a> SUA October 2004</span> + + +<span class="h5"><a class="selflink" name="section-5.2.2.2" href="#section-5.2.2.2">5.2.2.2</a>. Unsuccessful ASP Fail-over scenario</span> + + The sequence is the same as 5.2.2.1 except that, since the backup + fails to come in then, the Notify messages declaring the availability + of the backup are not sent. + +<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" name="section-6" href="#section-6">6</a>. Security Considerations</span> + + The security considerations discussed for the 'Security + Considerations for SIGTRAN Protocols' [<a href="#ref-3788" title=""Security Considerations for Signaling Transport (SIGTRAN) Protocols"">3788</a>] document apply to this + document. + +<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" name="section-7" href="#section-7">7</a>. IANA Considerations</span> + +<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" name="section-7.1" href="#section-7.1">7.1</a>. SCTP Payload Protocol ID</span> + + IANA has assigned a SUA value for the Payload Protocol Identifier in + the SCTP DATA chunk. The following SCTP Payload Protocol Identifier + is registered: + + SUA "4" + + The SCTP Payload Protocol Identifier value "4" SHOULD be included in + each SCTP DATA chunk, to indicate that the SCTP is carrying the SUA + protocol. The value "0" (unspecified) is also allowed but any other + values MUST not be used. 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. + +<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" name="section-7.2" href="#section-7.2">7.2</a>. Port Number</span> + + IANA has registered SCTP Port Number 14001 for SUA. It is + recommended that SGPs use this SCTP port number for listening for new + connections. SGPs MAY also use statically configured SCTP port + numbers instead. + +<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" name="section-7.3" href="#section-7.3">7.3</a>. Protocol Extensions</span> + + This protocol may also be extended through IANA in three ways: + + - Through definition of additional message classes. + - Through definition of additional message types. + - Through definition of additional message parameters. + + + + +<span class="grey">Loughney, et al. Standards Track [Page 121]</span></pre> +<hr class='noprint' style='width: 96ex;' align='left'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><a name="page-122" id="page-122" href="#page-122" class="invisible"> </a> +<span class="grey"><a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3868">RFC 3868</a> SUA October 2004</span> + + + 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 [<a href="#ref-2434" title=""Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs"">2434</a>]. + + The proposed extension MUST in no way adversely affect the general + working of the protocol. + + A new registry has been created by IANA to allow the protocol to be + extended. + +<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" name="section-7.3.1" href="#section-7.3.1">7.3.1</a>. IETF Defined Message Classes</span> + + 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. + +<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" name="section-7.3.2" href="#section-7.3.2">7.3.2</a>. IETF Defined Message Types</span> + + 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 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 respond with an Error (ERR) message, with an Error + Code = Unsupported Message Type. + +<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" name="section-7.3.4" href="#section-7.3.4">7.3.4</a>. IETF-defined TLV Parameter Extension</span> + + 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. + This structure MUST conform to the general type-length-value + format described earlier in the document. + (c) Detailed definition of each component of the parameter value. + + + + +<span class="grey">Loughney, et al. Standards Track [Page 122]</span></pre> +<hr class='noprint' style='width: 96ex;' align='left'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><a name="page-123" id="page-123" href="#page-123" class="invisible"> </a> +<span class="grey"><a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3868">RFC 3868</a> SUA October 2004</span> + + + (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. + +<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" name="section-8" href="#section-8">8</a>. Timer Values</span> + + Ta 2 seconds + Tr 2 seconds + T(ack) 2 seconds + T(ias) Inactivity Send timer 7 minutes + T(iar) Inactivity Receive timer 15 minutes + T(beat) Heartbeat Timer 30 seconds + +<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" name="section-9" href="#section-9">9</a>. Acknowledgements</span> + + The authors would like to thank (in alphabetical order) Richard + Adams, Javier Pastor-Balbas, Andrew Booth, Martin Booyens, F. + Escobar, S. Furniss Klaus Gradischnig, Miguel A. Garcia, Marja-Liisa + Hamalainen, Sherry Karl, S. Lorusso, Markus Maanoja, Sandeep Mahajan, + Ken Morneault, Guy Mousseau, Chirayu Patel, Michael Purcell, W. + Sully, Michael Tuexen, Al Varney, Tim Vetter, Antonio Villena, Ben + Wilson, Michael Wright and James Yu for their insightful comments and + suggestions. + +<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" name="section-10" href="#section-10">10</a>. References</span> + +<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" name="section-10.1" href="#section-10.1">10.1</a>. Normative References</span> + + [<a name="ref-1123" id="ref-1123">1123</a>] Braden, R., Ed., "Requirements for Internet Hosts - + Application and Support", STD 3, <a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1123">RFC 1123</a>, October + 1989. + + [<a name="ref-2119" id="ref-2119">2119</a>] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate + Requirement Levels", <a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/bcp14">BCP 14</a>, <a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2119">RFC 2119</a>, March 1997. + + [<a name="ref-2960" id="ref-2960">2960</a>] Stewart, R., Xie, Q., Morneault, K., Sharp, C., + Schwarzbauer, H., Taylor, T., Rytina, I., Kalla, M., + Zhang, L., and V. Paxson, "Stream Control Transmission + Protocol", <a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2960">RFC 2960</a>, October 2000. + + [<a name="ref-3629" id="ref-3629">3629</a>] Yergeau, F., "UTF-8, a transformation format of ISO + 10646", STD 63, <a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3629">RFC 3629</a>, November 2003. + + [<a name="ref-3788" id="ref-3788">3788</a>] Loughney, J., Tuexen, M., Ed., and J. Pastor-Balbas, + "Security Considerations for Signaling Transport + (SIGTRAN) Protocols", <a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3788">RFC 3788</a>, June 2004. + + + + +<span class="grey">Loughney, et al. Standards Track [Page 123]</span></pre> +<hr class='noprint' style='width: 96ex;' align='left'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><a name="page-124" id="page-124" href="#page-124" class="invisible"> </a> +<span class="grey"><a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3868">RFC 3868</a> SUA October 2004</span> + + + [ANSI SCCP] ANSI T1.112 "Signalling System Number 7 - Signalling + Connection Control Part". + + [ITU SCCP] ITU-T Recommendations Q.711-714, "Signalling System + No. 7 (SS7) - Signalling Connection Control Part + (SCCP)." ITU-T Telecommunication Standardization + Sector of ITU, formerly CCITT, Geneva (July 1996). + +<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" name="section-10.2" href="#section-10.2">10.2</a>. Informative References</span> + + [<a name="ref-2434" id="ref-2434">2434</a>] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing + an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", <a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/bcp26">BCP 26</a>, <a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2434">RFC</a> + <a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2434">2434</a>, October 1998. + + [<a name="ref-2719" id="ref-2719">2719</a>] Ong, L., Rytina, I., Garcia, M., Schwarzbauer, H., + Coene, L., Lin, H., Juhasz, I., Holdrege, M., and C. + Sharp, "Framework Architecture for Signalling + Transport", <a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2719">RFC 2719</a>, October 1999. + + [<a name="ref-3761" id="ref-3761">3761</a>] Falstrom, P. and M. Mealling, "The E.164 to Uniform + Resource Identifiers (URI) Dynamic Delegation + Discovery System (DDDS) Application (ENUM)", <a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3761">RFC 3761</a>, + April 2004. + + [ANSI TCAP] ANSI T1.114 'Signalling System Number 7 - Transaction + Capabilities Application Part' + + [ITU TCAP] ITU-T Recommendation Q.771-775 'Signalling System No. + 7 SS7) - Transaction Capabilities (TCAP).' + + [<a name="ref-RANAP" id="ref-RANAP">RANAP</a>] 3G TS 25.413 V3.5.0 (2001-03) 'Technical Specification + 3rd Generation Partnership Project; Technical + Specification Group Radio Access Network; UTRAN Iu + Interface RANAP Signalling' + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +<span class="grey">Loughney, et al. Standards Track [Page 124]</span></pre> +<hr class='noprint' style='width: 96ex;' align='left'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><a name="page-125" id="page-125" href="#page-125" class="invisible"> </a> +<span class="grey"><a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3868">RFC 3868</a> SUA October 2004</span> + + +<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" name="appendix-A" href="#appendix-A">Appendix A</a>. Signalling Network Architecture</span> + +<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" name="appendix-A.1" href="#appendix-A.1">A.1</a>. Generalized Peer-to-Peer Network Architecture</span> + + Figure 3 shows an example network architecture that can support + robust operation and fail-over. There needs to be some management + resources at the AS to manage traffic. + + *********** + * AS1 * + * +-----+ * SCTP Associations + * |ASP1 +-------------------+ + * +-----+ * | *********** + * * | * AS3 * + * +-----+ * | * +-----+ * + * |ASP2 +-----------------------------------------+ASP1 | * + * +-----+ * | * +-----+ * + * * | * * + * +-----+ * | * +-----+ * + * |ASP3 | * +--------------------------+ASP2 | * + * +-----+ * | | * +-----+ * + *********** | | *********** + | | + *********** | | *********** + * AS2 * | | * AS4 * + * +-----+ * | | * +-----+ * + * |ASP1 +--------------+ +---------------------+ASP1 | * + * +-----+ * * +-----+ * + * * * * + * +-----+ * * +-----+ * + * |ASP2 +-----------------------------------------+ASP1 | * + * +-----+ * * +-----+ * + * * *********** + * +-----+ * + * |ASP3 | * + * +-----+ * + * * + *********** + + Figure 3: Generalized Architecture + + In this example, the Application Servers are shown residing within + one logical box, with ASPs located inside. In fact, an AS could be + distributed among several hosts. In such a scenario, the host should + share state as protection in the case of a failure. This is out of + scope of this protocol. Additionally, in a distributed system, one + ASP could be registered to more than one AS. This document should + not restrict such systems - though such a case in not specified. + + + +<span class="grey">Loughney, et al. Standards Track [Page 125]</span></pre> +<hr class='noprint' style='width: 96ex;' align='left'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><a name="page-126" id="page-126" href="#page-126" class="invisible"> </a> +<span class="grey"><a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3868">RFC 3868</a> SUA October 2004</span> + + +<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" name="appendix-A.2" href="#appendix-A.2">A.2</a>. Signalling Gateway Network Architecture</span> + + When interworking between SS7 and IP domains is needed, the SGP acts + as the gateway node between the SS7 network and the IP network. The + SGP will transport SCCP-user signalling traffic from the SS7 network + to the IP-based signalling nodes (for example IP-resident Databases). + The Signalling Gateway can be considered as a group of Application + Servers with additional functionality to interface toward an SS7 + network. + + The SUA protocol should be flexible enough to allow different + configurations and transport technology to allow the network + operators to meet their operation, management and performance + requirements. + + An ASP may be connected to multiple SGPs (see figure 4). In such a + case, a particular SS7 destination may be reachable via more than SG, + therefore, more than one route. Given that proper SLS selection, + loadsharing, and SG selection based on point code availability is + performed at the ASP, it will be necessary for the ASP to maintain + the status of each distant SGPs to which it communicates on the basis + of the SG through which it may route. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +<span class="grey">Loughney, et al. Standards Track [Page 126]</span></pre> +<hr class='noprint' style='width: 96ex;' align='left'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><a name="page-127" id="page-127" href="#page-127" class="invisible"> </a> +<span class="grey"><a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3868">RFC 3868</a> SUA October 2004</span> + + + Signalling Gateway + SCTP Associations + +----------+ ************** + | SG1 | * AS3 * + | ******** | * ******** * + | * SGP11+--------------------------------------------+ ASP1 * * + | ******** | / * ******** * + | ******** | | * ******** * + | * SGP12+--------------------------------------------+ ASP2 * * + | ******** | \ / | * ******** * + +----------+ \ | | * . * + \ | | * . * + +---------- \ | | * . * + | SG2 | \ | | * . * + | ******** | \ | | * ******** * + | * SGP21+---------------------------------+-+ * * ASPN * * + | ******** | \ * ******** * + | ******** | \ ************** + | * SGP22+---+--+ \ + | ******** | | | \ ************** + +----------+ | | \ * AS4 * + | | \ * ******** * + | +-------------------------------------+ ASP1 * * + | * ******** * + | * . * + | * . * + | * * + | * ******** * + +----------------------------------------+ ASPn * * + * ******** * + ************** + + Figure 4: Signalling Gateway Architecture + + The pair of SGs can either operate as replicated endpoints or as + replicated relay points from the SS7 network point of view. + + Replicated endpoints: the coupling between the SGs and the ASPs when + the SGs act as replicated endpoints is an implementation issue. + + Replicated relay points: in normal circumstances, the path from SEP + to ASP will always go via the same SGP when in-sequence-delivery is + requested. However, linkset failures may cause MTP to reroute to the + other SG. + + + + + + + +<span class="grey">Loughney, et al. Standards Track [Page 127]</span></pre> +<hr class='noprint' style='width: 96ex;' align='left'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><a name="page-128" id="page-128" href="#page-128" class="invisible"> </a> +<span class="grey"><a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3868">RFC 3868</a> SUA October 2004</span> + + +<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" name="appendix-A.3" href="#appendix-A.3">A.3</a>. Signalling Gateway Message Distribution Recommendations</span> + +<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" name="appendix-A.3.1" href="#appendix-A.3.1">A.3.1</a>. Connectionless Transport</span> + + By means of configuration, the SG knows the local SCCP-user is + actually represented by an AS, and serviced by a set of ASPs working + in n+k redundancy mode. An ASP is selected and a CLDT message is + sent on the appropriate SCTP association/stream. + + The selection criterion can be based on a round robin mechanism, or + any other method that guarantees a balanced loadsharing over the + active ASPs. However, when TCAP messages are transported, load + sharing is only possible for the first message in a TCAP dialogue + (TC_Begin, TC_Query, TC_Unidirectional). All other TCAP messages in + the same dialogue are sent to the same ASP that was selected for the + first message, unless the ASPs are able to share state and maintain + sequenced delivery. To this end, the SGP needs to know the TID + allocation policy of the ASPs in a single AS: + + - State sharing + - Fixed range of TIDs per ASP in the AS + + This information may be provisioned in the SG, or may be dynamically + exchanged via the ASP_Active message. + + An example for an INAP/TCAP message exchange between SEP and ASP is + given below. + + Address information in CLDT message (e.g., TC_Query) from SGP to ASP, + with association ID = SG-ASP, Stream ID based on sequence control and + possibly other parameters, e.g., OPC: + + - Routing Context: based on SS7 Network ID and AS membership, so + that the message can be transported to the correct ASP. + - Source address: valid combination of SSN, PC and GT, as needed for + back routing to the SEP. + - Destination address: at least SSN, to select the SCCP/SUA-user at + the ASP. + + Address information in CLDT message (e.g., TC_Response) from ASP to + SG, with association ID = ASP-SG, stream ID selected by + implementation dependent means with regards to in-sequence-delivery: + + - Routing Context: as received in previous message. + - Source address: unique address provided so that when used as the + SCCP called party address in the SEP, it must yield the same AS, + the SSN might be sufficient. + + + + +<span class="grey">Loughney, et al. Standards Track [Page 128]</span></pre> +<hr class='noprint' style='width: 96ex;' align='left'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><a name="page-129" id="page-129" href="#page-129" class="invisible"> </a> +<span class="grey"><a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3868">RFC 3868</a> SUA October 2004</span> + + + - Destination address: copied from source address in received CLDT + message. + + Further messages from the SEP belonging to the same TCAP transaction + will now reach the same ASP. + +<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" name="appendix-A.3.2" href="#appendix-A.3.2">A.3.2</a>. Connection-Oriented Transport</span> + + Further messages for this connection are routed on DPC in the SS7 + connection section (MTP routing label), and on IP address in the IP + connection section (SCTP header). No other routing information is + present in the SCCP or SUA messages themselves. Resources are kept + within the SG to forward messages from one section to another and to + populate the MTP routing label or SCTP header, based on the + destination local reference of these messages (Connect Confirm, Data + Transfer, etc.) + + This means that in the SG, two local references are allocated, one + 3-byte value used for the SS7 section and one 4-byte value for the IP + section. Also a resource containing the connection data for both + sections is allocated, and either of the two local references can be + used to retrieve this data e.g., for an incoming DT1 or CODT, for + example. + +Authors' Addresses + + John Loughney + Nokia Research Center + PO Box 407 + FIN-00045 Nokia Group + Finland + + EMail: john.Loughney@nokia.com + + + Greg Sidebottom + Signatus Technologies + Kanata, Ontario + Canada + + EMail: greg@signatustechnologies.com + + + + + + + + + + +<span class="grey">Loughney, et al. Standards Track [Page 129]</span></pre> +<hr class='noprint' style='width: 96ex;' align='left'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><a name="page-130" id="page-130" href="#page-130" class="invisible"> </a> +<span class="grey"><a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3868">RFC 3868</a> SUA October 2004</span> + + + Lode Coene + Siemens n.v. + Atealaan 34 + B-2200 Herentals + Belgium + + Phone: +32-14-252081 + EMail: lode.coene@siemens.com + + + Gery Verwimp + Siemens n.v. + 34 Atealaan + PO 2200 + Herentals + Belgium + + Phone: +32 14 25 3424 + EMail: gery.verwimp@siemens.com + + + Joe Keller + Tekelec + 5200 Paramount Parkway + Morrisville, NC 27560 + USA + + EMail: joe.keller@tekelec.com + + + Brian Bidulock + OpenSS7 Corporation + 1469 Jeffreys Crescent + Edmonton, AB T6L 6T1 + Canada + + Phone: +1 780 490 1141 + EMail: bidulock@openss7.org + + + + + + + + + + + + + +<span class="grey">Loughney, et al. Standards Track [Page 130]</span></pre> +<hr class='noprint' style='width: 96ex;' align='left'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><a name="page-131" id="page-131" href="#page-131" class="invisible"> </a> +<span class="grey"><a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3868">RFC 3868</a> SUA October 2004</span> + + +Full Copyright Statement + + Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). This document is subject + to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in <a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/bcp78">BCP 78</a>, and + except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights. + + 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 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. + +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 <a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/bcp78">BCP 78</a> and <a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/bcp79">BCP 79</a>. + + 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 + <a href="http://www.ietf.org/ipr">http://www.ietf.org/ipr</a>. + + 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- + ipr@ietf.org. + +Acknowledgement + + Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the + Internet Society. + + + + + + + + + +Loughney, et al. Standards Track [Page 131] + +</pre><br /> + <span class="noprint"><small><small>Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.116, available from + <a href="https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/">https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/</a> + </small></small></span> + </div> +</body> +</html> |