top button
Flag Notify
    Connect to us
      Site Registration

Site Registration

Concern on the M3UA SSNM request, DUPU

0 votes
365 views

I was referring the rfc4666 for M3UA and have few concerns regarding the DUPU SSNM message. The specification says that a DUPU indicates the unavailability of a certain user part.
If I may quote "The DUPU message is used by an SGP to inform concerned ASPs that a remote peer MTP3-User Part (e.g., ISUP or SCCP) at an SS7 node is unavailable"
I have two questions.
1. How these concerned ASPs are identified. Is it upon receiving a MTP-Transfer for a particular user part (say SCCP) or can it be sent periodically for a given ASP ?
2. I could not find any SSNM message that indicates a User Parts Availability. Am I wrong here to expect such a message and if so how come a concerned ASP know if a certain User Part is available at a given point code.

It would be an immense help if anyone could clarify the aforementioned concerns.

posted Jul 21, 2016 by anonymous

Looking for an answer?  Promote on:
Facebook Share Button Twitter Share Button LinkedIn Share Button
Saw a SS7/Sigtran query after a long time,
1. This is part of network configuration.
2. In MTP3 there is something called UPU for unavailability, UPA for availability and UPT for user part test if UPA is missed as MTP3 is a connection-less protocol.
commented Jul 21, 2016 by Salil Agrawal

Similar Questions
+4 votes
M3UA/SIGTRAN: Optional RC configured on one side and not the other

Assume you have the conditions (one AS, etc.) to allow RC to be optional, does the RFC permit one side (IPSP SE mode for example) to still send an RC and the other to not include an RC? I think the answer is yes, but I can't find an explicit reference permitting it.

+1 vote
What is the need of routing context in M3UA

Going thought the RFC 3332 and have a doubt about RC, in M3UA we have a concept of routing context to identify an AS but same can be achieve by the routing Key (it seems) then what the purpose RC is serving.

+1 vote
M3UA message Length issue

We have a situation where message is being rejected at M3UA layer due to buffer length is not equal to message length.

What is the significance of Message Length and its importance with padding... in the current issue M3UA peer is sending the data buffer of size 122 bytes to KSCTP. But message length parameter of M3UA common header contains a value of 124 and KSCTP is doing the padding at its level of 2 bytes which is observed from the wireshark traces.

Now at DUT message droped with reason (message length parameter is greater than actual M3UA data buffer size). Is this expected?

As per RFC 4666 ------------------------
    3.1.4.  Message Length: 32-Bits (Unsigned Integer) 
       The Message Length defines the length of the message in octets, including the Common Header. 
       The Message Length MUST include  parameter padding octets, if there are any.
+1 vote
Simultaneous support single exchange and double exchange in M3UA

Can one implementation support single exchange and double exchange models of IPSP at the same time ? Or does it have to be configured and only one of the models can be active at a time ? Is there any M3UA procedure which can help in dynamic negotiation of SE/DE models.

...