From nobody Mon Aug 8 03:22:57 2016
Return-Path:
X-Original-To: sigtran@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sigtran@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 93B8C12D5C2 for ; Mon, 8 Aug 2016 03:22:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9CQJ1dRu8Nei for ; Mon, 8 Aug 2016 03:22:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp104.iad3a.emailsrvr.com (smtp104.iad3a.emailsrvr.com [173.203.187.104]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C627612D1D5 for ; Mon, 8 Aug 2016 03:22:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp6.relay.iad3a.emailsrvr.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp6.relay.iad3a.emailsrvr.com (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 07A30E02F1 for ; Mon, 8 Aug 2016 06:22:44 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from app21.wa-webapps.iad3a (relay-webapps.rsapps.net [172.27.255.140]) by smtp6.relay.iad3a.emailsrvr.com (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id F0E49E01A9 for ; Mon, 8 Aug 2016 06:22:43 -0400 (EDT)
X-Sender-Id: abhishek.bhatt@telesys.com
Received: from app21.wa-webapps.iad3a (relay-webapps.rsapps.net [172.27.255.140]) by 0.0.0.0:25 (trex/5.7.1); Mon, 08 Aug 2016 06:22:44 -0400
Received: from telesys.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by app21.wa-webapps.iad3a (Postfix) with ESMTP id E356CA173A for ; Mon, 8 Aug 2016 06:22:43 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by apps.rackspace.com (Authenticated sender: abhishek.bhatt@telesys.com, from: abhishek.bhatt@telesys.com) with HTTP; Mon, 8 Aug 2016 15:52:43 +0530 (IST)
Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2016 15:52:43 +0530 (IST)
From: "Abhishek Bhatt"
To: "sigtran@ietf.org"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_20160808155243000000_46239"
Importance: Normal
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-Type: html
In-Reply-To:
References:
X-Auth-ID: abhishek.bhatt@telesys.com
Message-ID: <1470651763.92914545@webmail.telesys.com>
X-Mailer: webmail/12.5.2-RC
Archived-At:
Subject: [Sigtran] Query regarding capacity of sigtran link
X-BeenThere: sigtran@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Signaling Transport
List-Unsubscribe: ,
List-Archive:
List-Post:
List-Help:
List-Subscribe: ,
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 08 Aug 2016 10:22:56 -0000
------=_20160808155243000000_46239
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
=0AHello All,=0A =0ACan you please let me know about the maximum capacity (=
max traffic) of single sigtran associations (link) for both M3UA link and M=
2PA link.=0AWhat is the maximum CPS a single link can handle ?=0A =0AThanks=
& Regards,=0AAbhishek=0A =0A-----Original Message-----=0AFrom: "Pradeep4 K=
umar" =0ASent: Tuesday, July 26, 2016 4:40pm=0A=
To: "sigtran@ietf.org" =0ASubject: [Sigtran] Query regard=
ing the sequence message delivery functionality in M3UA layer=0A=0A=0A=0A=
=0AHi,=0A =0AI had an query regarding the sequence message delivery functio=
nality in M3UA layer.=0A =0AAs in the SS7/MTP3 layer there is concept of th=
e controlled re-routing in case of links status un-availability, the contro=
lled re-routing buffer and its time controlled procedure ensures that that =
are messages are delivered in-sequence. As explained in the RFC section 8.=
1.1 of T-REC-Q704 as :=0A=E2=80=9C8.1.1 The objective of the controlled rer=
outing procedure is to restore the optimal signalling=0Arouting and to mini=
mize mis-sequencing of messages. Therefore, controlled rerouting includes a=
=0Atime-controlled traffic diversion procedure,=E2=80=9D =0A =0ANow in case=
of M3UA the same situation can occur, so do we have an similar functionali=
ty of controlled re-routing available in M3UA/Sigtran as well? =0AIf yes p=
lease mentioned the RFC section(I could not find any reference in RFC on th=
is topic). ?=0A =0A IF NO, then what is the reasoning behind n=
ot having the controlled re-routing in M3UA/SIGTRAN? Is it so that we don=
=E2=80=99t need such procedures in IP world and what is the reason for it?=
=0A =0A =0ABest Regards,=0APradeep Kumar=0A=E2=80=9CThe world needs HQ (Hum=
anity quotient) more than IQ.=E2=80=9D"DISCLAIMER: This message is propriet=
ary to Aricent and is intended solely for the use of the individual to whom=
it is addressed. It may contain privileged or confidential information and=
should not be circulated or used for any purpose other than for what it is=
intended. If you have received this message in error, please notify the or=
iginator immediately. If you are not the intended recipient, you are notifi=
ed that you are strictly prohibited from using, copying, altering, or discl=
osing the contents of this message. Aricent accepts no responsibility for l=
oss or damage arising from the use of the information transmitted by this e=
mail including damage from virus."
------=_20160808155243000000_46239
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hello =
All,
=0A
=0ACan you please let me know about the maximum capacity (max traffic) of s=
ingle sigtran associations (link) for both M3UA link and M2PA link.
=0A<=
p style=3D"margin:0;padding:0;font-family: times new roman; font-size: 10pt=
; word-wrap: break-word;">What is the maximum CPS a single link can handle =
?
=0A
=0A=
Thanks & Regards,
=0AAbhishek
=0A
=0A-----Original=
Message-----
From: "Pradeep4 Kumar" <pradeep4.kumar@aricent.com>=
;
Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2016 4:40pm
To: "sigtran@ietf.org" <=
sigtran@ietf.org>
Subject: [Sigtran] Query regarding the sequence m=
essage delivery functionality in M3UA layer
=0A=0A=0A
=0A
Hi,
=0A
&nbs=
p;
=0A
I had an query rega=
rding the sequence message delivery functionality in M3UA layer.
=0A
=0A
As in the SS7/MTP3 layer there is concept of th=
e controlled re-routing in case of links status un-availability, the contro=
lled re-routing buffer and its time controlled procedure ensures that that =
are messages are delivered in-sequence. As explained in the RFC secti=
on 8.1.1 of T-REC-Q704 as :
=0A
=E2=80=9C8.1.1 =
The objective of the controlled rerouting procedure is to r=
estore the optimal signalling
=0A
routing and to minimize mi=
s-sequencing of messages. Therefore, controlled rerouting includes a=
=0A
time-controll=
ed traffic diversion procedure,=E2=80=9D
=0A
=0A
Now in case of M3UA the same situation can occur, so do =
we have an similar functionality of controlled re-routing available in M3UA=
/Sigtran as well?
=0A
If yes please mentioned the RFC section(I c=
ould not find any reference in RFC on this topic). ?
=0A
=0A
 =
; IF NO, then what is the reasoning behind not having the=
controlled re-routing in M3UA/SIGTRAN? Is it so that we don=E2=80=99t need=
such procedures in IP world and what is the reason for it?
=0A
&nbs=
p;
=0A
=0A
Best Regards,
=0A
Pradeep Kumar
=0A
=E2=80=9CThe =
world needs HQ (Humanity quotient) more than IQ.=E2=80=9D
=
=0A
=0A"DISCLAIMER: This message is proprietary to Aricent and is inte=
nded solely for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed. It may c=
ontain privileged or confidential information and should not be circulated =
or used for any purpose other than for what it is intended. If you have rec=
eived this message in error, please notify the originator immediately. If y=
ou are not the intended recipient, you are notified that you are strictly p=
rohibited from using, copying, altering, or disclosing the contents of this=
message. Aricent accepts no responsibility for loss or damage arising from=
the use of the information transmitted by this email including damage from=
virus."
------=_20160808155243000000_46239--
From nobody Mon Aug 8 05:22:45 2016
Return-Path:
X-Original-To: sigtran@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sigtran@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 01CB712D5BE for ; Mon, 8 Aug 2016 05:22:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.447
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.447 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.247] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id T1Y-_3TvPBOf for ; Mon, 8 Aug 2016 05:22:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gw.openss7.com (gw.openss7.com [142.59.210.7]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 718E712B00F for ; Mon, 8 Aug 2016 05:22:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wilbur.pigworks.openss7.net (ns5.evil.openss7.net [192.168.9.5]) by gw.openss7.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/Debian-5+lenny1) with ESMTP id u78CMdoa021745 for ; Mon, 8 Aug 2016 06:22:39 -0600
Received: from wilbur.pigworks.openss7.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by wilbur.pigworks.openss7.net (8.14.3/8.14.3/Debian-5+lenny1) with ESMTP id u78CMd1m002734 for ; Mon, 8 Aug 2016 06:22:39 -0600
Received: (from brian@localhost) by wilbur.pigworks.openss7.net (8.14.3/8.14.3/Submit) id u78CMdaa002733 for sigtran@ietf.org; Mon, 8 Aug 2016 06:22:39 -0600
Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2016 06:22:39 -0600
From: "Brian F. G. Bidulock"
To: sigtran@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20160808122239.GA2432@openss7.com>
Mail-Followup-To: sigtran@ietf.org
References: <1470651763.92914545@webmail.telesys.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1470651763.92914545@webmail.telesys.com>
Organization: http://www.openss7.com/
Dsn-Notification-To:
X-Spam-To:
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)
Archived-At:
Subject: Re: [Sigtran] Query regarding capacity of sigtran link
X-BeenThere: sigtran@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
Reply-To: bidulock@openss7.com
List-Id: Signaling Transport
List-Unsubscribe: ,
List-Archive:
List-Post:
List-Help:
List-Subscribe: ,
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 08 Aug 2016 12:22:44 -0000
Abhishek,
Abhishek Bhatt wrote: (Mon, 08 Aug 2016 15:52:43)
>
> Can you please let me know about the maximum capacity (max traffic) of
> single sigtran associations (link) for both M3UA link and M2PA link.
Depends largely on how much network you have between the two points.
> What is the maximum CPS a single link can handle ?
Same as above. Depends on how much network is between the two points.
--
Brian F. G. Bidulock
bidulock@openss7.com
http://www.openss7.com/
From nobody Mon Aug 8 05:57:27 2016
Return-Path:
X-Original-To: sigtran@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sigtran@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D7D7212D08F for ; Mon, 8 Aug 2016 05:57:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.955
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.955 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xgPwGcKgYcq8 for ; Mon, 8 Aug 2016 05:57:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp-out6.electric.net (smtp-out6.electric.net [192.162.217.184]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D772E12B00B for ; Mon, 8 Aug 2016 05:57:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 1bWk7O-0000GT-Uu by out6b.electric.net with emc1-ok (Exim 4.87) (envelope-from ) id 1bWk7P-0000Ic-TS; Mon, 08 Aug 2016 05:57:23 -0700
Received: by emcmailer; Mon, 08 Aug 2016 05:57:23 -0700
Received: from [213.249.233.130] (helo=AcuExch.aculab.com) by out6b.electric.net with esmtps (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.87) (envelope-from ) id 1bWk7O-0000GT-Uu; Mon, 08 Aug 2016 05:57:22 -0700
Received: from ACUEXCH.Aculab.com ([::1]) by AcuExch.aculab.com ([::1]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Mon, 8 Aug 2016 13:55:31 +0100
From: David Laight
To: "'bidulock@openss7.com'" , "sigtran@ietf.org"
Thread-Topic: [Sigtran] Query regarding capacity of sigtran link
Thread-Index: AQHR8W9Vu/vutCKRo0K1yfh9ZrKb26A/BGmA
Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2016 12:55:30 +0000
Message-ID: <063D6719AE5E284EB5DD2968C1650D6D5F50C32C@AcuExch.aculab.com>
References: <1470651763.92914545@webmail.telesys.com> <20160808122239.GA2432@openss7.com>
In-Reply-To: <20160808122239.GA2432@openss7.com>
Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.202.99.200]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Outbound-IP: 213.249.233.130
X-Env-From: David.Laight@ACULAB.COM
X-Proto: esmtps
X-Revdns:
X-HELO: AcuExch.aculab.com
X-TLS: TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128
X-Authenticated_ID:
X-PolicySMART: 3396946, 3397078
X-Virus-Status: Scanned by VirusSMART (c)
X-Virus-Status: Scanned by VirusSMART (s)
Archived-At:
Subject: Re: [Sigtran] Query regarding capacity of sigtran link
X-BeenThere: sigtran@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Signaling Transport
List-Unsubscribe: ,
List-Archive:
List-Post:
List-Help:
List-Subscribe: ,
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 08 Aug 2016 12:57:26 -0000
From: Brian F. G. Bidulock
> Sent: 08 August 2016 13:23
> Abhishek,
>=20
> Abhishek Bhatt wrote: (Mon, 08 Aug 2016 15:52:43)
> >
> > Can you please let me know about the maximum capacity (max traffic) =
of
> > single sigtran associations (link) for both M3UA link and M2PA link.
>=20
> Depends largely on how much network you have between the two points.
And how fast the systems are, and how 'slick' the application and the rest
of the protocol stack is.
The attainable throughput could quite easily be dominated by the applicatio=
n.
David
From nobody Mon Aug 8 06:01:30 2016
Return-Path:
X-Original-To: sigtran@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sigtran@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8ABA812B00C for ; Mon, 8 Aug 2016 06:01:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kLVeyFIc6XJW for ; Mon, 8 Aug 2016 06:01:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp72.iad3a.emailsrvr.com (smtp72.iad3a.emailsrvr.com [173.203.187.72]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D20A812B00B for ; Mon, 8 Aug 2016 06:01:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp18.relay.iad3a.emailsrvr.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp18.relay.iad3a.emailsrvr.com (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 62CE1A0351; Mon, 8 Aug 2016 09:01:24 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from app23.wa-webapps.iad3a (relay-webapps.rsapps.net [172.27.255.140]) by smtp18.relay.iad3a.emailsrvr.com (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 5803AA0304; Mon, 8 Aug 2016 09:01:24 -0400 (EDT)
X-Sender-Id: abhishek.bhatt@telesys.com
Received: from app23.wa-webapps.iad3a (relay-webapps.rsapps.net [172.27.255.140]) by 0.0.0.0:25 (trex/5.7.1); Mon, 08 Aug 2016 09:01:24 -0400
Received: from telesys.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by app23.wa-webapps.iad3a (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B266C1A9D; Mon, 8 Aug 2016 09:01:24 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by apps.rackspace.com (Authenticated sender: abhishek.bhatt@telesys.com, from: abhishek.bhatt@telesys.com) with HTTP; Mon, 8 Aug 2016 18:31:24 +0530 (IST)
Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2016 18:31:24 +0530 (IST)
From: "Abhishek Bhatt"
To: "David Laight"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_20160808183124000000_64752"
Importance: Normal
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-Type: html
In-Reply-To: <063D6719AE5E284EB5DD2968C1650D6D5F50C32C@AcuExch.aculab.com>
References: <1470651763.92914545@webmail.telesys.com> <20160808122239.GA2432@openss7.com> <063D6719AE5E284EB5DD2968C1650D6D5F50C32C@AcuExch.aculab.com>
X-Auth-ID: abhishek.bhatt@telesys.com
Message-ID: <1470661284.30557827@webmail.telesys.com>
X-Mailer: webmail/12.5.2-RC
Archived-At:
Cc: "sigtran@ietf.org" , "'bidulock@openss7.com'"
Subject: Re: [Sigtran] Query regarding capacity of sigtran link
X-BeenThere: sigtran@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Signaling Transport
List-Unsubscribe: ,
List-Archive:
List-Post:
List-Help:
List-Subscribe: ,
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 08 Aug 2016 13:01:29 -0000
------=_20160808183124000000_64752
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
=0AThanks for your updates=0A =0A-----Original Message-----=0AFrom: "David =
Laight" =0ASent: Monday, August 8, 2016 6:25pm=0AT=
o: "'bidulock@openss7.com'" , "sigtran@ietf.org" =0ASubject: Re: [Sigtran] Query regarding capacity of sigtran=
link=0A=0A=0A=0AFrom: Brian F. G. Bidulock=0A> Sent: 08 August 2016 13:23=
=0A> Abhishek,=0A> =0A> Abhishek Bhatt wrote: (Mon, 08 Aug 2016 15:52:43)=
=0A> >=0A> > Can you please let me know about the maximum capacity (max tra=
ffic) of=0A> > single sigtran associations (link) for both M3UA link and M2=
PA link.=0A> =0A> Depends largely on how much network you have between the =
two points.=0A=0AAnd how fast the systems are, and how 'slick' the applicat=
ion and the rest=0Aof the protocol stack is.=0A=0AThe attainable throughput=
could quite easily be dominated by the application.=0A=0A David=0A=0A_____=
__________________________________________=0ASigtran mailing list=0ASigtran=
@ietf.org=0Ahttps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sigtran
------=_20160808183124000000_64752
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Thanks=
for your updates
=0A
=0A-----Original Message-----
From: "David Laight" <Da=
vid.Laight@ACULAB.COM>
Sent: Monday, August 8, 2016 6:25pm
To:=
"'bidulock@openss7.com'" <bidulock@openss7.com>, "sigtran@ietf.org" =
<sigtran@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Sigtran] Query regarding capaci=
ty of sigtran link
=0A=0A
From: Brian F. G. Bidulock
> Sent: 08 Augu=
st 2016 13:23
> Abhishek,
>
> Abhishek Bhatt wrote=
: (Mon, 08 Aug 2016 15:52:43)
> >
> > Can you please =
let me know about the maximum capacity (max traffic) of
> > sing=
le sigtran associations (link) for both M3UA link and M2PA link.
> =
> Depends largely on how much network you have between the two poi=
nts.
And how fast the systems are, and how 'slick' the applicati=
on and the rest
of the protocol stack is.
The attainable th=
roughput could quite easily be dominated by the application.
Da=
vid
_______________________________________________
Sigtran=
mailing list
Sigtran@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listi=
nfo/sigtran
=0A
------=_20160808183124000000_64752--