Attention is currently required from: daniel, laforge, pespin.

lynxis lazus has posted comments on this change by lynxis lazus. ( 
https://gerrit.osmocom.org/c/libosmo-sigtran/+/41309?usp=email )

Change subject: Add TCAP based loadsharing/routing
......................................................................


Patch Set 8:

(16 comments)

File src/ss7_as_loadshare_tcap.c:

https://gerrit.osmocom.org/c/libosmo-sigtran/+/41309/comment/4c39a77e_48ad4773?usp=email
 :
PS8, Line 138:  ssn ^= ((pc >> 24) & 0xff);
> A point code is 13 bits in ITU iirc, you seem to be dropping 5 bits here. […]
Wikipedia says it's 14 bits for ITU. I've reserved 24 bits here for the point 
code (even we don't do ANSI).
We don't drop any bits here. XOR the high 8 bits of PC with the SSN. In case 
this is a WILDCARD.


https://gerrit.osmocom.org/c/libosmo-sigtran/+/41309/comment/80b1e111_674e0ea2?usp=email
 :
PS8, Line 273: /** Traffic from the TCAP ASP -> AS -> osmo-stp, only used to 
update transaction tracking
> I wonder whether this step is mandatory or should be enabled depending on 
> setup?
Yes it is. If TCAP is enabled on the ASP, it must track both, Rx and Tx.


https://gerrit.osmocom.org/c/libosmo-sigtran/+/41309/comment/5f0d23f4_c6c54128?usp=email
 :
PS8, Line 380: static int sent_back_utds(struct osmo_ss7_as *as,
> Please add a description for this function, I'm not getting what's its 
> purpose.
It sends back an SCCP/UTDS back to the origin


https://gerrit.osmocom.org/c/libosmo-sigtran/+/41309/comment/90047b54_6af956d4?usp=email
 :
PS8, Line 487:  /* decode SCCP and convert to a SUA/xUA representation */
> I think you have similar code logic in one of the above functions, you may 
> want to see if it makes s […]
I don't really see the gain from move the code back into an own function with a 
lot of pointers. It complicates the code for a minimal gain of code 
de-duplication.


https://gerrit.osmocom.org/c/libosmo-sigtran/+/41309/comment/d94640e6_2c112da0?usp=email
 :
PS8, Line 560:                  sent_back_utds(as, xua, sua, 
SCCP_RETURN_CAUSE_SUBSYSTEM_FAILURE);
> You may want to look at whether it makes more sense to send a routing 
> failure: […]
An UTDS was requested. I don't know enough of SCCP. But the feature request 
explicit requeseted an UTDS.
I don't know why we never sent back an UTDS before.


https://gerrit.osmocom.org/c/libosmo-sigtran/+/41309/comment/6e8e96e1_d79ae3b4?usp=email
 :
PS8, Line 607:  * @return 0 on success
> EPROTONOSUPPORT is not documented here. In case, I'd drop EPROTONOSUPPORT and 
> return asp instead.
There is a difference between (rc = EPROTONOSUPPORT) and (rc = 0 && asp == 
NULL.)
PROTONOSUPPORTED will do a regular AS loadsharing.

While rc = 0; asp = NULL will drop the message. (Because an UTDS is already 
sent to the origin).


https://gerrit.osmocom.org/c/libosmo-sigtran/+/41309/comment/ed73b488_7cf0a1c6?usp=email
 :
PS8, Line 921: /** Called when the ASP is going down or free'd
> Then you are currently calling it fromthe wrong place apparently.
Why?


File src/ss7_as_vty.c:

https://gerrit.osmocom.org/c/libosmo-sigtran/+/41309/comment/6244559b_27aaa383?usp=email
 :
PS8, Line 39: #include "ss7_as_loadshare_tcap.h"
> #ifdef WITH_TCAP_LOADSHARING
No


https://gerrit.osmocom.org/c/libosmo-sigtran/+/41309/comment/bb387f15_ffbf28b6?usp=email
 :
PS8, Line 158:  tcap_disable(as);
> #ifdef WITH_TCAP_LOADSHARING
No, not needed.


https://gerrit.osmocom.org/c/libosmo-sigtran/+/41309/comment/3f6f022b_d1a5be0e?usp=email
 :
PS8, Line 165:        "traffic-mode (loadshare|loadshare-tcap) [bindings] [sls] 
[opc-sls] [opc-shift] [<0-2>]",
> IMHO loadshare-tcap feature should have a separate command to enable/disable 
> it. […]
traffic-mode loadshare-tcap is an extension to the general loadshare.

@[email protected] @[email protected] I took this over from your origin 
work.

Maybe you have an opinion on it.


https://gerrit.osmocom.org/c/libosmo-sigtran/+/41309/comment/3cf2e9b7_cd913748?usp=email
 :
PS8, Line 186:  vty_out(vty, "tcap loadsharing is not supported in this 
build.\n");
This is wrong, will fix it in v2


File src/ss7_asp.h:

https://gerrit.osmocom.org/c/libosmo-sigtran/+/41309/comment/08f4fd96_cfca5b03?usp=email
 :
PS8, Line 96:           bool enabled;
> is this really needed? Does it make sense to have tcap loadsharing enabled in 
> only some ASPs of the  […]
Not all ASP of an AS has it enabled. Only when the IPA/TCAP is called, it is 
enabled for this particular ASP.


File src/ss7_asp.c:

https://gerrit.osmocom.org/c/libosmo-sigtran/+/41309/comment/c71f3567_91895014?usp=email
 :
PS8, Line 1344:         tcap_asp_down(asp);
> nooo way you are calling this here. […]
Where do you think it belongs exactly? I'm not used to this code base.


https://gerrit.osmocom.org/c/libosmo-sigtran/+/41309/comment/bbfce463_87102a37?usp=email
 :
PS8, Line 1435: /*! Received an unknown packet on asp
> Unrelated to this commit, please submit another one.
Will look into it.


File src/tcap_transaction_tracking.c:

https://gerrit.osmocom.org/c/libosmo-sigtran/+/41309/comment/9436428f_999a025c?usp=email
 :
PS8, Line 122:  LOGPASP(entry->asp, DLSS7, LOGL_DEBUG, "Creating tcap cache, 
entry (own) pc/ssn/tid %u/%u/%u -> %u/%u/%u\n",
> we always want to log PC in both numeric and configured format. See 
> osmo_ss7_pointcode_print_buf().
Ack


File stp/stp_main.c:

https://gerrit.osmocom.org/c/libosmo-sigtran/+/41309/comment/d28158a7_3d5de1af?usp=email
 :
PS8, Line 52: void *talloc_asn1_ctx;
> Why is this needed?
Need to check it again, if it is still required.



--
To view, visit https://gerrit.osmocom.org/c/libosmo-sigtran/+/41309?usp=email
To unsubscribe, or for help writing mail filters, visit 
https://gerrit.osmocom.org/settings?usp=email

Gerrit-MessageType: comment
Gerrit-Project: libosmo-sigtran
Gerrit-Branch: master
Gerrit-Change-Id: Ibcb48aa0e515ad346f59ddd84b24c6e2c026144d
Gerrit-Change-Number: 41309
Gerrit-PatchSet: 8
Gerrit-Owner: lynxis lazus <[email protected]>
Gerrit-Reviewer: Jenkins Builder
Gerrit-Reviewer: pespin <[email protected]>
Gerrit-CC: daniel <[email protected]>
Gerrit-CC: laforge <[email protected]>
Gerrit-Attention: laforge <[email protected]>
Gerrit-Attention: pespin <[email protected]>
Gerrit-Attention: daniel <[email protected]>
Gerrit-Comment-Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2025 17:29:12 +0000
Gerrit-HasComments: Yes
Gerrit-Has-Labels: No
Comment-In-Reply-To: pespin <[email protected]>

Reply via email to