Sccp given primary PC(wrong) after GT rule match during SS7 Peer node trigger message from SecondaryPC

[Peramuthan]

Example SS7 Peer node have both primary & secondary PC with single sccp address primaryPC = 222 secondaryPC = 333 SccpAdderss --> ssn=6, GlobaltitleInd= Route on GT, Globaltitle{Np=1, NA=4, ES=1, GTdigit=919888}

For the above configuration In sccp layer will create 2 RoutingAddress(for both PrimaryPC & SecondaryPC) and single GT Rule.

while trigger message from primaryPC will send back response proper to the same primaryPC. but secondaryPC case sending back response with primaryPC.

Code Snippet: RupeImpl.java --> translate() --> filling ruleaddress signallingPointcode. ==> will always give primaryPC for above scenario Instead of filling ruleaddress pointcode always can we fill the incomingOpc of SccpAddressedMessageImpl.

After this we can achieve existing & above scenario with no service impact.

[vetss]

Hello @Peramuthan

unfortunately I have not fully understood your scenario. Can you describe which point codes are local which are remote, how many m3ua (?) links we have, is there loadsharing in your scenario etc.

[Peramuthan]

Hello @vetss, Local Node Config: SCTP --> Single Association (ip1 - port1) m3ua --> Single PointCode --> 111 SCCP --> Single(ssn=6, GlobaltitleInd= Route on GT, Globaltitle{Np=1, NA=5, ES=1, GTdigit=919666})

Peer Node: SCTP --> Single Association(ip2 - port2) m3ua --> Single Sccp -> mentioned as in issue

[vetss]

Hello @Peramuthan

do you mean that you have:

• one remote GT SSN / digits (6 / 919666 in your example)
• two DPCs at the remote side

In this case I do not understand how do you want to share traffic between DPCs (222 and 333 in your case) ? You can make loadsharing for example depending on the SLS least bit, this is supported.

Or I may be do not understand the question properly, if yes, please comment.

[Peramuthan]

Mentioned issue added GT rule like as below sccpStack1.getRouter().addRule(1, RuleType.LOADSHARED, LoadSharingAlgorithm.Undefined,, OriginationType.LocalOriginated, pattern, "K", 1, 3, null, 1);

As per your comment if we not mention the LoadSharingAlgorithm as valid value(i.e. Bit0/1/2/3/4). Then load share functionality won't work rite. If yes, close the issue.

Thanks & Regards, Peramuthan R

[vetss]

Hello @Peramuthan

This is correct:

if we not mention the LoadSharingAlgorithm as valid value(i.e. Bit0/1/2/3/4). Then load share functionality won't work right.

[Peramuthan]

Hello @vetss

Ok thanks, If the GT rule configure as LoadShare, why we allow to configure the LoadSharingAlgorithm as Undefined. better we can remove the Undefined option or make make bit0 as default.
If you feel is it fine or not.

Regards, Peramuthan R

[vetss]

Hello @Peramuthan

If the GT rule configure as LoadShare, why we allow to configure the LoadSharingAlgorithm as Undefined. better we can remove the Undefined option or make make bit0 as default.

This makes sense, agree.

[Peramuthan]

Thanks, shall i proceed to do changes on this?

[vetss]

Thanks, shall i proceed to do changes on this?

ok

[deruelle]

@Peramuthan were you able to make progress on this ?

[vetss]

I am closing this issue. @Peramuthan feel free to provide an update for management.