Re: BACP problem? (Re: (PM) OSPF summaries, E2 vs. E1 type ASE

Alain Fontaine (fontaine@sri.ucl.ac.be)
Tue, 4 May 1999 15:42:48 +0200

I also fought that same BACP bug, with exactly the same result (an answer
from someone who cannot apparently read five lines of english in a RFC and
understand what they mean). That was when 3.8 was current.

I recently had to look again (now running 3.8.2) and found:

093:12:45:07:60] Received BAP_CALL_REQUEST on port S3 of 5 bytes containing:
01010009 Code: 1, ID: 1, Length: 9 Call-Request
0105 Op: 1, Length: 5 Link-Type
0040 + Link speed: 64 kbps
01 + Link Type : b'00000001' - ISDN

[093:12:45:07:60] Sending BAP_CALL_RESPONSE to port S3 of 16 bytes containing:
02010010 Code: 2, ID: 1, Length: 16 Call-Response
00 Response code: 0 (Request-Ack)
020b Op: 2, Length: 11 Phone-Delta
010300 + Subop: 1, Length: 3 Unique-Digits: 0
020638303730 + Subop: 2, Length: 6 Subscriber-Number: '8070'

Look at the 'Unique-Digits' value... No, I won't reinstall 3.8 just to check
if I dreamed.

I also think that the routes towards adresses that fall in the area range
should be advertised as 'intra-area', but I did not start a fight, since
I already have quite a few other ones going without any result.

/AF

-
To unsubscribe, email 'majordomo@livingston.com' with
'unsubscribe portmaster-users' in the body of the message.
Searchable list archive: <URL:http://www.livingston.com/Tech/archive/>