Language selection

Search

Patent 2331706 Summary

Third-party information liability

Some of the information on this Web page has been provided by external sources. The Government of Canada is not responsible for the accuracy, reliability or currency of the information supplied by external sources. Users wishing to rely upon this information should consult directly with the source of the information. Content provided by external sources is not subject to official languages, privacy and accessibility requirements.

Claims and Abstract availability

Any discrepancies in the text and image of the Claims and Abstract are due to differing posting times. Text of the Claims and Abstract are posted:

  • At the time the application is open to public inspection;
  • At the time of issue of the patent (grant).
(12) Patent Application: (11) CA 2331706
(54) English Title: METHOD FOR SIGNALING IN A SIGNALING TRANSFER POINT
(54) French Title: PROCEDE DE SIGNALISATION DANS UN POINT DE TRANSFERT DE SIGNALISATION
Status: Deemed Abandoned and Beyond the Period of Reinstatement - Pending Response to Notice of Disregarded Communication
Bibliographic Data
(51) International Patent Classification (IPC):
  • H04Q 03/00 (2006.01)
(72) Inventors :
  • GRADISCHNIG, KLAUS (Germany)
(73) Owners :
  • SIEMENS AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT
(71) Applicants :
  • SIEMENS AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT (Germany)
(74) Agent: SMART & BIGGAR LP
(74) Associate agent:
(45) Issued:
(86) PCT Filing Date: 1999-05-04
(87) Open to Public Inspection: 1999-11-18
Examination requested: 2004-04-28
Availability of licence: N/A
Dedicated to the Public: N/A
(25) Language of filing: English

Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT): Yes
(86) PCT Filing Number: PCT/EP1999/003048
(87) International Publication Number: EP1999003048
(85) National Entry: 2000-11-10

(30) Application Priority Data:
Application No. Country/Territory Date
98108645.7 (European Patent Office (EPO)) 1998-05-12

Abstracts

English Abstract


Routing loops may occur in signaling networks so that messages are routed to a
destination in a loop without ever reaching said destination. The invention
shows how such loops can be detected and eliminated as speedily as possible.


French Abstract

Dans des réseaux de signalisation, il peut y avoir des boucles d'acheminement, faisant que des données sont acheminées dans une boucle vers une destination à laquelle elles ne parviennent jamais. L'invention indique comment reconnaître et éliminer aussi vite que possible de telles boucles.

Claims

Note: Claims are shown in the official language in which they were submitted.


5
Claims
1. Method for the signalling in a signalling transfer point, in accord
wherewith
-- signalling messages stemming from source signalling points are routed in
the direction toward destination signalling points,
-- the presence of a loop or, respectively, the possibility of the presence of
a
loop over a departing linkset to a destination signalling point (SP X) is
checked by a routing test (MRVT) and/or by a real-time method,
-- given a positive check result, signalling messages are automatically
prevented from continuing to be sent to the destination signalling point
(SP X) via the appertaining linkset.
2. Method according to claim 1, characterized in that
-- given said positive check result, test messages are first sent via a
linkset to
destinations that can be reached via said linkset;
-- in the case of returning test messages, signalling messages are then
automatically prevented from being sent to a destination that had returning
test messages.
3. method according to claim 1 or 2, characterized in that signalling
messages are prevented (downstream) from being sent to the appertaining
destination
via the appertaining linkset in that the specific, departing linkset to this
destination is
blocked in the routing table of the signalling transfer point.
4. Method according to claim 1 or 2, characterized in that signalling
messages are prevented (upstream) from being sent to the appertaining
destination via
the appertaining linkset in that the signalling transfer point (STP A) sends a
transfer
prohibited message regarding the destination signalling point (SP X) to the
preceding
signalling transfer point (STP B), whereupon the preceding signalling transfer
point
(STP B) will reroute or, respectively, stop the traffic to the destination
signalling point
(SP X).
5. Method according to one of the claims 1 through 4, characterized in that
said interruption of the loop is controlled by the operations maintenance and
administration part (OMAP).

6. Method according to one of the claims 1 through 5, characterized in that
said interruption of the loop is controlled by the message transfer part
(MTO).
7. Method according to one of the claims 1 through 6, characterized in
that, after blocking the linkset contained in the loop, the new, current route
is in turn
immediately checked for freedom from loops in the signalling transfer point
(STP A).
8. Signalling system of a signalling transfer point that routes signalling
messages to destination signalling points, characterized in that
-- it checks the presence of a loop or, respectively, the possibility of the
presence of a loop over a departing linkset to a destination signaling point
(SP X) by a routing test (MRVT) and/or by a real-time method, whereby
-- when a positive check result is obtained, signalling messages are
automatically prevented from continuing to be sent to the destination
signalling point via the appertaining linkset.
9. Signalling system of a signalling transfer point according to claim 8,
characterized in that it verifies the detected possibility of the presence of
a loop by
sending test messages to destinations reachable via said linkset before it
automatically
prevents signalling messages from continuing to be cent via the appertaining
linkset to
a destination for which said test messages return.

Description

Note: Descriptions are shown in the official language in which they were submitted.


CA 02331706 2000-11-10
1
METHOD FOR SIGNALLING IN A SIGNALLING TRANSFER POINT
It can occur in signalling networks according to signalling system No. 7
that routing loops occur in the network on MTP level 3 due to incorrect
plamaing or
operating errors, so that messages are routed to one or more destinations in a
loop
without ever reaching their destination. Of particular interest here are loops
:having a
length greater than 2 ("length of a loop" means the plurality of signalling
points
participating in a loop) and, in particular, how such loops can be eliminated
when they
are recognized.
If loops potentially present in the tables ~~re in fact used for routing, thus
represents a serious problem for the network since rrtessages, on the one
hand, do not
arrive at their destination and, on the other hand, use valuable resources in
the
network. It should therefore be eliminated as fast as possible.
Loops having the length 2 (so-called ping-gong loops) cannot occur given
a functioning protocol in the MTP (message transfer point). Should they
nonetheless
arise, these loops can be easily recognized in real time in a signalling
transfer point in
that a check is carried out to see whether a message i,s to be routed over the
same
linkset on which it was received. They are just as easy to correct in that the
unsuccessful protocol actions (sending transfer prohiibited -- TFP -- messages
to the
cooperating party) are repeated.
2 0 Loops having a length >2 are more difficult to recognize. A check can in
fact be performed with every message in a specific STP as to whether this
message
derives izom precisely this STP (by comparing the CiPC contained in the
me:csage to
the PointCode of the STP). When this is the case, there is a loop in the
network.
STPs, however, do not necessarily generate messages or, respectively, do not;
2 5 necessarily generate messages to the destination or destinations to which
there is a
loop.
This problem can be solved by a real-time method that recognizes the
possibility of a loop, for example due to a lasting overload on a linkset.
When said
method recognizes the possibility of a loop, the operating personnel can be
informed
3 0 so that corrective measures can be initiated.

CA 02331706 2000-11-10
2
The standard (Q.753, Q.754) defines another solution of the problem, what
is referred to as the M~'F' route verification test (MRVT) that checks all
possible paths
in an MTP network between two given points for correctness, including freedom
from
loops. Upon occurrence of errors such as, for example, loops, the operating
;personnel
is informed in order to undertake corrections. MRVT in fact has the advantage
over a
real-time method that it ~;.an also recognize loops bei:ore they are actually
used, since
all possible paths are checked, not only the current ones. The disadvantage,
however,
is that a separate protocol is required for it. When this is not realized in
the entire
network, the check is not possible or is only possible in incomplete form.
This
l0 situation is specifically established in the international signalling
network. I)ue to the
load that it generates, moreover, the MRVT cannot constantly check all routes
between all points in the network.
The invention is based on the object of overcoming the aforementioned
disadvantages.
This object is achieved by a method according to claim 1.
The invention is explained in greater detail below with the assistance of
the drawing, whereby the drawing comprises 3 Figures.
Figure 1 shows an example of a loop.
Figures 2 and 3 shows methods for parting a loop.
2 0 The present invention particularly reveals how, given real-time
recognition of loops having a length > 2 and/or upon recognition of loops by
the
MRVT, the loops can be broken by automatic, real-time, protocol-compatible
methods that are simple to realize. The time elapsing before the operating
personal
takes action can thus be bridged.
2 5 It must thereby be mentioned that it is advantageous, given possible loops
that were recognized by the MRVT or a real-time method for a linkset, to check
before having potential recourse to automatic correction measures (the MRV'T,
namely, does not supply any statements whether a possible loop is also being
employed at the time and, under certain circumstances, the real-time method
cannot
3 0 make any statements about the destination to which a possible loop is
present). Said
check ensues by sending otherwise unemployed MT'P network management messages

CA 02331706 2000-11-10
3
to the destinations that c;an be reached (according to the routing) via the
appertaining
linkset. When such test messages return to the STP, these messages are
detf;cted by
comparing the OPC contained in the message to the point code of the STP, and a
loop
or, respectively, several loops are recognized. Correction measures can
thereby
remain limited to loops being currently employed.
Said check vvith the assistance of test messages is already useful when it is
realized in only one STP since all loops that run through this STP can be
recognized.
The check method can also always be active.
Another possibility is comprised in making the initiation of correction
1 o measures dependent of the evaluation of the (relative) probability that
the possible
loop could be employed. These information can be made available by the M:RVT
in
the form of priorities of the individual paths constituting the loop.
When a loop to a destination X is recognized in an STP A by the MRVT
or by real-time methods, one can proceed in the following way for breaking the
loop:
a) Breaking the loop "downstream" in that the speciific departing path to this
destination is blocked in the routing table in A. This step can, in
particular, be
implemented when other paths to X are also available proceeding from A. In
this
case, it is recommendable to also check the route employed as an alternative
for the
occurrence of a loop. Although the lack of a detection of a loop is no
guarantee that
2 0 there is not some other loop that no longer contains A, there is at least
a probability
that the problem has been eliminated.
b) Alternatively, or if, fo:r example, there no longer happens to an alternate
(loop-free)
route proceeding from A, the loop can be broken "upstream", i.e. to the
preceding
STP B on the loop, in that A sends B a transfer prohibited message with
respect to X.
2 5 In response thereto, B will reroute or, respectively, stop the traffic to
X. Since B will
subsequently periodically review the availability of the route to X via A with
what are
referred to as route set messages, it must be assured that A does not answer
these
messages with a transfer allowed, since B could otherwise re-close the loops.
After final correction of the routing tables by the operating persormel, the
3 0 actions automatically undlertaken by the MTP or the operations maintenance
and
administration part (OMAP) can be in turn reversed by the operating personnel
(Note:

CA 02331706 2000-11-10
4
OMAP comprises higher-ranking SS7 management functions, for example MRVT,
screening functions and measurements. "Informing the operating personnel" is
also
(partially) part of the OMAP)
A special characteristic of the invention is comprised in the mechanism for
breaking loops having the length > 2 with automatic measures that are simple
to
realize upon utilization of existing protocol features. In particular, the
method can
already be employed and is useful when it is realized in only a single STP.
One possibility for realizing the alternative b) is to automatically activate
what is referred to as ILS/DPC screening (ILS = incoming linkset; see Q.705,
~8) in
A for messages from ~ to X. However, a linking of the ILS/DPC screening into
the
MTP management network is needed for this purpose such that an illegal message
is
answered with a TFP message and the route set test messages are also correctly
handled.

Representative Drawing
A single figure which represents the drawing illustrating the invention.
Administrative Status

2024-08-01:As part of the Next Generation Patents (NGP) transition, the Canadian Patents Database (CPD) now contains a more detailed Event History, which replicates the Event Log of our new back-office solution.

Please note that "Inactive:" events refers to events no longer in use in our new back-office solution.

For a clearer understanding of the status of the application/patent presented on this page, the site Disclaimer , as well as the definitions for Patent , Event History , Maintenance Fee  and Payment History  should be consulted.

Event History

Description Date
Application Not Reinstated by Deadline 2007-05-04
Time Limit for Reversal Expired 2007-05-04
Deemed Abandoned - Failure to Respond to Maintenance Fee Notice 2006-05-04
Letter Sent 2004-05-07
Request for Examination Received 2004-04-28
All Requirements for Examination Determined Compliant 2004-04-28
Request for Examination Requirements Determined Compliant 2004-04-28
Inactive: Cover page published 2001-03-07
Inactive: First IPC assigned 2001-03-04
Inactive: Notice - National entry - No RFE 2001-02-22
Letter Sent 2001-02-22
Application Received - PCT 2001-02-19
Application Published (Open to Public Inspection) 1999-11-18

Abandonment History

Abandonment Date Reason Reinstatement Date
2006-05-04

Maintenance Fee

The last payment was received on 2005-04-13

Note : If the full payment has not been received on or before the date indicated, a further fee may be required which may be one of the following

  • the reinstatement fee;
  • the late payment fee; or
  • additional fee to reverse deemed expiry.

Patent fees are adjusted on the 1st of January every year. The amounts above are the current amounts if received by December 31 of the current year.
Please refer to the CIPO Patent Fees web page to see all current fee amounts.

Fee History

Fee Type Anniversary Year Due Date Paid Date
Registration of a document 2000-10-11
Basic national fee - standard 2000-10-11
MF (application, 2nd anniv.) - standard 02 2001-05-04 2001-04-20
MF (application, 3rd anniv.) - standard 03 2002-05-06 2002-04-30
MF (application, 4th anniv.) - standard 04 2003-05-05 2003-04-30
MF (application, 5th anniv.) - standard 05 2004-05-04 2004-04-16
Request for examination - standard 2004-04-28
MF (application, 6th anniv.) - standard 06 2005-05-04 2005-04-13
Owners on Record

Note: Records showing the ownership history in alphabetical order.

Current Owners on Record
SIEMENS AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT
Past Owners on Record
KLAUS GRADISCHNIG
Past Owners that do not appear in the "Owners on Record" listing will appear in other documentation within the application.
Documents

To view selected files, please enter reCAPTCHA code :



To view images, click a link in the Document Description column (Temporarily unavailable). To download the documents, select one or more checkboxes in the first column and then click the "Download Selected in PDF format (Zip Archive)" or the "Download Selected as Single PDF" button.

List of published and non-published patent-specific documents on the CPD .

If you have any difficulty accessing content, you can call the Client Service Centre at 1-866-997-1936 or send them an e-mail at CIPO Client Service Centre.

({010=All Documents, 020=As Filed, 030=As Open to Public Inspection, 040=At Issuance, 050=Examination, 060=Incoming Correspondence, 070=Miscellaneous, 080=Outgoing Correspondence, 090=Payment})


Document
Description 
Date
(yyyy-mm-dd) 
Number of pages   Size of Image (KB) 
Representative drawing 2001-03-06 1 15
Drawings 2000-11-09 3 71
Abstract 2000-11-09 1 10
Description 2000-11-09 4 196
Claims 2000-11-09 2 87
Reminder of maintenance fee due 2001-02-19 1 112
Notice of National Entry 2001-02-21 1 194
Courtesy - Certificate of registration (related document(s)) 2001-02-21 1 113
Reminder - Request for Examination 2004-01-05 1 123
Acknowledgement of Request for Examination 2004-05-06 1 176
Courtesy - Abandonment Letter (Maintenance Fee) 2006-06-28 1 175
PCT 2000-11-09 15 573