Patent Publication Number: US-7590132-B2

Title: In-band negotiation in single transcompression scenarios related applications

Description:
This application is a continuation-in-part of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 10/376,208, filed Feb. 25, 2003, entitled, “Using Modem Profiles to Improve Connectivity, Connect Timing, and Compression Performance of a Modem Relay Type 2A Gateway.” The disclosure of this parent application is incorporated in its entirety by reference herein. 

   BACKGROUND 
   The present invention generally relates to connectivity and performance improvements in modem relay (MR) network links. More particularly, it concerns modem relay (e.g. MR 1 ) gateways and cached or predictive compression parameter negotiation. 
   The Modem Relay (MR) MR 1  connection scenario (no transcompression, formerly called Type 2a) requires a first, originating modem M 1  and a second, terminating modem M 2  to negotiate identical compression parameters. To obtain optimal compression parameters requires end-to-end eXchange IDentification (XID) negotiation. Since XID negotiation starts with a frame from the originating modem (M 1 ), the MR gateways need to be certain that G 2 &lt;=&gt;M 2  physical connection is complete before that of M 1 &lt;=&gt;G 1 . In this way, G 2  can forward M 1 &#39;s XIDc to M 2  as soon as it is available, and similarly to return M 2 &#39;s XIDr to M 1 . In order to do this, a number of ideas have been provided to either delay completion of the physical connection on G 1  until the physical connection on G 2  is complete, or to perform XID transactions more than once, which repetition might not be expected by some server modems. 
   Alternatively, both gateways may decide locally to negotiate a small “default” subset of compression parameters, in order to avoid end-to-end problems. In this case, the default may be too small, giving lower compression performance than end-to-end negotiation could have achieved. Or, the default may not be small enough (e.g. one modem is actually configured for no compression), resulting in infeasible compression settings. Furthermore, this process will add to the time required to reach data mode in modem relay (MR) connections, which frustrates users waiting to get on the Internet. 
   Many of these techniques may be prone to systematic failures. Furthermore, this process will add to the time required to fully connect in modem relay (MR) mode, which frustrates users waiting to get on the Internet. Because of this timing issue, many gateway implementations simply use ‘local minimal’ default compression parameters (e.g., dictionary size=1K (where K=2 10 ), string size=32) to avoid a delay in the physical connection. This heuristic often results in sub-optimal compression parameters. Worse, it may occasionally fail to connect if either M 1  or M 2  is configured for narrower compression parameters than the minimal choice (e.g. no compression at all). 
   Recently, ITU-V.150.1 (Voice over IP) standard has been proposed for use in providing negotiated data compression. Some methods, including the parent patent application, U.S. patent application Ser. No. 10/376,208, propose cached or predictive negotiation of such data compression parameters. Some problems may arise with in-band compression renegotiation of single compression (STCX) parameters. 
   SUMMARY 
   A first embodiment of the invention is a network device having a processor to control message traffic and control data between the network device and other devices in a network, a port to allow the network device to send and receive the message traffic and a transcompression element to receive indications of compression renegotiation and to transmit indications of renegotiation acknowledgement, as well as perform compression/decompression. 
   Another embodiment of the invention is a method of controlling compression in a network. The method receives an indication of compression renegotiation at a decompressor on a first network device, and transmits an indication of compression renegotiation acknowledgement to a compressor element on a second network device. 
   Another embodiment of the invention is a method of controlling compression in a network. The method determines if a compression method for outgoing data is compatible with a decompression method for incoming data. If the compression and decompression methods are compatible, incoming data is transmitted as outgoing data without compression or decompression, with monitoring message and control traffic for any indications of compression renegotiation. 

   
     BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS 
     The embodiments of the invention may be best understood by reading the disclosure with reference to the drawings, wherein: 
       FIG. 1  is a system block diagram illustrating a VoIP network in which the XID profile exchange apparatus is featured in accordance with a preferred embodiment of the invention. 
       FIG. 2  is a flow diagram of the XID profile exchange method in accordance with a preferred embodiment of the invention. 
       FIG. 3  is a flowchart of the invented method in accordance with a preferred embodiment of the invention. 
       FIG. 4  is a flowchart of the invented method in accordance with another preferred embodiment of the invention. 
       FIG. 5  is a flowchart of the invented method in accordance with yet another preferred embodiment of the invention. 
       FIG. 6  shows a diagram of transcompression elements in a relaying data network. 
       FIG. 7  shows an embodiment of network device. 
       FIG. 8  shows a diagram of an embodiment of a method to transmit messages in a relaying data network. 
       FIG. 9  shows a flowchart of an embodiment of a method to handle compression in a relaying data network. 
   

   DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE EMBODIMENTS 
   Some definitions first are supplied: 
   M 1 &lt;=&gt;G 1 &lt;=&gt;G 2 &lt;=&gt;M 2   
   M 1 : calling/originating modem, often part of a client computer system. 
   GW: gateway 
   M 2 : answering/called/terminating modem, often part of a server computer system. 
   OGW, G 1 : ingress/originating modem relay (MR) gateway. 
   TGW, G 2 : egress/terminating MR gateway. 
   x&lt;=&gt;y: connection between system x and y 
   M 1 &lt;=&gt;G 1 , G 2 &lt;=&gt;M 2 : these connections are dialup via PSTN, using modem modulations and protocols. 
   G 1 &lt;=&gt;G 2 : this connection is via a packet network, using V.MoIP MR gateway protocols. 
   XIDc: Link Access Protocol for Modems (LAPM) XID command. 
   XIDr: LAPM XID response. 
   XIDpc: an XID configuration or “profile”, describing how it behaves during XID negotiation, for a calling (originating) modem. 
   XIDpr: an XID configuration or “profile”, describing how it behaves during XID negotiations, for a called (terminating) modem. 
   XIDd: a “default” profile for a modem. This would commonly be used to define a small enough set of parameters to cover nearly all M 1 /M 2  factory default compression capabilities for most manufacturers. 
   ∩: “negotiated with.” E.g. Capability∩ Capability yields an XID. 
     ⊂ : “is a negotiation subset of.” E.g. Capability 1   ⊂ Capability 2 . 
   ≦: “properly negotiates down to.” E.g. XIDr≦XIDp. 
   Trans-compression types of MR connections can benefit greatly from consistent end-to-end compression parameters, in that the trans-compressors could drop out, thus conserving gateway resources. End-to-end compression parameters are a good thing to have. The problem is that, conventionally, client modems&#39; compression parameters are discovered very late in the connection process, and it may be problematic to exchange these parameters in real time across the IP network. These problems are addressed by the present invention, to be described. 
     FIG. 1  illustrates the invented apparatus  8  coupled with a network  10  operating with respect to voice traffic thereon in accordance with a voice packet protocol such as a voice over frame relay (VoFR) protocol or voice over Internet protocol (VoIP). Network  10  typically includes one or more telephone handsets  12 , one or more fax machines  14  and one or more low-speed modems  16  representing different traffic demands on network  10  due to their diverse bandwidth requirements. The faxes  14  and low-speed modems  16  often share telephone numbers with the telephone handsets to provide facsimile, e-mail and Internet service to users/clients. High-speed (i.e. V.34 and higher) modems  16 ′ are typically provided, and are the type of high-speed modems with which the invention finds particular utility. 
   Handsets  12  communicating voice require relatively low bit rates over the IP network. Typically, plural handsets  12  are connected with each one of plural voice gateways  18  representing so-called endpoint nodes within network  10 . Handsets  12  will be understood to be used for voice communication, whereby voice signals are digitized, packetized and transmitted bi-directionally during a telephone conversation. In a voice frame network  10 , concurrent with voice traffic over the network is the presence of an increasing volume of data traffic. 
   Those of skill in the art will appreciate that data and voice traffic are compatible to some extent because both are represented in network  10  in digital form. But voice and data traffic have different requirements, especially under increasing traffic demands. For example, voice traffic requires low latency because of the need for immediate feedback or other form of acknowledgement in a two-way human conversation. In voice mode, VoIP channels using Real-time Transfer Protocol (RTP) or other low-latency protocols represent an unreliable transport for high-speed signaling between high-speed modems  16 ′. Conventionally, in a VoIP network  10 , high-speed modems  16 ′ would have negotiated an end-to-end physical layer, e.g. V.34, and gateways  18  would have been ‘passive enablers’ (i.e. operating in so-called Modem Passthru mode) of the resulting voice mode VoIP connection that is subject to network impairments (e.g. packet drops, jitter, delay) that could result in frequent retrains and/or call drops. 
   Compression parameters should be established as early as possible to achieve the highest connectivity, fastest connect time and highest performance. But as mentioned above, in conventional MoIP connections, compression parameter negotiation occurs late in the relay connection setup because it is the last phase of call setup. Negotiating compression parameters occurs under inconvenient circumstances, e.g. when all differential timing has accumulated, so that the compression negotiation phases may not occur close enough in time at the two ends. This is primarily due to the coupled nature, e.g. wait and response, of the bring-up of the physical layers. Also, end-to-end negotiation takes time to perform, which costs traditional MR time to connect., 
   The base mode of operation for V.MoIP (MR 1  connections) involves using default compression parameters. These default parameters (due to a need to account for the vast majority of client types) are not optimized for performance. Enhancements to V.MoIP (end-to-end compression parameter negotiation) are available that try to optimize compression performance, but at the cost of complexity and connection time. The use of profiles of compression parameters eliminates the need to negotiate end to end but sill optimizes the compression performance in many circumstances. 
   Thus, the solution to the problem described immediately above is to have the MR originating gateway (OGW) and terminating gateway (TGW) predict the XID command sent by the calling modem and to predict the XID response thereto sent by the called modem. In this way, the OGW and TGW are able to agree on an optimal and consistent LAPM XID command (XIDc) and response (XIDr) that each will send when the particular physical connection comes up. Those of skill in the art will appreciate that either of gateways  18  and their associated modems  16 ′ may act in a given application as an originating gateway (OGW) with its associated modem M 1  or a terminating gateway (TGW) with its associated modem M 2 , to be described operationally in detail below. 
   The invention proposes to configure an MR gateway with the XID profiles for each of its common directly connected users. When an MR call is made by client modem M 1 , G 1  can identify which modem made the call using dialed number identification service (DNIS) or other suitable methods. Of course, G 2  knows the number it is about to call, and thus the client modem involved. These client modems are the direct users. This configuration allows the GW to know the calling/called number&#39;s XID profile early in the call, before the conventional XID negotiation phase. The connectivity and connect time advantages will be understood by those of skill in the art. 
   The prediction can be different for each calling and called modem, depending upon that modem&#39;s capabilities and how it is configured. The gateway can identify the particular modem by using PSTN calling/called number identification facilities of the equivalent. During a call, if prediction information is available for the calling and/or called modems, the gateways will use this information to optimize the connection process. Presumably, an OGW has more knowledge of its various calling modems, and a TGW has more knowledge of its various called modems. This invention assumes that the knowledge is localized in this manner, so OGW knows and sends calling modem predictive information, and TGW knows and sends called modem predictive information. 
   Thus, for gateways implementing the present invention: 
   G 1  knows beforehand the XIDc that M 1  will send. 
   G 2  knows beforehand the XIDr that M 2  will reply to an arbitrary XIDc. 
   The gateways interchange sufficient information to predict the XID exchanges that will take place on both the originating and terminating legs. This information is referred to herein as: 
   XIDpc[M 1 ]: prediction data for the XIDc sent by M 1 , or M 1 &#39;s “XID profile.” 
   XIDpr[M 2 ]: prediction data for the XIDr sent by M 2  to an arbitrary XIDc, or M 2 &#39;s “XID profile.” 
   XIDpc Information 
   It is sufficient for XIDpc[M 1 ] to be the XIDc string sent by M 1 , plus M 1 &#39;s protocol capabilities (used to predict V.44 vs. MNP5). That is because M 1  is the first ‘speaker’ during XID exchange. This information contains:
         A list of link layer protocols supported: LAPM, MNP, V. 14, “sync.”   Optional V.42bis parameters: directions, dictionary size and string size, used if M 1  negotiates either LAPM or MNP protocols.   Optional V.44 parameters: compression directions, renegotiation capability, Rx/Tx max dictionary size, Rx/Tx max string size and Rx/Tx max history size, used if M 1  negotiates LAPM protocol.   Optional “MNP5-supported” field, used if M 1  negotiates MNP protocol.       

   If M 1  is configured for MNP-only protocol operation, or if M 1  falls back to MNP due to a failure of the ODP/ADP or XID exchange, then the LR contents have an equivalent XID string, as far as compression capabilities are concerned. If M 1  is configured for no-protocol operation, then XIDpc[M 1 ] will be null, indicating that compression cannot be performed. MNP (without a suffix) herein refers to the MNP error correcting protocol levels: MNP1, MNP2 and MNP3. (MNP4 is simply an enhancement of MNP2 or MNP3; any of these protocols can support MNP5 or V.42bis compression). 
   XIDpr Information 
   XIDpr[M 2 ] is more difficult to codify, since M 2 &#39;s XIDr is dependent upon the XIDc it receives and an XIDr will never specify multiple compressions. M 2  may, within the spirit and scope of the invention, implement a complex negotiation function such as “choose the feasible protocol with the larger resulting dictionary.” Alternatively, and in accordance with a preferred embodiment of the invention, a simpler implementation prioritizes among compression alternatives, e.g. “V.44 is better than V.42bis is better than MNP5.” 
   Those of skill in the art will appreciate that XIDpr[M 2 ] represents the XIDc string that M 2  would send if it were originating a call, plus the priority ordering M 2  gives to the various compressions. Copying from XIDpc[M 1 ] above, then, XIDpr[M 2 ] is:
         A list of link layer protocols supported: LAPM, MNP, V.14, “sync.”   Optional V.42bis parameters: directions, dictionary size and string size, used if M 1  negotiates either LAPM or MNP protocols.   Optional V.44 parameters: compression directions, renegotiation capability, Rx/Tx max dictionary size, Rx/Tx max string size and Rx/Tx max history size, used if M 1  negotiates LAPM protocol.   Optional “MNP5-supported” field, used if M 1  negotiates MNP protocol.   An ordered list of the compressions above, e.g. “V.44, V.42bis, MNP5”, in priority order.
 
The Structure of the XIDp Data
       

   The profile is sent as a series of records: &lt;item ID&gt;&gt;&lt;length-of-body&gt;&lt;body&gt;, preferably as follows:
         V.42bis: 1x01 &lt;length&gt;&lt;Cpriority&gt;&lt;contents of XID&#39;s V.42bis group&gt;   V.44: 0x02 &lt;length&gt;&lt;Cpriority&gt;&lt;contents of XID&#39;s V.44 group&gt;   MNP5: 0x03 &lt;length&gt;&lt;Cpriority&gt;   LAPM: 0x04 &lt;length=1&gt;&lt;Cpriority&gt;   MNP: 0x05 &lt;length=2&gt;&lt;Ppriority&gt;&lt;MNP1: 1; MNP2: 2; MNP3: 3&gt;   V.14: 0x06 &lt;length=3&gt;&lt;PXSpriority&gt;&lt;bits/char&gt;&lt;parity type&gt;   SYNC: 0x07 &lt;length&gt;&lt;priority&gt;&lt;body-TBD&gt;   Modulation Map: 0x08 &lt;length&gt;&lt;bitmap of modulations-TBD&gt;
 
The “Cpriority” field indicates which compression scheme is preferred if several are supported. Normally, V.44&gt;V.42bis&gt;MNP5. The “Ppriority” field indicates which protocol is preferred if several are supported. Normally, LAPM&gt;MNP&gt;V.14. If &lt;length&gt; is zero, then the compressions method (etc.) is not supported at all by the particular modem. If the record for that method is not present, then the gateway does not (yet) know whether the scheme is supported. The compression parameters are coded as the actual XID group that would be sent in an XIDc or XIDr. In the case of MNP, the implementation is expected to translate XID into LR format and back. Finally, the SYNC protocol and the modulation map are intended to support future useful extensions of the invention. If it is useful, for example, to have early knowledge of these items, then they can be stored as part of the profile.
       

   An XID_PROF SPRT message preferably is used to payload the XIDp data described above, although alternate forms of messaging between gateways are contemplated as being within the spirit and scope of the invention. Indeed, within the spirit and scope of the invention, alternative XIDp data structure, content and/or order are contemplated. For example, fields may be omitted or supplemented, may be of fixed length and may choose to use a priori priorities (e.g. V.44&gt;V.42bis&gt;MNP5; LAPM&gt;MNP2, 3, 4&gt;V.14, as in the draft ITU-T V.150.1 standard). 
   How the Gateways Use the Exchanged Information 
     FIG. 2  is a flow diagram illustrating the preferred bilateral XID profile exchange method in accordance with an embodiment of the invention.  FIG. 2  may be seen to describe transaction flow between a modem M 1  and its associated originating gateway OGW, between a modem M 2  and its associated terminating gateway TGW and between the two gateways OGW and TGW. Those of skill in the art will appreciate that time progresses down a vertical axis, from the first possible instance of call setup negotiation, through Voice Mode, physical layer negotiations, modem relay initialization, predictive profile exchange and validation and, finally, data exchange at resulting optimal or nearly optimal efficiency in a time-reduced set up that is made possible by the invention. 
   The detailed physical layer negotiation and ODP/ADP exchanges, XIDc/XIDr exchanges and SABME/UA exchanges are conventional and will not be described further herein. The profile exchanges and validations represented in the bulk of the middle section of  FIG. 2  will be described in detail below under the heading OPERATION WHEN BOTH GATEWAYS SUPPORT THE PROCEDURE. Those of skill in the art will note that the partial implementations described below represent a subset of the transactions illustrated comprehensively in  FIG. 2 , and will be described further by reference to  FIGS. 3-5 . 
   Those of skill in the art will appreciate that the XID negotiation rules require:
         XIDr[OGW→M 1 ] ⊂ XIDc[M 1 →OGW]   XIDr[M 2 →TGW] ⊂ XIDc[TGW→M 2 ]   XIDc[M 1 →OGW]=XIDpc[M 1 ]   XIDr[M 2 →TGW]=XIDc[TGW→M 2 ]∩XIDpr[M 2 ],
 
Wherein  ⊂  means “has less or equal compression capability than” and wherein ∩ is the compression negotiation operator. The following thus is sufficient for feasible negotiation:
       

   XIDc[TGW→M 2 ]=XIDr[M 2 →TGW]=XIDr[OGW→M 1 ] 
   These values can be calculated from the exchanged XIDp information as follows: 
   XIDresult:=XIDpc[M 1 ]∩XIDpr[M 2 ] 
   XIDc[TGW→M 2 ]:=XIDr[M 2 →TGW]:=XIDr[OGW→M 1 ]:=XIDresult 
   Those of skill in the art will appreciate that these values satisfy the negotiation rules above. It is also noted that XIDresult is an optimal end-to-end value. 
   The “∩” negotiation operator (analogous to the Boolean AND operator) has the following format: XIDresult=XIDpc[M 1 ]∩XIDpr[M 2 ], and simply performs the compression negotiation function specified in V.42, V.42bis and MNP: 
   
       
       
         
           presumably the gateway can handle all link layer protocols: LAPM, MNP and V.14 (leaving “sync” out of the picture). Again, presumably the gateway will choose LAPM over MNP, or over V.14. The gateways assume that the highest available link layer protocol for that profile is chosen. The protocol choice limits the compression capabilities: If LAPM is chosen, then V.44 and V.42bis compression will be available. If MNP is chosen, then V.42bis and MNP5 will be available. Otherwise (V.14 or “sync”), no compression will be available. 
           The highest priority common compression is chosen. If there are no common compressions, then “no compression” is the result. 
           For V.44 or V.42bis, where unidirectional or bi-directional compression can be declared, the two directions are minimized. For each direction, then, compression is enabled only if the sender can compress and the receiver can decompress. For MNP5, both directions are always available. 
           For V.42bis and V.44, the arithmetic minimum of M 1 /M 2 &#39;s dictionary sizes is chosen. For V.42bis, only a single dictionary size exists, which is used in both directions. For V.44, there are separate sizes for the two directions. 
           For V.42bis and V.44, the arithmetic minimum of M 1 /M 2 &#39;s string sizes also is chosen. For V.42bis, only a single string size exists, which is used in both directions. For V.44, there are separate sizes for the two directions. 
           For V.44, the arithmetic minimum of M 1 /M 2 &#39;s history sizes is chosen, and there are separate sizes for the two directions.
 
Operation When Both Gateways Support the Procedure
 
         
       
     
  
   For operation when both gateways support the procedure, the gateways send the appropriate profile as soon as MR is connected. The profile is conveyed in an SPRT PROF_XCHG message. This profile arrives very early during modulation train-up. The phone number—DNIS for OGW, called# for TGW—is available for MR use from the gateway&#39;s voice call management information. 
   After this profile exchange, each gateway has XID profiles for both the called and calling modems. As soon as M 1  sends its XIDc, the OGW can calculate the appropriate XIDr and return it immediately—there is no need to wait for a TGW train-up and exchange. As soon as M 2  trains up, the TGW sends the appropriate XIDc—there is no need to wait for an OGW train-up. 
   Those of skill in the art will appreciate that, if there is no stored XID profile for a particular phone number, that gateway will not be able to send a populated PROF_XCHG message. On the other hand, it will be able to take advantage of the PROF_XCHG message sent from the other gateway. Moreover, as described below, a called gateway (i.e. TGW) may poll its client modem, or await a normal XIDr therefrom, and store the response for later use in accordance with the dynamic learning aspect of the invention. 
   Operation When Only the OGW Supports the Procedure 
   If the TGW does not support end-to-end XID profile exchange, then the OGW can still immediately send a predicted XIDc to the TGW in the XID_XCHG message, without awaiting M 1 -OGW train-up. If M 1 -OGW train-up completes later than the TGW-M 2  train-up, then the TGW-M 2  session need not await the arrival of an end-to-end XIDc, but instead can immediately proceed to negotiate compression parameters. 
   For end-to-end negotiations to complete, M 2 &#39;s XIDr must be returned to the OGW to be relayed to M 1  when it trains up. 
   Operation When Only the TGW Supports the Procedure 
   If the OGW does not support end-to-end XID profile exchange, then the TGW can still send the predicted XIDr to the OGW in the XID_XCHG message as soon as it receives XID_XCHG(XIDc) from the OGW, without having to await TGW-M 2  train-up. If the TGW-M 2  train-up completes later than the M 1 -OGW train-up, then the OGW-M 1  session need not await arrival of an end-to-end XIDr, but instead can immediately proceed to negotiate. 
   To calculate the appropriate XIDr, the TGW performs the “ANDing” negotiation function between the incoming XIDc and its stored XID profile. This ANDing function will be understood by those of skill in the art to be alternatively described herein using the ∩ symbol, which will be understood to represent “negotiated with.” 
   Summarizing one embodiment of the invention, those of skill in the art will appreciate that the invention involves decoupling the XID phases for M 1 -G 1  and M 2 -G 2 . In other words, when the gateways start to set up an MR call, the XID profiles are exchanged if both gateways support XID profiles. The profiles can be exchanged out-of-band using an appropriate signaling mechanism (e.g., H.245, session description protocol (SDP)) or in-band using a V.MoIP transport protocol (e.g., single packet relay transport (SPRT)). 
   The gateways can thus calculate the negotiation result early. 
   When M 1  finally sends its XIDc, OGW replies immediately with the calculated XIDr=XIDc∩XIDp[M 2 ], even if M 2  hasn&#39;t yet sent its XIDr. 
   When M 2  reaches XID phase, TGW immediately sends the calculated XIDc=XIDp[M 1 ], and then receives the (hopefully) expected XIDr. 
   It is possible to detect mis/reconfiguration of M 1  or M 2  if the received XIDc[M 1 ]≠XIDp[M 1 ] or the received XIDr[M 2 ]≠XIDc[M 2 ] &amp; XIDp[M 2 ]. If this occurs, the appropriate gateway&#39;s XIDp vs. DNIS database must be updated. The call has failed if the XIDr[M 1 ] sent by OGW is not the same as the XIDr[M 2 ] received by TGW, accounting for default settings, though some implementations may choose always to fail the call. 
   The two XID exchanges (M 1 -OGW, TGW-M 2 ) don&#39;t need to be physically synchronized with each other and there is no restriction as to which leg needs to complete the physical layer negotiation first. 
   Another embodiment of the invention involves so-called partial implementation whereby one but not both of the gateways supports profiling. 
   If only one gateway supports modem profiles, there are still advantages: 
   TGW only: When OGW reports the “real” XIDc[M 1 ], TGW can reply immediately with XIDr[M 2 ], even if M 2  has not yet finished XID exchange. Such a report and reply would be via an MR XCHG_XID. 
   OGW only: When TGW finishes train-up, it can send XIDc[M 1 ], even if M 1  has not yet sent XIDc. 
   Yet a third embodiment of the invention involves profile discovery. 
   If an XID profile does not exist for a particular calling/called user, a learn-on-the-fly approach can be followed. In this case, the profile for this particular connection is stored/saved based on the command/response sent by M 1 /M 2  respectively. 
   A single XIDc from M 1  is sufficient to populate OGW&#39;s profile database. 
   For M 2 /TGW, however, only a feasible set of parameters is learned rather than a complete or optimal profile. To maximize the chance of connection, only a small default set of parameters is required. 
   This approach seems to defeat some of the advantages of modem profiling, since it is little if any better than XIDd-based default parameter exchange. 
   Accordingly, in some applications, it may be acceptable to take the time to place a first call the purpose of which is to elicit an XID profile from the terminating leg, i.e. to place a dummy call or to send a probe. Thus, a reasonable set of parameters can be requested in the XIDc, and a fairly complete profile may be obtained. It will be known whether M 2  can negotiate V.42bis, and if so then a reasonable dictionary size can be specified. V.44 capability at this time will be unknown. 
   The OGW end-to-end XIDc probing value will be even better if the M 1 -OGW session comes up first. 
   This profile can be refined or improved only at the risk of losing calls (because an XIDc probe would need to be sent that was ‘larger’ than M 2 &#39;s known capability. If M 2  should accept a larger value than M 1  sends or receives, then negotiation will have failed). If end-to-end XID exchange is infeasible due to timing, then local values must be used. 
   A more active profile discovery inventive embodiment is possible, illustrating yet another aspect of the invention. 
   TGW or an agent (connected server, etc.) can “learn” M 2 &#39;s complete profile by attempting a number of dummy calls after the DNIS has been used for the first time. One call would send XIDc with maximal V.42bis parameters (both, 64K dictionary; 250 string). The response would be the V.42bis profile. Another call would send XIDc with maximal V.44 parameters (both, 64K dictionaries; 255 strings, 64K histories), thus discovering the V.44 profile of answering modem M 2 . A third call would request both V.42bis and V.44 compression, and the result would indicate M 2 &#39;s compression preference. Further refinements are contemplated as being within the spirit and scope of the invention. 
   A network manager can also manually enter M 2 &#39;s profile into a database for use by TGW. 
   An important aspect of the invention is the how and where of profile storage, illustrating yet another aspect of the invention. 
   Simple caching of learned modem profiles has the problem of volatility—if the gateway is power cycled, cache data will be lost. 
   When an MR GW learns the XIDp for a particular DNIS, it should save the profile in non-volatile storage, either on the gateway or on an affiliated agent, e.g. an external server (e.g. Gatekeeper, Radius, etc.). The profiles may be totally reloaded back into the gateway after a power cycle, or the gateway may query the server for profile information on a per-call basis, using the calling/called phone number as a key. 
   An external profile server also offers storage of profile information for all the ports on all the gateways at a site, and not merely for the ports that happen to have served the calling/called number in the past. 
   Those of skill in the art will appreciate that the same invented technique would work as well with Microcom networking protocol (MNP) as with V.42, saving link requests (LRp&#39;s) instead of XIDp&#39;s. The two compression types supported by an MNP modem are V.42bis and MNP 5 . Thus, it will be appreciated that “profile” as used herein has the broadest possible meaning and may refer to XIDs, link requests or other protocol and performance-related information regarding a called or calling modem&#39;s characteristic configuration or preference. 
   Finally, this same invented profile technique could be used to know a priori whether the particular modem would negotiate V.42, MNP or V.14 connections. Since protocol fallback is problematic and causes longer delays, protocol selection itself would be improved. The modem profile vs. DNIS database would then include the selected protocol. Either automatic discovery or manual configuration could be used, and this choice might be separate from the manual/discovery setting for data compression. Thus, yet another aspect of the invention involves connection-type profiling using predictive, preferably non-volatile storage and look-up techniques. 
   Referring again now briefly to  FIG. 1 , the invented apparatus  8  may be described. Apparatus  8  includes an identity-determining mechanism, e.g. a DNIS mechanism,  20 ; a client modem-identity-storing mechanism  22 ; and a mechanism  24  for learning the compression parameters profile for the client modem. Those of skill in the art will appreciate that learning mechanism  24  preferably includes a mechanism  26  for placing one or more dummy calls, e.g. as many dummy calls as are needed to complete a client modem profile, as described above. Apparatus  8  also includes a preferably non-volatile storage device such as a memory  28  and a mechanism  30  for using memory-based client modem profiles to shorten and improve the compression parameters negotiation process, as described. Such mechanisms as are shown in  FIG. 1  will be understood by those of skill in the art preferably to be implemented in gateway  18 -resident software, in accordance with a preferred embodiment of the invention. 
   Those of skill in the art will appreciate that the invented method in its simplest and most elegant form may be described as a method for negotiating compression parameters over an MR network connection involving a) determining at a gateway the identity of a client modem that is called or calling and b) using a stored profile of such called or calling client modem to transmit respectively a candidate response or command containing preferably performance-maximizing compression parameters for later validation and use in the MR connection. Such is described herein above in great detail. Various alternatives or amplifications on this generic approach are illustrated in  FIGS. 3-5  and will be described below. 
     FIG. 3  is a flowchart illustrating a first preferred method for end-to-end prediction of compression parameters over an MR network having two modems and associated originating and terminating gateways. The method includes at  300  storing a predictive XID profile for an originating modem at the originating gateway. At  302 , the stored originating gateway profile is transmitted to the terminating gateway. At  304  and  306 , the same store and transmit steps are preferably repeated for the terminating gateway profile. Finally, at  308 , the predictive XID profile for the terminating gateway is received at the originating gateway. Optionally, of course, and as illustrated in  FIG. 2  but not shown in  FIG. 3 , the predictive XID profile for the originating gateway also is received at the terminating gateway. This last optional step assumes that both gateways are equipped to do predictive profiling, as described above. 
     FIG. 4  is a flowchart illustrating a preferred method for decoupling the XID phases of two modem-gateway legs of an MR connection. The method includes at  400  providing a gateway in each of two MR legs with an XID profile of the two gateways&#39; associated modems. At  402 , XID profiles are exchanged between the two legs. Typically, such is done before the physical layer negotiation on at least one leg is complete. At  404 , compatibility of the two XID profiles is “confirmed” at the originating modem, i.e. XIDr is accepted or not. The OGW calculates the optimal compression settings, i.e. XIDr=XIDp[M 1 ]∩XIDp[M 2 ]. At  406 , a compatible XID is transmitted from the originating gateway to the terminating gateway. Typically, such is done after physical layer negotiation is complete. Finally, at  408 , XID negotiation between the two legs is completed when the originating gateway receives a validated XID from the terminating gateway, as described in detail above. 
     FIG. 5  is a flowchart illustrating yet another preferred embodiment of the invented method. At  500 , an XID profile for a client modem is stored in a profile database at a gateway. At  502 , one or more dummy calls is placed to the connected client modem to prompt one or more informative responses therefrom. At  504 , the stored profile for the client modem optionally may be updated based upon the connected client modem&#39;s response to the one or more dummy calls. This is described in more detail above, and may be understood by those of skill in the art to involve a learning mode by which a prediction is made and then validated in order to obtain substantially optimal MR performance over time and with various and potentially variable servers, gateways, modems and line conditions. 
   The numerous advantages of the invention now may be appreciated. The invented method and apparatus provide:
         Optimal XID compression settings.   Improved Call Success Rate (CSR) due to compatible compression settings.   Decreased time to connect.   No need to delay the physical connection.   Less complexity in the modem relay connection state machine.   Fewer call failures due to systematic problems.   Extensible to MNP (LR compression settings).   Extensible to protocol choice (V.42; MNP; V.14) and V.14 parameters.
 
Further Considerations
       

   The ITU-T V.42 recommendation teaches that M 1  should send an XIDc (XID command) frame during the protocol establishment phase of a V.42 connection and should expect an XIDr (XID Reply) frame in return. The XIDc contains the complete and maximal LAPM (Link Access Protocol for Modems) and data compression capabilities of the originating modem, e.g. for M 1 : 
   V.42bis (both directions, Dictionary=2K; MaxString=255), 
   V.44 (both directions, TxDictionary=4K; TxMaxString=250, 
   TxHistory=6K; RxDictionary=5K; RxMaxString=255; RxHistory=6K). 
   M 2  selects a feasible set of items from this “menu”, negotiating them “down” to what it supports, but maximizing compression performance within those limits, and returns them as its XIDr. For example, suppose that M 2  can support: 
   V.42bis or V.44, Dictionaries=3K; Histories=7K; Strings=250/255, preference for V.44. 
   In this case, the XIDr sent by M 2  would contain the following: 
   V.44 compression, TxDictionary=RxDictionary=3K, 
   TxMaxString=RxMaxString=255; TxHistory=RxHistory=6K. 
   Assume XIDp (not sent as such) is a “profile” or “menu” of a modem&#39;s capabilities. The profile may contain mutually exclusive settings, such as data compression types, since the modem can only perform, at most, a single data compression method at a time. For M 1  (originating), note that XIDp[M 1 ] is completely represented by XIDc[M 1 ]. For M 2  (answering, terminating), however, note that XIDp[M 2 ] cannot be determined from a single instance of XIDr[M 2 ], and the priority between mutually exclusive items such as compression types is unknown. 
   MR 1  XID negotiation between M 1  and M 2  over a V.MoIP Modem Relay network is ideally end-to-end, since this gives the most feasible negotiation result, and the resulting negotiated parameters are the best that can be achieved (as good as a direct connection between the two modems). The originating (calling) modem M 1  proposes a profile of its maximum acceptable capabilities in its XIDc[M 1 ], and the terminating (called) modem M 2  returns the maximal/preferred/supported subset in its returned XIDr[M 2 ]. If M 2 &#39;s capabilities are XIDp[M 2 ], then XIDr[M 1 ]=XIDr[M 2 ]=XIDc[M 1 ]∩XIDp[M 2 ], where “∩” symbolizes the V.42 negotiation function (similar to a logical intersection or the Boolean AND operator). This preserves the general rules that XIDr&lt;=XIDc and XIDr≦XIDp, where “≦” symbolizes the “properly negotiates down to” relation. 
   End-to-end negotiation may not be possible in some Modem Relay scenarios. These are situations where M 1 &#39;s XIDc cannot reach M 2  by the time it is required by the TGW-M 2  LAPM session, or where M 2 &#39;s XIDr cannot reach M 1  by the time it is required by the M 1 -OGW LAPM session. These scenarios would normally result in default compression parameters being negotiated, or in a failed call (due to incompatible parameters). 
   If the modems were simply to wait for the respective XID command/response to arrive, LAPM protocol timeouts might have already caused the call to fail. Such delays could be due to differences in train-up time between the M 1  and M 2  connections (e.g. by the time M 1  reaches XID phase, M 2  has reached its XID phase and then timed out). Another cause of such delays could be pure end-to-end delay across the V.MoIP network. 
   A popular workaround for this XID timing problem is to use minimal defaults for both the XIDr sent to M 1  and the XIDc sent to M 2 . For example, using the modem settings of the example above, one could choose a default XIDd of V.42bis (both, Dictionary=1k; MaxString=32). Whenever M 1  sends its XIDc, OGW would immediately send to M 1  the default response XIDr=XIDd=V.42bis (both, 1k, 32). When TGW reaches XID phase with M 2 , TGW immediately sends XIDc=XIDd=V.42bis (both, 1K; 32), and M 2  would hopefully send XIDr=XIDd=XIDp[M 2 ] &amp; XIDd, confirming these parameters. 
   This XIDd workaround has two problems:
         1) Negotiation can fail. If M 1  requests (via its XIDc) or M 2  accepts (via its XIDr) a narrower set of parameters than the XIDd default (e.g. M 1  requests no compression), the result is different parameters negotiated for M 1  and M 2 , so the two will not be able to communicate successfully. The call will fail, initially or eventually.   2) Sub-optimal parameters can result. V.44 compression would have been a better compression in the above example. Larger dictionary and string sizes would have been better. However, if a wider XIDd had been used, more modems would be found that used a narrower set, and negotiation would fail.       

   Another popular workaround is for gateways to implement additional physical layer intelligent code to delay physical layer bring-up on the faster side. There is a high risk of incompatibility here, and it is impossible to predict all the delays (e.g. a retrain or speed-shift may occur in the middle of the XID phase). 
   Finally, those of skill in the art will appreciate that the invented method and apparatus described and illustrated herein may be implemented in software, firmware or hardware, or any suitable combination thereof. Preferably, the method and apparatus are implemented in software, for purposes of low cost and flexibility. Thus, those of skill in the art will appreciate that the method and apparatus of the invention may be implemented by a computer or microprocessor process in which instructions are executed, the instructions being stored for execution on a computer-readable medium and being executed by any suitable instruction processor. Alternative embodiments are contemplated, however, and are within the spirit and scope of the invention. 
   As discussed above, current proposals may have some difficulties when attempting to use in-band renegotiation of the compression parameters. V.150.1 permits ITU V.44-compliant connections to renegotiate compression parameters. V.44 is an ITU recommendation entitled “Data Compression Procedures.” It is during the in-band renegotiation that problems may arise. 
   A diagram of transcompression elements, those elements that decompress data according to a first compression/decompression method and then compress the data using a second compression/decompression method, in a network is shown in  FIG. 7 . The term transcompression element may also apply to just the decompressor or the compressor inside a network device that performs transcompression, where an internal data connection exists between the compressor and decompressor. In contrast, a modem such as M 1  or M 2  has only a compression element. For example, M 1  has a compression element that uses compression/decompression method  1 . The compressed data is transmitted across the public switched telephone network (PSTN) through gateway G 1  to a data network, in this case a network operating in accordance with the Internet Protocol (IP), although any data network protocol could be used. 
   The compressed data then begins its egress from the data network to the other branch of the PSTN through gateway G 2 . Gateway G 2  has a transcompression element that decompresses the data according to the first method and then compresses it according to a second method, with an internal connection between the compressor and the decompressor. The first method selected depends upon the compression used in the data coming from the first modem across the IP network. The second method depends upon the decompression being used by the second modem. The compression/decompression methods are designated at C x1 / x1  and C x2 /D x2 , but the two methods may turn out to be the same, or at least compatible. For ease of discussion the term ‘compression method’ will refer to both the decompression and compression methods applied for a particular method. 
   Additionally, for some reason the modems may transmit according to first and third compression methods and the gateways use a second and fourth method, which may be impractical, but the invention is not limited to only two compression methods being used in the network. Examples of data compression methods include ITU V.42bis “Data Compression Procedures for Data Circuit-Terminating Equipment Using Error Correction Procedures,” V.44 “Data Compression Procedures,” and Microcom Network Protocol Layer 5 (MNP5), among others. No limitation as to the number of compression methods is intended or implied by the example of using only a first and second method. 
   A first problem with in-band renegotiation may arise when the originating modem, M 1 , requests a change in compression parameters through in-band renegotiation. There is no way for the decompressor in G 2  to inform the compressor in G 1  that the parameters have been changed, and that acceptable parameters should be sent back to M 1 . The transcompression element D x1  in G 2  cannot just request that C x2  in G 2  reply with a confirmation (CNF), as the reply is going the wrong direction and in the wrong call leg. 
   Additional problems lie in the configuration of the C x2  because it may not be configured for in-band renegotiation at all, so the procedure may not even complete. In the cases when all of the elements are configured for in-band negotiation, a four-way negotiation results between M 1 -G 2 -M 2 -G 1 , with no possibility of detection, confirmation or repair. Incorrect negotiations are more likely and there is no recovery. 
   A second problem may result from the ability of transcompression elements to become ‘transparent’ under the V.150.1 standard. If a transcompression element determines that the two compression methods for incoming and outgoing data are compatible enough that both legs can understand each other without going through the decompression/compression procedure, that transcompression element ‘drops out.’ The transcompression element becomes transparent, passing data directly from incoming to outgoing ports with no decompression or compression operations being performed. 
   If a transcompression element drops out and a renegotiation occurs, the two or more compression methods may no longer be compatible. If the decompressor has dropped out, it cannot detect the in-band renegotiation request. If the compressor has dropped out, it cannot detect that its associated decompressor has detected a renegotiation request, nor send an in-band renegotiation response. 
   A third problem may occur because the gateways have no way to inform each other that they have successfully negotiated in-band renegotiation of the compression method. The gateways therefore do not know whether they can accept or request in-band negotiation. An originating modem&#39;s request may be ignored because one of the two gateways, or both, does not possess renegotiation capabilities. 
   A network device capable of in-band negotiation confirmation is shown in  FIG. 7 . The device  600  may be a gateway or other intermediary between different types of networks such as in a modem relay route between originating and terminating modems. In this network device, the transcompression element  608  D x  has the capability of transmitting a message to the compressor on the other gateway, confirming the change in compression parameters. 
   For example, in a specific scenario relying at least in part on V.44, the CRI message contains the compression parameters of the REQ received by the D x , mediated by the capabilities of the D x . The D x  would reduce the requested decompression capabilities of the REQ to what it can handle, but pass the requested compression capabilities as they were received. The C x  that receives the CRI will pass on the negotiated decompression capabilities, but reduce the requested compression capabilities to what it can handle. This information is then packaged in the confirmation message (CNF) and sent back to M 1  or M 2 . 
   Data from the PSTN enters the PSTN port  602 . Data routes are shown in solid lines, control routes in dashed lines. The data through the PSTN is passed directly to the network port  606 . In this context, the network port is the port for the data network, such as an IP network. Data coming from the network port  606  may be of two different types, data being relayed, or relay control. Data travels from the net port  606  to the decompressor  608  to the compressor  604  and to the PSTN port  602 . Some data may route to the processor  601 . Control traffic routes to the processor  601  and between the processor and the compressor and decompressor, and possibly between the compressor and decompressor directly. 
   In addition, the transcompression element comprised of the compression and decompression elements  604  and  608  do not drop out but enter a monitoring mode when they detect that the data on either side of them is compressed or decompressed by the same method. Further, the processor  602  may generate a connect message advertising the capability, so other gateways know that the capability for renegotiation exists. 
   As can be seen in  FIG. 8 , the transcompression element D x1  has the capability of transmitting a ‘compression renegotiation indicator’ (CRI) message to the other gateway G 1 &#39;s compression element C x1 . This may be accomplished in a fashion similar to interprocess communication normally controlling renegotiation on a conventional, non-networked compression node. 
   In addition to the capability of sending the confirmation message, each gateway knows the other gateway has the ability to properly handle in-band compression renegotiation. This may be established by the gateway when setting up the call using a V.150.1 modem relay connect message. For example, the V.150.1 connect message may include a V.44 in-band renegotiation field in accordance with V.44. 
   As mentioned above, the transcompression elements can no longer drop out, as that would allow them to miss the renegotiation messages. A method for the transcompression elements to monitor the message flow, without actually operating on the data, is shown in  FIG. 9 . The transcompression element determines the compatibility of the two compression methods on either side of it, incoming and outgoing. The methods may not be exactly the same, but must be compatible enough to be indistinguishable on either end. 
   If the methods are compatible, as checked at  902 , the element moves into a monitoring mode at  904  with transparent pass through of the data. If, during this phase, a renegotiation is detected at  906 , the element will determine compatibility at  900  again. In one embodiment, two different indications of compression renegotiation may occur, but not at the same time. First, the D x  receives an in-band renegotiation request, such as may be sent under ITU V.44. Second, the transcompression element may receive a CRI message from the other gateway. If the renegotiation detected is an in-band negotiation request (REQ), a CRI is sent to the data network leg of the relay at  910   b  as an indication of compression renegotiation acknowledgement. If the indication of compression renegotiation detection is a CRI, a confirmation (CNF) message according to the in-band renegotiation procedure is sent at  910   a  as the indication of compression renegotiation acknowledgement. V.44 is just one example of an in-band renegotiation request and other types of in-band renegotiation requests may be developed in the future that would be considered to be contained within the embodiments of the invention. 
   This may also be useful in double transcompression gateways (DTCX). In the DTCX case, the C x  to which a D x  would send the CRI is in the gateway&#39;s other transcompression element. A network message would not be needed, and an intra-computer message would do. If one of the transcompression elements has gone transparent because of compatible compression protocols, it would need the same concepts as this invention to transition between pass-thru and monitoring. 
   For the single transcompression case, the element remains in the monitoring mode. Renegotiation may be detected by monitoring Simple Packet Relay Transport (SPRT) messages passing through the gateway for renegotiation parameters. 
   If the methods are incompatible, either on the initial determination or after renegotiation, the transcompression element performs transcompression as necessary on message traffic in the gateway. 
   In this manner, a decompressor in a first gateway can inform a compressor in a second gateway that the renegotiated parameters have been received and the second gateway can then send the supported parameters to the requesting modem. Additionally, gateways will be able to determine if other gateways have the renegotiation capability. Further, transcompression elements can ‘partially’ drop out in that they can monitor message traffic to determine if renegotiation occurs, while not actually performing transcompression tasks. An advantage of the monitoring mode is that the monitoring mode is less processor and memory intensive than decompressing and recompressing. 
   In some embodiments of the invention, the methods of the invention may be contained in software instructions or code on an article of machine-readable media. The instructions, when transferred to the machine such as the network device and executed, cause the machine to perform the methods of the invention. 
   Thus, although there has been described to this point a particular embodiment for a method and apparatus for in-band renegotiation of compression parameters, it is not intended that such specific references be considered as limitations upon the scope of this invention except in-so-far as set forth in the following claims.