draft-ietf-dime-agent-overload-00.txt   draft-ietf-dime-agent-overload-01.txt 
Diameter Maintenance and Extensions (DIME) S. Donovan Diameter Maintenance and Extensions (DIME) S. Donovan
Internet-Draft Oracle Internet-Draft Oracle
Intended status: Standards Track December 17, 2014 Intended status: Standards Track March 6, 2015
Expires: June 20, 2015 Expires: September 7, 2015
Diameter Agent Overload Diameter Agent Overload
draft-ietf-dime-agent-overload-00.txt draft-ietf-dime-agent-overload-01.txt
Abstract Abstract
This specification documents an extension to the Diameter Overload This specification documents an extension to the Diameter Overload
Control (DOC) base solution. The extension addresses the handling of Indication Conveyance (DOIC) base solution. The extension addresses
occurrances of overload of a Diameter agent. the handling of occurrences of overload of a Diameter agent, or more
generally, a Diameter peer.
Requirements Requirements
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
Status of This Memo Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
skipping to change at page 1, line 38 skipping to change at page 1, line 39
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on June 20, 2015. This Internet-Draft will expire on September 7, 2015.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License. described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Terminology and Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2. Terminology and Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Peer Report Use Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3. Peer Report Use Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1. Diameter Agent Overload Use Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3.1. Diameter Agent Overload Use Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1.1. Single Agent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.1.1. Single Agent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1.2. Redundant Agents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.1.2. Redundant Agents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.1.3. Agent Chains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3.1.3. Agent Chains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.2. Diameter Endpoint Use Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3.2. Diameter Endpoint Use Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.2.1. Hop-by-hop Abatement Algorithms . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3.2.1. Hop-by-hop Abatement Algorithms . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4. Interaction Between Host/Realm and Peer Overload Reports . . 8 4. Interaction Between Host/Realm and Peer Overload Reports . . 8
5. Peer Report Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 5. Peer Report Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.1. Capability Announcement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 5.1. Capability Announcement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.2. Peer Report Overload Report Handling . . . . . . . . . . 10 5.1.1. Reacting Node Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.2.1. Overload Control State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 5.1.2. Reporting Node Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.2.2. Reporting Node Maintenace of Peer Report OCS . . . . 11 5.2. Peer Report Overload Report Handling . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.2.3. Reacting Node Maintenace of Peer Report OCS . . . . . 12 5.2.1. Overload Control State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.2.4. Peer Report Reporting Node Behavior . . . . . . . . . 13 5.2.2. Reporting Node Maintenance of Peer Report OCS . . . . 12
5.2.5. Peer Report Reacting Node Behavior . . . . . . . . . 13 5.2.3. Reacting Node Maintenance of Peer Report OCS . . . . 12
6. Peer Report AVPs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 5.2.4. Peer Report Reporting Node Behavior . . . . . . . . . 14
6.1. OC-Supported-Features AVP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 5.2.5. Peer Report Reacting Node Behavior . . . . . . . . . 14
6. Peer Report AVPs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
6.1. OC-Supported-Features AVP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
6.1.1. OC-Feature-Vector . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 6.1.1. OC-Feature-Vector . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
6.1.2. OC-Peer-Algo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 6.1.2. OC-Peer-Algo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
6.2. OC-OLR AVP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 6.2. OC-OLR AVP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
6.2.1. OC-Report-Type AVP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 6.2.1. OC-Report-Type AVP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
6.3. OC-SourceID . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 6.3. OC-SourceID . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
6.4. Attribute Value Pair flag rules . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 6.4. Attribute Value Pair flag rules . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
10. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 10. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
This document defines the behavior of Diameter nodes when Diameter This document defines the behavior of Diameter nodes when Diameter
agents enter an overload condition and send an overload report agents enter an overload condition and send an overload report
requesting a reduction of traffic. requesting a reduction of traffic.
The base Diameter overload specification [I-D.ietf-dime-ovli] The base Diameter overload specification [I-D.ietf-dime-ovli]
addresses the handling of overload when a Diameter endpoint (a addresses the handling of overload when a Diameter endpoint (a
Diameter Client or Diameter Server as defined in [RFC6733]) becomes Diameter Client or Diameter Server as defined in [RFC6733]) becomes
overloaded. overloaded.
In the base specification, the goal is to handle abatement of the In the base specification, the goal is to handle abatement of the
overload occurrance as close to the source of the Diameter traffic as overload occurrence as close to the source of the Diameter traffic as
is feasible. When possible this is done at the originator of the is feasible. When possible this is done at the originator of the
traffic, generally referred to as a Diameter Client. A Diameter traffic, generally referred to as a Diameter Client. A Diameter
Agent might also handle the overload mitigation. For instance, a Agent might also handle the overload mitigation. For instance, a
Diameter Agent might handle Diameter overload mitigation when it Diameter Agent might handle Diameter overload mitigation when it
knows that a Diameter Client does not support the DOIC extension. knows that a Diameter Client does not support the DOIC extension.
This document extends the base Diameter endpoint overload This document extends the base Diameter endpoint overload
specification to address the case when Diameter Agents become specification to address the case when Diameter Agents become
overloaded. Just as is the case with other Diameter nodes -- overloaded. Just as is the case with other Diameter nodes --
Diameter Clients and Diameter Servers -- surges in Diameter traffic Diameter Clients and Diameter Servers -- surges in Diameter traffic
can cause a Diameter Agent to be asked to handle more Diameter can cause a Diameter Agent to be asked to handle more Diameter
traffic than it was configured to handle. For a more detailed traffic than it was configured to handle. For a more detailed
discussion of what can cause the overload of Diameter nodes, refer to discussion of what can cause the overload of Diameter nodes, refer to
the Diameter Overload Requirements [RFC7068]. the Diameter Overload Requirements [RFC7068].
This document defines a new overload report type to communicate This document defines a new overload report type to communicate
occurrances of agent overlaod. This report type works for the "Loss" occurrences of agent overload. This report type works for the "Loss"
overload mitigation algorithm defined in [I-D.ietf-dime-ovli] and is overload mitigation algorithm defined in [I-D.ietf-dime-ovli] and is
expected to work for other overload abatement algorithms defined in expected to work for other overload abatement algorithms defined in
extensions to the DOIC solution. extensions to the DOIC solution.
The handling of endpoint overload and agent overload is very similar. The handling of endpoint overload and agent overload is very similar.
The primary differences are the following: The primary differences are the following:
o Endpoint overload is handled as close to the originator of the o Endpoint overload is handled as close to the originator of the
traffic as possible. traffic as possible.
skipping to change at page 4, line 19 skipping to change at page 4, line 22
probably needs to be changed to OC-Peer-Abatement-Algorithm. probably needs to be changed to OC-Peer-Abatement-Algorithm.
2. Terminology and Abbreviations 2. Terminology and Abbreviations
Editors note - These definitions need to be made consistent with the Editors note - These definitions need to be made consistent with the
base Diameter overload specification defined in [I-D.ietf-dime-ovli]. base Diameter overload specification defined in [I-D.ietf-dime-ovli].
Diameter Node Diameter Node
A RFC6733 Diameter Client, an RFC6733 Diameter Server, and RFC6733 A RFC6733 Diameter Client, an RFC6733 Diameter Server, and RFC6733
agent. Diameter Agent.
Diameter Endpoint Diameter Endpoint
An RFC6733 Diameter Client and RFC6733 Server. An RFC6733 Diameter Client and RFC6733 Diameter Server.
Reporting Node Reporting Node
A DOIC Node that sends and overload report in Diameter answer A DOIC Node that sends and overload report in a Diameter answer
message. message.
Reacting Node Reacting Node
A DOIC Node that receives and acts on a Diameter overload report. A DOIC Node that receives and acts on a Diameter overload report.
DIOC Node DIOC Node
A Diameter Node that supports the DOIC solution defined in A Diameter Node that supports the DOIC solution defined in
[I-D.ietf-dime-ovli]. [I-D.ietf-dime-ovli].
3. Peer Report Use Cases 3. Peer Report Use Cases
This section outlines representative use cases for the peer report. This section outlines representative use cases for the peer report
used to communicate agent overload.
There are two primary classes of use cases, those involving the There are two primary classes of use cases, those involving the
overload of agents and those involving overload of Diameter endpoints overload of agents and those involving overload of Diameter endpoints
(Diameter Clients and Diameter Servers). (Diameter Clients and Diameter Servers).
3.1. Diameter Agent Overload Use Cases 3.1. Diameter Agent Overload Use Cases
The agent overload extension must support following use cases. The agent overload extension must support the following use cases.
3.1.1. Single Agent 3.1.1. Single Agent
This use case is illustrated in Figure 1. In this case, the client This use case is illustrated in Figure 1. In this case, the client
sends all traffic through the single agent. If there is a failure in sends all traffic through the single agent. If there is a failure in
the agent then the client is unable to send Diameter traffic toward the agent then the client is unable to send Diameter traffic toward
the server. the server.
+-+ +-+ +-+ +-+ +-+ +-+
|c|----|a|----|s| |c|----|a|----|s|
skipping to change at page 5, line 42 skipping to change at page 5, line 46
Figure 2 Figure 2
In both of these cases, the occurrence of overload in the single In both of these cases, the occurrence of overload in the single
agent must by handled by the client in a similar fashion as if the agent must by handled by the client in a similar fashion as if the
client were handling the overload of a directly connected server. client were handling the overload of a directly connected server.
When the agent becomes overloaded it will insert an overload report When the agent becomes overloaded it will insert an overload report
in answer messages flowing to the client. This overload report will in answer messages flowing to the client. This overload report will
contain a requested reduction in the amount of traffic sent to the contain a requested reduction in the amount of traffic sent to the
agent. The client will apply overload abatement behavior as defined agent. The client will apply overload abatement behavior as defined
in the base Diameter overload specification [I-D.ietf-dime-ovli] or in the base Diameter overload specification [I-D.ietf-dime-ovli] or
the extension draft that defines the indicated overoad abatement the extension draft that defines the indicated overload abatement
algorithm. This will result in the abated traffic that would have algorithm. This will result in the throtting of the abated traffic
been sent to the agent being dropped, as there is no alternative that would have been sent to the agent, as there is no alternative
route, with the appropriate indication given to the service request route, with the appropriate indication given to the service request
that resulted in the need for the Diameter transaction. that resulted in the need for the Diameter transaction.
Editor's note: Need to address case where the agent requests a
different abatement algorithm than requested by a host or realm
reporting node.
3.1.2. Redundant Agents 3.1.2. Redundant Agents
Figure 3 and Figure 4 illustrate a second, and more likely,type of Figure 3 and Figure 4 illustrate a second, and more likely, type of
deployment scenario involving agents. In both of these cases, the deployment scenario involving agents. In both of these cases, the
client has Diameter connections to two agents. client has Diameter connections to two agents.
Figure 3 illustrates a client that has a primary connection to one of Figure 3 illustrates a client that has a primary connection to one of
the agents (agent a1) and a secondary connection to the other agent the agents (agent a1) and a secondary connection to the other agent
(agent a2). In this scenario, under normal circumstances, the client (agent a2). In this scenario, under normal circumstances, the client
will use the primary connection for all traffic. The secondary will use the primary connection for all traffic. The secondary
connection is used when there is a failure scenario of some sort. connection is used when there is a failure scenario of some sort.
+--+ +-+ +--+ +-+
skipping to change at page 8, line 5 skipping to change at page 8, line 5
Overload of agents a21 and a22 must be handled by the previous hop Overload of agents a21 and a22 must be handled by the previous hop
agents. As such, agents a11 and a12 must handle the overload agents. As such, agents a11 and a12 must handle the overload
mitigation logic when receiving an agent overload report from agents mitigation logic when receiving an agent overload report from agents
a21 and a22. a21 and a22.
Editor's note: Probably need to elaborate the reasoning behind the Editor's note: Probably need to elaborate the reasoning behind the
need for the agent overload report being handled by the previous hop need for the agent overload report being handled by the previous hop
agent. agent.
The handling of the overload reports is similar to that discussed in The handling of peer overload reports is similar to that discussed in
section 2.2. If the overload can be addressed using diversion then section 2.2. If the overload can be addressed using diversion then
this approach should be taken. this approach should be taken.
If both of the agents have requested a reduction in traffic then the If both of the agents have requested a reduction in traffic then the
previous hop agent must start throttling the appropriate percentage previous hop agent must start throttling the appropriate number of
of transactions. When throttling requests, the agent must use the transactions. When throttling requests, an agent uses the same error
same error responses as defined in the base DOIC specification responses as defined in the base DOIC specification
[I-D.ietf-dime-ovli]. [I-D.ietf-dime-ovli].
3.2. Diameter Endpoint Use Cases 3.2. Diameter Endpoint Use Cases
This section outlines use cases for the peer report feature involving This section outlines use cases for the peer report feature involving
Diameter Clients and Diameter Servers. Diameter Clients and Diameter Servers.
3.2.1. Hop-by-hop Abatement Algorithms 3.2.1. Hop-by-hop Abatement Algorithms
It is envisioned that abatement algorithms will be defined that will It is envisioned that abatement algorithms will be defined that will
support the option for Diameter Endpoints to send peer reports. For support the option for Diameter Endpoints to send peer reports. For
instance, it is envisioned that one usage scenario for the rate instance, it is envisioned that one usage scenario for the rate
algorithm, which is being worked on by the DIME working group as this algorithm, [I-D.ietf-dime-doic-rate-control], which is being worked
is written, will involve abatement being done on a hop-by-hop basis. on by the DIME working group as this is written, will involve
abatement being done on a hop-by-hop basis.
This rate deployment scenario would involve Diameter Endpoints This rate deployment scenario would involve Diameter Endpoints
generating peer reports and selecting the rate algorithm for generating peer reports and selecting the rate algorithm for
abatement of overload conditions. abatement of overload conditions.
4. Interaction Between Host/Realm and Peer Overload Reports 4. Interaction Between Host/Realm and Peer Overload Reports
It is possible that both an agent and a server in the path of a It is possible that both an agent and a server in the path of a
transaction are overloaded at the same time. When this occurs, transaction are overloaded at the same time. When this occurs,
Diameter entities will need to handle both overload reports. When Diameter entities will need to handle both overload reports. In this
this occurs the reacting node should first handle the throttling of scenario the reacting node should first handle the throttling of the
the overloaded host or realm. Any messages that survive throttling overloaded host or realm. Any messages that survive throttling due
due to host or realm reports should then go through abatement for the to host or realm reports should then go through abatement for the
peer overload report. peer overload report.
Editor's note: Do we need to prevent double throttling of requests
or is that a local implementation consideration?
5. Peer Report Behavior 5. Peer Report Behavior
This section defines the normative behavior associated with the Peer This section defines the normative behavior associated with the Peer
Report extension to the DOIC solution. Report extension to the DOIC solution.
5.1. Capability Announcement 5.1. Capability Announcement
Editor's Note: Issue - how does an agent indicate the selected Editor's Note: Issue - how does an agent indicate the selected
abatement algorithm? It cannot use the OC-Feature-Vector in the OC- abatement algorithm? It cannot use the OC-Feature-Vector in the OC-
Supported-Features AVP as that applies to host and realm report Supported-Features AVP as that applies to host and realm report
types. Need a new AVP in the OC-Supported-Features AVP. types. A new AVP in the OC-Supported-Features AVP has been added.
5.1.1. Reacting Node Behavior
When sending a Diameter request a DOIC node that supports the Peer When sending a Diameter request a DOIC node that supports the Peer
Report feature MUST include an OC-Supported-Features AVP with an OC- Report feature MUST include an OC-Supported-Features AVP with an OC-
Feature-Vector AVP with the OLR_PEER_REPORT bit set. Feature-Vector AVP with the OLR_PEER_REPORT bit set.
The sender of a request can be a Diameter Client or Diameter Note: The sender of a request can be a Diameter Client or Diameter
Server that originates the Diamter request or a Diameter Agent Server that originates the Diamter request or a Diameter Agent
that relays the request. that relays the request.
Support for the peer report feature does not impact the logic for Support for the peer report feature does not impact the logic for
setting of other feature bits in the OC-Feature-Vector AVP. setting of other feature bits in the OC-Feature-Vector AVP.
When sending a request a DOIC node that supports the Peer Report When sending a request a DOIC node that supports the Peer Report
feature MUST include an OC-SourceID AVP in the OC-Supported-Features feature MUST include an OC-SourceID AVP in the OC-Supported-Features
AVP with its own DiameterID. AVP with its own DiameterID.
This allows the next DOIC node in the path of the request to Note: This allows the next DOIC node in the path of the request to
determine if the indication of support came from a Diameter peer determine if the indication of support came from a Diameter peer
or if the request traversed a node that does not support the peer or if the request traversed a node that does not support the peer
feature. feature.
5.1.2. Reporting Node Behavior
When receiving a request a DOIC node that supports the Peer Report When receiving a request a DOIC node that supports the Peer Report
feature MUST update transaction state with an indication of whether feature MUST update transaction state with an indication of whether
or not the peer from which the request was received supports the Peer or not the peer from which the request was received supports the Peer
Report feature. Report feature.
The transaction state is used when the DOIC node is acting as a Note" The transaction state is used when the DOIC node is acting
peer report reporting node and needs to insert OC-OLR reports of as a peer-report reporting node and needs to insert OC-Supported-
type peer into answer messages. The OLR should only be included Feature AVP indicating support for the OLR_PEER_REPORT feature and
in answer messages being sent to peers that support the peer OC-OLR reports of type PEER_REPORT into answer messages. These
report feature. AVP OLR are only included in answer messages being sent to peers
that support the OLR_PEER_REPORT feature.
The following are indications that the peer does not support the Peer The following are indications that the peer does not support the
Reports feature: OLR_PEER_REPORT feature:
The request does not contain an OC-Supported-Features AVP. The request does not contain an OC-Supported-Features AVP.
The received request contains an OC-Supported-Features AVP with no The received request contains an OC-Supported-Features AVP with no
a OC-Feature-Vector. OC-Feature-Vector.
The received request contains an OC-Supported-Features AVP with a The received request contains an OC-Supported-Features AVP with a
OC-Feature-Vector with the OLR_PEER_REPORT feature bit cleared. OC-Feature-Vector with the OLR_PEER_REPORT feature bit cleared.
The received request contains an OC-Supported-Features AVP with a The received request contains an OC-Supported-Features AVP with a
OC-Feature-Vector with the OLR_PEER_REPORT feature bit set but OC-Feature-Vector with the OLR_PEER_REPORT feature bit set but
with an OC-SourceID AVP with a DiameterID that does not match the with an OC-SourceID AVP with a DiameterID that does not match the
DiameterID of the peer from which the request was received. DiameterID of the peer from which the request was received.
The peer supports the Peer Reports feature if the received request The peer supports the OLR_PEER_REPORT feature if the received request
contains an OC-Supported-Features AVP with the OC-Feature-Vector with contains an OC-Supported-Features AVP with the OC-Feature-Vector with
the OLR_PEER_REPORT feature bit set and with an OC-SourceID AVP with the OLR_PEER_REPORT feature bit set and with an OC-SourceID AVP with
a Diameter ID that matches the DiameterID of the peer from which the a Diameter ID that matches the DiameterID of the peer from which the
request was received. request was received.
When receiving a request a DOIC node that supports the Peer Report When receiving a request a DOIC node that supports the Peer Report
feature MUST remove any received OC-SourceID AVP from the OC- feature MUST remove any received OC-SourceID AVP from the OC-
Supported-Features AVP. This is done to prevent the OC-SourceID AVP Supported-Features AVP. This is done to prevent the OC-SourceID AVP
from being included in a relayed message through a node that supports from being included in a relayed message through a node that supports
the Peer Report feature. the Peer Report feature.
Editor's Note: Need to add behavior for handling of answer messages Note: If the DOIC node relays the message then it will insert an
to define how the OC-Supported-Features AVP that will be included in OC-SourceID AVP with its own DiameterID in the OC-Supported-
a relayed answer message is constructed. This includes logic on Features AVP in the relayed message.
whether or not the peer report feature bit is set and whether or not
the OC-Peer-Algo AVP is included in the OC-Supported-Features AVP. When sending an answer message, a reporting node that supports the
OLR_PEER_REPORT feature MUST strip any SourceID AVP from the OC-
Supported-Features AVP.
When sending an answer message, a reporting node that supports the
OLR_PEER_REPORT feature MUST determine if the peer to which the
answer is to be sent supports the OLR_PEER_REPORT feature.
If the peer supports the OLR_PEER_REPORT feature then the reporting
node MUST indicate support for the feature in the Supported-Features
AVP.
If the peer supports the OLR_PEER_REPORT feature then the reporting
node MUST insert the OC-SourceID AVP in the OC-Supported-Features AVP
in the answer message.
If the peer supports the OLR_PEER_REPORT feature then the reporting
node MUST insert the OC-Peer-Algo AVP in the OC-Supported-Features
AVP. The OC-Peer-Algo AVP MUST indicate the overload abatement
algorithm that the reporting node wants reacting nodes to use should
the reporting node send a peer overload report as a result of
becoming overloaded.
5.2. Peer Report Overload Report Handling 5.2. Peer Report Overload Report Handling
This section defines the behavior for the handling of overload This section defines the behavior for the handling of overload
reports of type peer. reports of type peer.
5.2.1. Overload Control State 5.2.1. Overload Control State
This section describes the Overload Control State (OCS) that might be This section describes the Overload Control State (OCS) that might be
maintained by both the peer report reporting node and the peer report maintained by both the peer report reporting node and the peer report
skipping to change at page 11, line 44 skipping to change at page 12, line 22
o Sequence number o Sequence number
o Expiration Time o Expiration Time
o Abatement Algorithm o Abatement Algorithm
o Algorithm specific input data (for example, the Reduction o Algorithm specific input data (for example, the Reduction
Percentage for the Loss Abatement Algorithm) Percentage for the Loss Abatement Algorithm)
5.2.2. Reporting Node Maintenace of Peer Report OCS 5.2.2. Reporting Node Maintenance of Peer Report OCS
A reporting node SHOULD create a new Reporting Node Peer Report OCS A reporting node SHOULD create a new Reporting Node Peer Report OCS
entry Section 5.2.1.1 in an overload condition and sending a peer entry Section 5.2.1.1 in an overload condition and sending a peer
overload report to a peer for the first time. overload report to a peer for the first time.
If the reporting node knows that there are no reacting nodes If the reporting node knows that there are no reacting nodes
supporting the Peer Report feature then the reporting node can supporting the Peer Report feature then the reporting node can
choose to not create OCS entries. choose to not create OCS entries.
All rules for managing the reporting node OCS enteries defined in All rules for managing the reporting node OCS entries defined in
[DOIC] apply to the peer report. [DOIC] apply to the peer report.
5.2.3. Reacting Node Maintenace of Peer Report OCS 5.2.3. Reacting Node Maintenance of Peer Report OCS
When a reacting node receives an OC-OLR AVP with an a report type of When a reacting node receives an OC-OLR AVP with an a report type of
peer it MUST determine if the report was generated by the Diameter peer it MUST determine if the report was generated by the Diameter
peer from which the report was received. peer from which the report was received.
If the DiameterID in the SourceID contained in the OLR matches the If the DiameterID in the SourceID contained in the OLR matches the
DiameterID of the peer from which the request was received then the DiameterID of the peer from which the request was received then the
report was received from a Diameter peer. report was received from a Diameter peer.
If a reacting node receives an OC-OLR AVP of type peer and the OC- If a reacting node receives an OC-OLR AVP of type peer and the OC-
skipping to change at page 13, line 4 skipping to change at page 13, line 33
If the sequence number for the received OLR is less than or equal to If the sequence number for the received OLR is less than or equal to
the sequence number in the matching OCS entry then the reacting node the sequence number in the matching OCS entry then the reacting node
MUST silently ignore the received OLR. The matching OCS MUST NOT be MUST silently ignore the received OLR. The matching OCS MUST NOT be
updated in this case. updated in this case.
If the received OLR is for a new overload condition then the reacting If the received OLR is for a new overload condition then the reacting
node MUST generate a new OCS entry for the overload condition. node MUST generate a new OCS entry for the overload condition.
Editor's note: The above four paragraphs are copied form the DOIC Editor's note: The above four paragraphs are copied form the DOIC
specification. Is it possible to include this behavior by specification. Is it possible to include this behavior by
refrence or do we need to include all of these statements in this reference or do we need to include all of these statements in this
specification as well. specification as well.
For a peer report this means it creates an OCS entry with an For a peer report this means it creates an OCS entry with an
DiameterID from the SourceID AVP in the received OC-OLR AVP. DiameterID from the SourceID AVP in the received OC-OLR AVP.
If the received OLR contains a validity duration of zero ("0") then If the received OLR contains a validity duration of zero ("0") then
the reacting node MUST update the OCS entry as being expired. the reacting node MUST update the OCS entry as being expired.
The reacting node does not delete an OCS when receiving an answer The reacting node does not delete an OCS when receiving an answer
message that does not contain an OC-OLR AVP (i.e. absence of OLR message that does not contain an OC-OLR AVP (i.e. absence of OLR
means "no change"). means "no change").
The reacting node sets the abatement algorithm based on the OC-Peer- The reacting node sets the abatement algorithm based on the OC-Peer-
Algo AVP in the received OC-Supported-Features AVP. Algo AVP in the received OC-Supported-Features AVP.
5.2.4. Peer Report Reporting Node Behavior 5.2.4. Peer Report Reporting Node Behavior
When there is an existing peer report reporting node OCS entry, the When there is an existing reporting node peer report OCS entry, the
reporting node MUST include an OC-OLR AVP with a report type of peer reporting node MUST include an OC-OLR AVP with a report type of peer
using the contents of the peer report reporting node OCS entry in all using the contents of the reporting node peer report OCS entry in all
answer messages sent by the reporting node to peers that support the answer messages sent by the reporting node to peers that support the
peer report feature. peer report feature.
The reporting node determines if a peer supports the peer report The reporting node determines if a peer supports the peer report
feature based on the indication recorded in the reporting nodes feature based on the indication recorded in the reporting nodes
transaction state. transaction state.
The reporting node MUST include its DiameterID in the OC-SourceID AVP The reporting node MUST include its DiameterID in the OC-SourceID AVP
in the OC-OLR AVP. This is used by DOIC nodes that support the peer in the OC-OLR AVP. This is used by DOIC nodes that support the peer
report feature to determine if the report was received from a report feature to determine if the report was received from a
Diameter peer. Diameter peer.
The reporting agent must follow all other overload reporting node The reporting agent must follow all other overload reporting node
behaviors outlined in the DOIC specification. This includes sending behaviors outlined in the DOIC specification.
a report with a reduction percentage of zero when the need for a
reduction has ended. It also includes sending a new overload report,
with a new sequence number, to refresh the abatement duration.
5.2.5. Peer Report Reacting Node Behavior 5.2.5. Peer Report Reacting Node Behavior
A reacting node supporting this extension MUST support the receipt of A reacting node supporting this extension MUST support the receipt of
multiple overload reports in a single message. The message might multiple overload reports in a single message. The message might
inlude a host overload report, a realm overload report and a peer include a host overload report, a realm overload report and a peer
overload report. overload report.
When a reacting node sends a request it MUST determine if that When a reacting node sends a request it MUST determine if that
request matches an active OCS. request matches an active OCS.
If the request matches and active OCS then the reacting node MUST If the request matches and active OCS then the reacting node MUST
apply abatement treatment on the request. The abatement treatment apply abatement treatment on the request. The abatement treatment
applied depends on the abatement algorithm stored in the OCS. applied depends on the abatement algorithm stored in the OCS.
For peer overload reports, the preferred abatement treatment is For peer overload reports, the preferred abatement treatment is
diversion. As such, the reacting node SHOULD attempt to divert diversion. As such, the reacting node SHOULD attempt to divert
requests identified as needing abatement to other peers. requests identified as needing abatement to other peers.
If a host-routed request, as defined in the DOIC specification, is If a host-routed request, as defined in [I-D.ietf-dime-ovli], is
selected for abatement and the request must be routed to the DOIC selected for abatement and the request must be routed to the DOIC
node that generated the peer overload report -- meaning that the node that generated the peer overload report -- meaning that the
request is a host-routed request as defined in the DOIC specification request is a host-routed request as defined in the DOIC specification
-- then the reacting node MUST throttle the request. -- then the reacting node MUST throttle the request.
This would result from an overloaded Diameter endpoint (Diameter This would result from an overloaded Diameter endpoint (Diameter
Server or Diameter Client) sending a peer overload report and the Server or Diameter Client) sending a peer overload report and the
request contains a Destination-Host AVP with a DiameterID that request contains a Destination-Host AVP with a DiameterID that
matches the DiameterID in the SourceID AVP received in the peer matches the DiameterID in the SourceID AVP received in the peer
overload report. overload report.
If there is not sufficient capacity to divert abated traffic then the If there is not sufficient capacity to divert abated traffic then the
reacting node MUST throttle the necessary requests to fit within the reacting node MUST throttle the necessary requests to fit within the
available capacity of the peers able to handle the requests. available capacity of the peers able to handle the requests.
If the abatement treatment results in throttling of the request and If the abatement treatment results in throttling of the request and
if the reacting node is an agent then the agent MUST send an if the reacting node is an agent then the agent MUST send an
appropriate error as defined in the DOIC specification. appropriate error as defined in [I-D.ietf-dime-ovli].
In the case that the OCS entry validity duration expires or has a In the case that the OCS entry validity duration expires or has a
validity duration of zero ("0"), meaning that it the reporting node validity duration of zero ("0"), meaning that it the reporting node
has explicitly signaled the end of the overload condition then has explicitly signaled the end of the overload condition then
abatement associated with the overload abatement MUST be ended in a abatement associated with the overload abatement MUST be ended in a
controlled fashion. controlled fashion.
6. Peer Report AVPs 6. Peer Report AVPs
6.1. OC-Supported-Features AVP 6.1. OC-Supported-Features AVP
skipping to change at page 15, line 4 skipping to change at page 15, line 35
This extension adds a new feature to the OC-Feature-Vector AVP. This This extension adds a new feature to the OC-Feature-Vector AVP. This
feature indication shows support for handling of peer overload feature indication shows support for handling of peer overload
reports. Peer overload reports are used by agents to indicate the reports. Peer overload reports are used by agents to indicate the
need for overload abatement handling by the agents peer. need for overload abatement handling by the agents peer.
A supporting node must also include the OC-SourceID AVP in the OC- A supporting node must also include the OC-SourceID AVP in the OC-
Supported-Features capability AVP. Supported-Features capability AVP.
This AVP contains the Diameter Identity of the node that supports the This AVP contains the Diameter Identity of the node that supports the
OLR_PEER_REPORT feature. This AVP is used to determine if support OLR_PEER_REPORT feature. This AVP is used to determine if support
for the peer overload report is in an adjectent node. The value of for the peer overload report is in an adjacent node. The value of
this AVP should be the same Diameter identity used as part of the this AVP should be the same Diameter identity used as part of the
CER/CEA base Diameter capabilities exchange. CER/CEA base Diameter capabilities exchange.
OC-Supported-Features ::= < AVP Header: TBD1 > OC-Supported-Features ::= < AVP Header: TBD1 >
[ OC-Feature-Vector ] [ OC-Feature-Vector ]
[ OC-SourceID ] [ OC-SourceID ]
[ OC-Peer-Algo] [ OC-Peer-Algo]
* [ AVP ] * [ AVP ]
6.1.1. OC-Feature-Vector 6.1.1. OC-Feature-Vector
skipping to change at page 15, line 31 skipping to change at page 16, line 14
When this flag is set by a DOIC node it indicates that the DOIC When this flag is set by a DOIC node it indicates that the DOIC
node supports the peer overload report type. node supports the peer overload report type.
6.1.2. OC-Peer-Algo 6.1.2. OC-Peer-Algo
The OC-Peer-Algo AVP (AVP code TBD6) is of type Unsigned64 and The OC-Peer-Algo AVP (AVP code TBD6) is of type Unsigned64 and
contains a 64 bit flags field of announced capabilities of a DOIC contains a 64 bit flags field of announced capabilities of a DOIC
node. The value of zero (0) is reserved. node. The value of zero (0) is reserved.
Feature bits defined for the OC-Feature-Vector AVP and associated Feature bits defined for the OC-Feature-Vector AVP and associated
with overload abatement algorithms are reused in for this AVP. This with overload abatement algorithms are reused in for this AVP.
include the following value defined in the DOIC specification.
Editor's node: This is to avoid the need for an additional IANA Editor's node: This is to avoid the need for an additional IANA
registry. registry.
6.2. OC-OLR AVP 6.2. OC-OLR AVP
This extension makes no changes to the SequenceNumber or This extension makes no changes to the SequenceNumber or
ValidityDuration AVPs in the OC-OLR AVP. These AVPs are also be used ValidityDuration AVPs in the OC-OLR AVP. These AVPs are also be used
in peer overload reports. in peer overload reports.
The peer report feature extends the base Diameter overload The peer report feature extends the base Diameter overload
specification by defining a new overload report type of "peer". See specification by defining a new overload report type of "peer". See
section [4.5] in [I-D.ietf-dime-ovli] for a description of the section [7.6] in [I-D.ietf-dime-ovli] for a description of the OC-
overload report type AVP. Report-Type AVP.
The overload report must also include the Diameter identity of the The overload report must also include the Diameter identity of the
agent that generated the report. This is necessary to handle the agent that generated the report. This is necessary to handle the
case where there is a non supporting agent between the reporting node case where there is a non supporting agent between the reporting node
and the reacting node. Without the indication of the agent that and the reacting node. Without the indication of the agent that
generated the overload request, the reacting node could erroneously generated the overload request, the reacting node could erroneously
assume that the report applied to the non supporting node. This assume that the report applied to the non supporting node. This
could, in turn, result in unnecessary traffic being either could, in turn, result in unnecessary traffic being either
redistributed or throttled. redistributed or throttled.
skipping to change at page 16, line 25 skipping to change at page 17, line 9
< OC-Report-Type > < OC-Report-Type >
[ OC-Reduction-Percentage ] [ OC-Reduction-Percentage ]
[ OC-Validity-Duration ] [ OC-Validity-Duration ]
[ OC-Source-ID ] [ OC-Source-ID ]
* [ AVP ] * [ AVP ]
6.2.1. OC-Report-Type AVP 6.2.1. OC-Report-Type AVP
The following new report type is defined for the OC-Report-Type AVP. The following new report type is defined for the OC-Report-Type AVP.
2 Peer. The overload treatment should apply to all requests bound PEER_REPORT 2 The overload treatment should apply to all requests
for the peer identified in the overload report. If the peer bound for the peer identified in the overload report. If the peer
identified in the overload report is not a peer to the reacting identified in the overload report is not a peer to the reacting
endpoint then the overload report should be stripped and not acted endpoint then the overload report should be stripped and not acted
upon. upon.
This extension uses the OC-SourceID AVP for this purpose.
6.3. OC-SourceID 6.3. OC-SourceID
The SourceID AVP (AVP code TBD) is of type DiameterIdentity and is The SourceID AVP (AVP code TBD) is of type DiameterIdentity and is
inserted by the DOIC node that either indicates support for this inserted by the DOIC node that either indicates support for this
feature (in the OC-Supported-Features AVP) or that generates an OC- feature (in the OC-Supported-Features AVP) or that generates an OC-
OLR AVP with a report type of peer. OLR AVP with a report type of peer.
It contains the Diameter Identity of the inserting node. This is It contains the Diameter Identity of the inserting node. This is
used by other DOIC nodes to determine if the a peer indicated used by other DOIC nodes to determine if the a peer indicated support
indicated support this feature or inserted the peer report this feature or inserted the peer report.
6.4. Attribute Value Pair flag rules 6.4. Attribute Value Pair flag rules
+---------+ +---------+
|AVP flag | |AVP flag |
|rules | |rules |
+----+----+ +----+----+
AVP Section | |MUST| AVP Section | |MUST|
Attribute Name Code Defined Value Type |MUST| NOT| Attribute Name Code Defined Value Type |MUST| NOT|
+--------------------------------------------------------+----+----+ +--------------------------------------------------------+----+----+
|OC-SourceID TBD1 x.x Unsigned64 | | V | |OC-SourceID TBD1 x.x Unsigned64 | | V |
|OC-Peer-Algo TBD1 x.x Unsigned64 | | V | |OC-Peer-Algo TBD1 x.x Unsigned64 | | V |
+--------------------------------------------------------+----+----+ +--------------------------------------------------------+----+----+
skipping to change at page 17, line 48 skipping to change at page 18, line 27
Adam Roach and Eric McMurry for the work done in defining a Adam Roach and Eric McMurry for the work done in defining a
comprehensive Diameter overload solution in draft-roach-dime- comprehensive Diameter overload solution in draft-roach-dime-
overload-ctrl-03.txt. overload-ctrl-03.txt.
Ben Campbell for his insights and review of early versions of this Ben Campbell for his insights and review of early versions of this
document. document.
10. Normative References 10. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-dime-doic-rate-control]
Donovan, S. and E. Noel, "Diameter Overload Rate Control",
draft-ietf-dime-doic-rate-control-00 (work in progress),
December 2014.
[I-D.ietf-dime-ovli] [I-D.ietf-dime-ovli]
Korhonen, J., "Diameter Overload Indication Conveyance", Korhonen, J., Donovan, S., Campbell, B., and L. Morand,
October 2013. "Diameter Overload Indication Conveyance", draft-ietf-
dime-ovli-08 (work in progress), February 2015.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an [RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226, IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226,
May 2008. May 2008.
[RFC6733] Fajardo, V., Arkko, J., Loughney, J., and G. Zorn, [RFC6733] Fajardo, V., Arkko, J., Loughney, J., and G. Zorn,
"Diameter Base Protocol", RFC 6733, October 2012. "Diameter Base Protocol", RFC 6733, October 2012.
 End of changes. 53 change blocks. 
98 lines changed or deleted 123 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.42. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/