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/