draft-ietf-dime-agent-overload-05.txt   draft-ietf-dime-agent-overload-06.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 May 19, 2016 Intended status: Standards Track June 21, 2016
Expires: November 20, 2016 Expires: December 23, 2016
Diameter Agent Overload and the Peer Overload Report Diameter Agent Overload and the Peer Overload Report
draft-ietf-dime-agent-overload-05.txt draft-ietf-dime-agent-overload-06.txt
Abstract Abstract
This specification documents an extension to the Diameter Overload This specification documents an extension to the Diameter Overload
Indication Conveyance (DOIC) [RFC7683] base solution. The extension Indication Conveyance (DOIC) [RFC7683] base solution. The extension
defines the Peer overload report type. The initial use case for the defines the Peer overload report type. The initial use case for the
Peer report is the handling of occurrences of overload of a Diameter Peer report is the handling of occurrences of overload of a Diameter
agent. agent.
Requirements Requirements
skipping to change at page 1, line 40 skipping to change at page 1, line 40
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 November 20, 2016. This Internet-Draft will expire on December 23, 2016.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2016 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
skipping to change at page 2, line 19 skipping to change at page 2, line 19
described in the Simplified BSD License. described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Terminology and Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Terminology and Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1.1. Single Agent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3.1.1. Single Agent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1.2. Redundant Agents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.1.2. Redundant Agents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1.3. Agent Chains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.1.3. Agent Chains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.2. Diameter Endpoint Use Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3.2. Diameter Endpoint Use Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.2.1. Hop-by-hop Abatement Algorithms . . . . . . . . . . . 7 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 5.1. Capability Announcement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.1.1. Reacting Node Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 5.1.1. Reacting Node Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.1.2. Reporting Node Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 5.1.2. Reporting Node Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.2. Peer Report Overload Report Handling . . . . . . . . . . 10 5.2. Peer Overload Report Handling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.2.1. Overload Control State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 5.2.1. Overload Control State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.2.2. Reporting Node Maintenance of Peer Report OCS . . . . 11 5.2.2. Reporting Node Maintenance of Peer Report OCS . . . . 11
5.2.3. Reacting Node Maintenance of Peer Report OCS . . . . 11 5.2.3. Reacting Node Maintenance of Peer Report OCS . . . . 11
5.2.4. Peer Report Reporting Node Behavior . . . . . . . . . 13 5.2.4. Peer Report Reporting Node Behavior . . . . . . . . . 12
5.2.5. Peer Report Reacting Node Behavior . . . . . . . . . 13 5.2.5. Peer Report Reacting Node Behavior . . . . . . . . . 12
6. Peer Report AVPs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 6. Peer Report AVPs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
6.1. OC-Supported-Features AVP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 6.1. OC-Supported-Features AVP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
6.1.1. OC-Feature-Vector . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 6.1.1. OC-Feature-Vector . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
6.1.2. OC-Peer-Algo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 6.1.2. OC-Peer-Algo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
6.2. OC-OLR AVP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 6.2. OC-OLR AVP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
6.2.1. OC-Report-Type AVP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 6.2.1. OC-Report-Type AVP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
6.3. SourceID . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 6.3. SourceID . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
6.4. Attribute Value Pair flag rules . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 6.4. Attribute Value Pair flag rules . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
7.1. AVP codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 7.1. AVP codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
7.2. New registries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 7.2. New registries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
10. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 10. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
This specification documents an extension to the Diameter Overload
Indication Conveyance (DOIC) [RFC7683] base solution. The extension
defines the Peer overload report type. The initial use case for the
Peer report is the handling of occurrences of overload of a Diameter
agent.
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. It also defines new overload requesting a reduction of traffic. It also defines new overload
report type, the Peer overload report type, that is used for handling report type, the Peer overload report type, that is used for handling
of agent overload conditions. The Peer overload report type is of agent overload conditions. The Peer overload report type is
defined in a generic fashion so that it can also be used for other defined in a generic fashion so that it can also be used for other
Diameter overload scenaios. Diameter overload scenaios.
The base Diameter overload specification [RFC7683] addresses the The base Diameter overload specification [RFC7683] addresses the
handling of overload when a Diameter endpoint (a Diameter Client or handling of overload when a Diameter endpoint (a Diameter Client or
skipping to change at page 3, line 45 skipping to change at page 4, line 4
This document defines a new overload report type to communicate This document defines a new overload report type to communicate
occurrences of agent overload. This report type works for the "Loss" occurrences of agent overload. This report type works for the "Loss"
overload mitigation algorithm defined in [RFC7683] and is expected to overload mitigation algorithm defined in [RFC7683] and is expected to
work for other overload abatement algorithms defined in extensions to work for other overload abatement algorithms defined in extensions to
the DOIC solution. the DOIC solution.
2. Terminology and Abbreviations 2. Terminology and Abbreviations
Diameter Node Diameter Node
A RFC6733 Diameter Client, an RFC6733 Diameter Server, and RFC6733 A RFC6733 Diameter Client, an RFC6733 Diameter Server, and RFC6733
Diameter Agent. Diameter Agent.
Diameter Endpoint Diameter Endpoint
An RFC6733 Diameter Client and RFC6733 Diameter Server. An RFC6733 Diameter Client and RFC6733 Diameter Server.
Reporting Node Reporting Node
A DOIC Node that sends and overload report in a Diameter answer A DOIC Node that sends an 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 DOIC overload report.
DIOC Node DOIC Node
A Diameter Node that supports the DOIC solution defined in A Diameter Node that supports the DOIC solution defined in
[RFC7683]. [RFC7683].
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. used to communicate agent overload.
There are two primary classes of use cases currently identified, There are two primary classes of use cases currently identified,
those involving the overload of agents and those involving overload those involving the overload of agents and those involving overload
of Diameter endpoints (Diameter Clients and Diameter Servers) that of Diameter endpoints. In both cases the goal is to use an overload
wish to use an overload algorithm suited controlling traffic sent algorithm that controls traffic sent towards peers.
from a peer.
3.1. Diameter Agent Overload Use Cases 3.1. Diameter Agent Overload Use Cases
The peer report needs to support the following use cases. The peer report needs to 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
skipping to change at page 5, line 24 skipping to change at page 5, line 30
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 [RFC7683] or the in the base Diameter overload specification [RFC7683] or the
extension draft that defines the indicated overload abatement extension draft that defines the indicated overload abatement
algorithm. This will result in the throtting of the abated traffic algorithm. This will result in the throttling of the abated traffic
that would have been sent to the agent, 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. An appropriate error response is sent back to the originator
that resulted in the need for the Diameter transaction. of the request.
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
skipping to change at page 6, line 7 skipping to change at page 6, line 17
+-+ / +--+\ /+-+ +-+ / +--+\ /+-+
|c|- x |c|- x
+-+ . +--+/ \+-+ +-+ . +--+/ \+-+
..|a2|---|s| ..|a2|---|s|
+--+ +-+ +--+ +-+
Figure 3 Figure 3
The second case, in Figure 4, illustrates the case where the The second case, in Figure 4, illustrates the case where the
connections to the agents are both actively used. In this case, the connections to the agents are both actively used. In this case, the
client will have local distribution policy to determine the client will have local distribution policy to determine the traffic
percentage of the traffic sent through each client. sent through each client.
+--+ +-+ +--+ +-+
--|a1|---|s| --|a1|---|s|
+-+ / +--+\ /+-+ +-+ / +--+\ /+-+
|c|- x |c|- x
+-+ \ +--+/ \+-+ +-+ \ +--+/ \+-+
--|a2|---|s| --|a2|---|s|
+--+ +-+ +--+ +-+
Figure 4 Figure 4
In the case where one of the agents in the above scenarios become In the case where one of the agents in the above scenario becomes
overloaded, the client should reduce the amount of traffic sent to overloaded, the client should reduce the amount of traffic sent to
the overloaded agent by the amount requested. This traffic should the overloaded agent by the amount requested. This traffic should
instead be routed through the non-overloaded agent. For example, instead be routed through the non-overloaded agent. For example,
assume that the overloaded agent requests a reduction of 10 percent. assume that the overloaded agent requests a reduction of 10 percent.
The client should send 10 percent of the traffic that would have been The client should send 10 percent of the traffic that would have been
routed to the overloaded agent through the non-overloaded agent. routed to the overloaded agent through the non-overloaded agent.
When the client has an active and a standby connection to the two When the client has an active and a standby connection to the two
agents then an alternative strategy for responding to an overload agents then an alternative strategy for responding to an overload
report from an agent is to change to standby connection to active and report from an agent is to change to standby connection to active and
route all traffic through the new active connection. route all traffic through the new active connection.
In the case where both agents are reporting overload, the client may In the case where both agents are reporting overload, the client may
need to start decreasing the total traffic sent to the agents. This need to start decreasing the total traffic sent to the agents. This
would be done in a similar fashion as discussed in section 3.1. The would be done in a similar fashion as discussed in Section 3.1.1 The
amount of traffic depends on the combined reduction requested by the amount of traffic depends on the combined reduction requested by the
two agents. two agents.
3.1.3. Agent Chains 3.1.3. Agent Chains
There are also deployment scenarios where there can be multiple There are also deployment scenarios where there can be multiple
Diameter Agents between Diameter Clients and Diameter Servers. Diameter Agents between Diameter Clients and Diameter Servers. An
Examples of this type of deployment include when there are edge example of this type of deployment include when there are edge agents
agents between Diameter networks. Another example of this type of between Diameter networks.
deployment is when there are multiple sets of servers, each
supporting a subset of the Diameter traffic.
Figure 5 illustrates one such network deployment case. Note that Figure 5 illustrates one such network deployment case. Note that
while this figure shows a maximum of two agents being involved in a while this figure shows a maximum of two agents being involved in a
Diameter transaction, it is possible that more than two agents could Diameter transaction, it is possible that more than two agents could
be in the path of a transaction. be in the path of a transaction.
+---+ +---+ +-+ +---+ +---+ +-+
--|a11|-----|a21|---|s| --|a11|-----|a21|---|s|
+-+ / +---+ \ / +---+\ /+-+ +-+ / +---+ \ / +---+\ /+-+
|c|- x x |c|- x x
skipping to change at page 7, line 24 skipping to change at page 7, line 36
Handling of overload of one or both of agents a11 or a12 in this case Handling of overload of one or both of agents a11 or a12 in this case
is equivalent to that discussed in section 2.2. is equivalent to that discussed in section 2.2.
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.
The handling of peer 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 3.1.2. 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 number of previous hop agent must start throttling the appropriate number of
transactions. When throttling requests, an agent uses the same error transactions. When throttling requests, an agent uses the same error
responses as defined in the base DOIC specification [RFC7683]. responses as defined in the base DOIC specification [RFC7683].
3.2. Diameter Endpoint Use Cases 3.2. Diameter Endpoint Use Cases
This section outlines use cases for the peer overload report This section outlines use cases for the peer overload report
skipping to change at page 8, line 13 skipping to change at page 8, line 26
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 an end-point in the path of a It is possible that both an agent and an end-point 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 need to handle both overload reports. In this Diameter entities need to handle both overload reports. In this
scenario the reacting node should first handle the throttling of the scenario the reacting node should first handle the throttling of the
overloaded host or realm. Any messages that survive throttling due overloaded host or realm. Any messages that survive throttling 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. In this scenario, when doing abatement on the
PEER report, the reacting node SHOULD take into consideration the
number of messages already throttled by the handling of the HOST/
REALM report abatement.
Note: The goal is to avoid traffic oscillations that might result
from throttling of messages for both the HOST/REALM overload
reports and the PEER overload reports. This is especially a
concern if both reports are of type LOSS.
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
5.1.1. Reacting Node Behavior 5.1.1. Reacting Node Behavior
When sending a Diameter request a DOIC node that supports the When sending a Diameter request a DOIC node that supports the
OC_PEER_REPORT feature MUST include an OC-Supported-Features AVP with OC_PEER_REPORT feature MUST include an OC-Supported-Features AVP with
an OC-Feature-Vector AVP with the OC_PEER_REPORT bit set. an OC-Feature-Vector AVP with the OC_PEER_REPORT bit set.
Note: The sender of a request can be a Diameter Client or Diameter
Server that originates the Diamter request or a Diameter Agent
that relays the request.
Support for the OC_PEER_REPORT feature does not impact the logic for
setting of other feature bits in the OC-Feature-Vector AVP.
When sending a request a DOIC node that supports the OC_PEER_REPORT When sending a request a DOIC node that supports the OC_PEER_REPORT
feature MUST include a SourceID AVP in the OC-Supported-Features AVP feature MUST include a SourceID AVP in the OC-Supported-Features AVP
with its own DiameterIdentity. with its own DiameterIdentity.
Note: This allows the DOIC nodes in the path of the request to Note: This allows the DOIC nodes 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 or if the request traversed a node that does not support the
OC_PEER_REPORT feature. OC_PEER_REPORT feature.
When relaying a request that includes a SourceID AVP in the OC- When an agent relays a request that includes a SourceID AVP in the
Supported-Features AVP, a DOIC node that supuports the OC_PEER_REPORT OC-Supported-Features AVP, a DOIC node that supports the
feature must remove the received SourceID AVP and replace it with a OC_PEER_REPORT feature MUST remove the received SourceID AVP and
SourceID AVP containing its own Diameter identity. replace it with a SourceID AVP containing its own Diameter identity.
5.1.2. Reporting Node Behavior 5.1.2. Reporting Node Behavior
When receiving a request a DOIC node that supports the OC_PEER_REPORT When receiving a request a DOIC node that supports the OC_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 or not the peer from which the request was received supports the
OC_PEER_REPORT feature. OC_PEER_REPORT feature.
Note: The transaction state is used when the DOIC node is acting Note: The transaction state is used when the DOIC node is acting
as a peer-report reporting node and needs send OC-OLR reports of as a peer-report reporting node and needs send OC-OLR reports of
type PEER_REPORT in answer messages. The peer overload reports type PEER_REPORT in answer messages. The peer overload reports
are only included in answer messages being sent to peers that are only included in answer messages being sent to peers that
support the OC_PEER_REPORT feature. support the OC_PEER_REPORT feature.
The following are indications that the peer does not support the
OC_PEER_REPORT feature:
The request does not contain an OC-Supported-Features AVP.
The received request contains an OC-Supported-Features AVP with no
OC-Feature-Vector.
The received request contains an OC-Supported-Features AVP with a
OC-Feature-Vector with the OC_PEER_REPORT feature bit cleared.
The received request contains an OC-Supported-Features AVP with a
OC-Feature-Vector with the OC_PEER_REPORT feature bit set but with
a SourceID AVP with a DiameterIdentity that does not match the
DiameterIdentity of the peer from which the request was received.
The peer supports the OC_PEER_REPORT feature if the received request The peer supports the OC_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 OC_PEER_REPORT feature bit set and with a SourceID AVP with a the OC_PEER_REPORT feature bit set and with a SourceID AVP with a
Diameter ID that matches the DiameterIdentity of the peer from which Diameter ID that matches the DiameterIdentity of the peer from which
the request was received. the request was received.
When relaying an answer message, a reporting node that supports the When an agent relays an answer message, a reporting node that
OC_PEER_REPORT feature MUST strip any SourceID AVP from the OC- supports the OC_PEER_REPORT feature MUST strip any SourceID AVP from
Supported-Features AVP. the OC-Supported-Features AVP.
When sending an answer message, a reporting node that supports the When sending an answer message, a reporting node that supports the
OC_PEER_REPORT feature MUST determine if the peer to which the answer OC_PEER_REPORT feature MUST determine if the peer to which the answer
is to be sent supports the OC_PEER_REPORT feature. is to be sent supports the OC_PEER_REPORT feature.
If the peer supports the OC_PEER_REPORT feature then the reporting If the peer supports the OC_PEER_REPORT feature then the reporting
node MUST indicate support for the feature in the Supported-Features node MUST indicate support for the feature in the OC-Supported-
AVP. Features AVP.
If the peer supports the OC_PEER_REPORT feature then the reporting If the peer supports the OC_PEER_REPORT feature then the reporting
node MUST insert the SourceID AVP in the OC-Supported-Features AVP in node MUST insert the SourceID AVP in the OC-Supported-Features AVP in
the answer message. the answer message.
If the peer supports the OC_PEER_REPORT feature then the reporting If the peer supports the OC_PEER_REPORT feature then the reporting
node MUST insert the OC-Peer-Algo AVP in the OC-Supported-Features node MUST insert the OC-Peer-Algo AVP in the OC-Supported-Features
AVP. The OC-Peer-Algo AVP MUST indicate the overload abatement AVP. The OC-Peer-Algo AVP MUST indicate the overload abatement
algorithm that the reporting node wants the reacting nodes to use algorithm that the reporting node wants the reacting nodes to use
should the reporting node send a peer overload report as a result of should the reporting node send a peer overload report as a result of
becoming overloaded. becoming overloaded.
5.2. Peer Report Overload Report Handling 5.2. Peer 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
reacting node. reacting node.
This is an extension of the OCS handling defined in [RFC7683].
5.2.1.1. Reporting Node Peer Report OCS 5.2.1.1. Reporting Node Peer Report OCS
A DOIC Node that supports the OC_PEER_REPORT feature SHOULD maintain A DOIC Node that supports the OC_PEER_REPORT feature SHOULD maintain
Reporting Node Peer Report OCS. This is used to record overload Reporting Node OCS, as defined in [RFC7683] and extended here.
events and build overload reports at the reporting node.
If different abatement specific contents are sent to each peer then If different abatement specific contents are sent to each peer then
the reporting node MUST maintain a separate peer node peer report OCS the reporting node MUST maintain a separate reporting node peer
entry per peer to which a peer overload report is sent. report OCS entry per peer to which a peer overload report is sent.
Note: The rate overload abatement algorithm allows for different Note: The rate overload abatement algorithm allows for different
rates to be sent to each peer. rates to be sent to each peer.
The Reporting Node Peer Report OCS entry MAY include the following
information (the actual information stored is an implementation
decision):
o Sequence number
o Validity Duration
o Expiration Time
o Abatement Algorithm
o Algorithm specific input data (for example, the Reduction
Percentage for the Loss Abatement Algorithm)
5.2.1.2. Reacting Node Peer Report OCS 5.2.1.2. Reacting Node Peer Report OCS
A DOIC node that supports the OC_PEER_REPORT feature SHOULD maintain In addition to OCS maintained as defined in [RFC7683], a reacting
Reacting Node Peer Report OCS for each peer with which it node that supports the OC_PEER_REPORT feature maintains the following
communicates. This is used to record overload reports received from OCS per supported Diameter application:
peer nodes.
A Reacting Node Peer Report OCS entry is identified by the
DiameterIdentity of the peer as communicated during the RFC6733
defined Capability Exchange procedure.
The Reacting Node Peer Report OCS entry MAY include the following A peer-type OCS entry for each peer to which it sends requests.
information (the actual information stored is an implementation
decision):
o Sequence number A peer-type OCS entry is identified by the pair of Application-ID and
the peer's DiameterIdentity.
o Expiration Time The peer-type OCS entry include the following information (the actual
information stored is an implementation decision):
o Abatement Algorithm Sequence number (as received in the OC-OLR AVP).
o Algorithm specific input data (for example, the Reduction Time of expiry (derived from OC-Validity-Duration AVP received in
Percentage for the Loss Abatement Algorithm) the OC-OLR AVP and time of reception of the message carrying OC-
OLR AVP).
5.2.2. Reporting Node Maintenance of Peer Report OCS Selected abatement algorithm (as received in the OC-Supported-
Features AVP).
A reporting node SHOULD create a new Reporting Node Peer Report OCS Input data that is abatement algorithm specific (as received in
entry Section 5.2.1.1 in an overload condition and sending a peer the OC-OLR AVP -- for example, OC-Reduction-Percentage for the
overload report to a peer for the first time. loss abatement algorithm).
If the reporting node knows that there are no reacting nodes 5.2.2. Reporting Node Maintenance of Peer Report OCS
supporting the OC_PEER_REPORT feature then the reporting node can
choose to not create OCS entries.
All rules for managing the reporting node OCS entries defined in All rules for managing the reporting node OCS entries defined in
[RFC7683] apply to the peer report. [RFC7683] apply to the peer report.
5.2.3. Reacting Node Maintenance of Peer Report OCS 5.2.3. Reacting Node Maintenance of Peer Report OCS
When a reacting node receives an OC-OLR AVP with a report type of When a reacting node receives an OC-OLR AVP with 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 a reacting node receives an OC-OLR AVP of type peer and the
DiameterIdentity of the peer from which the request was received then SourceID matches the ID of the Diameter peer from which the request
the report was received from a Diameter peer. was received then the report was received from a Diameter peer.
If a reacting node receives an OC-OLR AVP of type peer and the If a reacting node receives an OC-OLR AVP of type peer and the
SourceID does not match the ID of the Diameter peer from which the SourceID does not match the ID of the Diameter peer from which the
request was received then the reacting node MUST ignore the overload request was received then the reacting node MUST ignore the overload
report. report.
In all cases, if the reacting node is a relay then it MUST strip the
OC-OLR AVP from the message.
If the Peer Report OLR was received from a Diameter peer then the If the Peer Report OLR was received from a Diameter peer then the
reacting node MUST determine if it is for an existing or new overload reacting node MUST determine if it is for an existing or new overload
condition. condition.
The OLR is for an existing overload condition if the reacting node The OLR is for an existing overload condition if the reacting node
has an OCS that matches the received OLR. For a peer report-type has an OCS that matches the received OLR. For a peer report-type,
this means the DiameterIdentity received in the SourceID AVP matches this means it matches the Application-ID and the peer's
the DiameterIdentity of an existing peer report OLR. DiameterIdentity in an existing OCS entry.
If the OLR is for an existing overload condition then it MUST If the OLR is for an existing overload condition then it MUST
determine if the OLR is a retransmission or an update to the existing determine if the OLR is a retransmission or an update to the existing
OLR. OLR.
If the sequence number for the received OLR is greater than the If the sequence number for the received OLR is greater than the
sequence number stored in the matching OCS entry then the reacting sequence number stored in the matching OCS entry then the reacting
node MUST update the matching OCS entry. node MUST update the matching OCS entry.
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
skipping to change at page 13, line 18 skipping to change at page 12, line 31
5.2.4. Peer Report Reporting Node Behavior 5.2.4. Peer Report Reporting Node Behavior
When there is an existing reporting node peer report 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 reporting node peer report 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
OC_PEER_REPORT feature. OC_PEER_REPORT feature.
The reporting node determines if a peer supports the The reporting node determines if a peer supports the
OC_PEER_REPORT feature based on the indication recorded in the OC_PEER_REPORT feature based on the indication recorded in the
reporting nodes transaction state. reporting node's transaction state.
The reporting node MUST include its DiameterIdentity in the SourceID The reporting node MUST include its DiameterIdentity in the SourceID
AVP in the OC-OLR AVP. This is used by DOIC nodes that support the AVP in the OC-OLR AVP. This is used by DOIC nodes that support the
OC_PEER_REPORT feature to determine if the report was received from a OC_PEER_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. behaviors outlined in the DOIC specification.
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
include a host overload report, a realm overload report and/or a peer include a host overload report, a realm overload report and/or 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 In all cases, if the reacting node is an agent then it MUST strip the
Peer Report OC-OLR AVP from the message.
If the request matches an 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 indicated in the OCS. applied depends on the abatement algorithm indicated 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 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 [RFC7683]. appropriate error as defined in [RFC7683].
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 if 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
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 agent's peer.
A supporting node must also include the SourceID AVP in the OC- A supporting node must also include the 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
OC_PEER_REPORT feature. This AVP is used to determine if support for OC_PEER_REPORT feature. This AVP is used to determine if support for
the peer overload report is in an adjacent node. The value of this 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 CER/CEA AVP should be the same Diameter identity used as part of the CER/CEA
base Diameter capabilities exchange. base Diameter capabilities exchange.
This extension also adds the OC-Peer-Algo AVP to the OC-Supported- This extension also adds the OC-Peer-Algo AVP to the OC-Supported-
Features AVP. This AVP is used by a reporting node to indicate the Features AVP. This AVP is used by a reporting node to indicate the
abatement algorithm it will use for peer overload reports. abatement algorithm it will use for peer overload reports.
OC-Supported-Features ::= < AVP Header: TBD1 > OC-Supported-Features ::= < AVP Header: 621 >
[ OC-Feature-Vector ] [ OC-Feature-Vector ]
[ SourceID ] [ SourceID ]
[ OC-Peer-Algo] [ OC-Peer-Algo]
* [ AVP ] * [ AVP ]
6.1.1. OC-Feature-Vector 6.1.1. OC-Feature-Vector
The peer report feature defines a new feature bit is added for the The peer report feature defines a new feature bit is added for the
OC-Feature-Vector AVP. OC-Feature-Vector AVP.
skipping to change at page 15, line 12 skipping to change at page 14, line 28
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 TBD1) is of type Unsigned64 and The OC-Peer-Algo AVP (AVP code TBD1) 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. with overload abatement algorithms are reused for this AVP.
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 OC_PEER_REPORT feature extends the base Diameter overload The OC_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 [7.6] in [RFC7683] for a description of the OC-Report-Type section [7.6] in [RFC7683] for a description of the OC-Report-Type
AVP. 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.
The SourceID AVP is used in the OC-OLR AVP to carry this The SourceID AVP is used in the OC-OLR AVP to carry this
DiameterIdentity. DiameterIdentity.
OC-OLR ::= < AVP Header: TBD2 > OC-OLR ::= < AVP Header: 623 >
< OC-Sequence-Number > < OC-Sequence-Number >
< OC-Report-Type > < OC-Report-Type >
[ OC-Reduction-Percentage ] [ OC-Reduction-Percentage ]
[ OC-Validity-Duration ] [ OC-Validity-Duration ]
[ SourceID ] [ SourceID ]
* [ 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.
skipping to change at page 16, line 14 skipping to change at page 15, line 30
endpoint then the overload report should be stripped and not acted endpoint then the overload report should be stripped and not acted
upon. upon.
6.3. SourceID 6.3. SourceID
The SourceID AVP (AVP code TBD2) is of type DiameterIdentity and is The SourceID AVP (AVP code TBD2) is of type DiameterIdentity and is
inserted by a Diameter node to indicate the source of the AVP in inserted by a Diameter node to indicate the source of the AVP in
which it is a part. which it is a part.
In the case of peer reports, the SourceID AVP indicates the node that In the case of peer reports, the SourceID AVP indicates the node that
support for this feature (in the OC-Supported-Features AVP) or the supports this feature (in the OC-Supported-Features AVP) or the node
node that generates an overload with a report type of peer (in the that generates an overload with a report type of peer (in the OC-OLR
OC-OLR AVP). AVP).
It contains the DiameterIdentity of the inserting node. This is used It contains the DiameterIdentity of the inserting node. This is used
by other Diameter nodes to determine the node that inserted the by other Diameter nodes to determine the node that inserted the
enclosing AVP that contains the SourceID AVP. enclosing AVP that contains the SourceID AVP.
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|
+--------------------------------------------------------+----+----+ +--------------------------------------------------------+----+----+
|SourceID TBD1 x.x DiameterIdentity | | V | |OC-Peer-Algo TBD1 x.x Unsigned64 | | V |
|OC-Peer-Algo TBD2 x.x Unsigned64 | | V | |SourceID TBD2 x.x DiameterIdentity | | V |
+--------------------------------------------------------+----+----+ +--------------------------------------------------------+----+----+
7. IANA Considerations 7. IANA Considerations
7.1. AVP codes 7.1. AVP codes
New AVPs defined by this specification are listed in Section 6. All New AVPs defined by this specification are listed in Section 6. All
AVP codes are allocated from the 'Authentication, Authorization, and AVP codes are allocated from the 'Authentication, Authorization, and
Accounting (AAA) Parameters' AVP Codes registry. Accounting (AAA) Parameters' AVP Codes registry.
skipping to change at page 17, line 37 skipping to change at page 17, line 7
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] [I-D.ietf-dime-doic-rate-control]
Donovan, S. and E. Noel, "Diameter Overload Rate Control", Donovan, S. and E. Noel, "Diameter Overload Rate Control",
draft-ietf-dime-doic-rate-control-01 (work in progress), draft-ietf-dime-doic-rate-control-03 (work in progress),
March 2015. March 2016.
[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, Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[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,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5226, May 2008, DOI 10.17487/RFC5226, May 2008,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5226>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5226>.
 End of changes. 58 change blocks. 
139 lines changed or deleted 108 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.45. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/