draft-ietf-dime-load-03.txt   draft-ietf-dime-load-04.txt 
Internet Engineering Task Force B. Campbell Internet Engineering Task Force B. Campbell
Internet-Draft S. Donovan, Ed. Internet-Draft S. Donovan, Ed.
Intended status: Standards Track Oracle Intended status: Standards Track Oracle
Expires: March 31, 2017 JJ. Trottin Expires: June 4, 2017 JJ. Trottin
Nokia Nokia
September 27, 2016 December 1, 2016
Diameter Load Information Conveyance Diameter Load Information Conveyance
draft-ietf-dime-load-03 draft-ietf-dime-load-04
Abstract Abstract
This document defines a mechanism for conveying of Diameter load This document defines a mechanism for conveying of Diameter load
information. [RFC7068] describes requirements for Overload Control information. RFC7068 describes requirements for Overload Control in
in Diameter. This includes a requirement to allow Diameter nodes to Diameter. This includes a requirement to allow Diameter nodes to
send "load" information, even when the node is not overloaded. The send "load" information, even when the node is not overloaded.
Diameter Overload Information Conveyance (DOIC) [RFC7683] solution RFC7683 (Diameter Overload Information Conveyance (DOIC)) solution
describes a mechanism meeting most of the requirements, but does not describes a mechanism meeting most of the requirements, but does not
currently include the ability to send load information. currently include the ability to send load information.
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
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
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 March 31, 2017. This Internet-Draft will expire on June 4, 2017.
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 23 skipping to change at page 2, line 23
3. Conventions Used in This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3. Conventions Used in This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4. Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4.1. Differences between Load and Overload information . . . . 4 4.1. Differences between Load and Overload information . . . . 4
4.2. How is Load Information Used? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4.2. How is Load Information Used? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. Solution Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5. Solution Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5.1. Theory of Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 5.1. Theory of Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6. Load Mechanism Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 6. Load Mechanism Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6.1. Reporting Node Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 6.1. Reporting Node Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6.1.1. Endpoint Reporting Node Behavior . . . . . . . . . . 10 6.1.1. Endpoint Reporting Node Behavior . . . . . . . . . . 10
6.1.2. Agent Reporting Node Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 6.1.2. Agent Reporting Node Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6.2. Receiving Node Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 6.2. Reacting Node Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6.3. Extensibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 6.3. Extensibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
6.4. Addition and removal of Nodes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 6.4. Addition and removal of Nodes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
7. Attribute Value Pairs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 7. Attribute Value Pairs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
7.1. Load AVP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 7.1. Load AVP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
7.2. Load-Type AVP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 7.2. Load-Type AVP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
7.3. Load-Value AVP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 7.3. Load-Value AVP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
7.4. SourceID AVP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 7.4. SourceID AVP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
7.5. Attribute Value Pair flag rules . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 7.5. Attribute Value Pair flag rules . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
skipping to change at page 3, line 46 skipping to change at page 3, line 46
requirements from RFC 7068. requirements from RFC 7068.
2. Terminology and Abbreviations 2. Terminology and Abbreviations
DOIC DOIC
Diameter Overload Information Conveyance ([RFC7683]) Diameter Overload Information Conveyance ([RFC7683])
Load Load
The he relative usage of the Diameter message processing capacity The relative usage of the Diameter message processing capacity of
of a Diameter node. A low load level indicates that the Diameter a Diameter node. A low load level indicates that the Diameter
node is under utilized. A high load level indicates that the node node is under utilized. A high load level indicates that the node
is closer to being fully utilized. is closer to being fully utilized.
Offered Load Offered Load
The actual traffic sent to the reporting node after overload The actual traffic sent to the reporting node after overload
abatement and routing decisions are made. abatement and routing decisions are made.
Reporting, Reacting Node Reporting, Reacting Node
Reporting node and reacting node terminology is defined in Reporting node and reacting node terminology is defined in
skipping to change at page 12, line 11 skipping to change at page 12, line 11
requirement is an implementation decision. requirement is an implementation decision.
The frequency of sending load reports is an implementation decision. The frequency of sending load reports is an implementation decision.
Note: In the case of peer load reports it is only necessary to Note: In the case of peer load reports it is only necessary to
include load reports when the load value has changed by some include load reports when the load value has changed by some
meaningful value, as long as the agent insures that all peers meaningful value, as long as the agent insures that all peers
receive the report. It is also acceptable to include the load receive the report. It is also acceptable to include the load
report in every answer message handled by the Diameter agent. report in every answer message handled by the Diameter agent.
6.2. Receiving Node Behavior 6.2. Reacting Node Behavior
This section defines the behavior of Diameter nodes processing load This section defines the behavior of Diameter nodes processing load
reports. reports.
A Diameter node MUST be prepared to process load reports of type HOST A Diameter node MUST be prepared to process load reports of type HOST
and of type PEER, as indicated in the Load-Type AVP included in the and of type PEER, as indicated in the Load-Type AVP included in the
Load AVP received in the same answer message or from multiple answer Load AVP received in the same answer message or from multiple answer
messages. messages.
Note that the node needs to be able to handle messages with no Note that the node needs to be able to handle messages with no
skipping to change at page 16, line 31 skipping to change at page 16, line 31
[RFC6733] Fajardo, V., Ed., Arkko, J., Loughney, J., and G. Zorn, [RFC6733] Fajardo, V., Ed., Arkko, J., Loughney, J., and G. Zorn,
Ed., "Diameter Base Protocol", RFC 6733, Ed., "Diameter Base Protocol", RFC 6733,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6733, October 2012, DOI 10.17487/RFC6733, October 2012,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6733>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6733>.
[RFC7068] McMurry, E. and B. Campbell, "Diameter Overload Control [RFC7068] McMurry, E. and B. Campbell, "Diameter Overload Control
Requirements", RFC 7068, DOI 10.17487/RFC7068, November Requirements", RFC 7068, DOI 10.17487/RFC7068, November
2013, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7068>. 2013, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7068>.
[RFC7683] Korhonen, J., Ed., Donovan, S., Ed., Campbell, B., and L.
Morand, "Diameter Overload Indication Conveyance",
RFC 7683, DOI 10.17487/RFC7683, October 2015,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7683>.
10.2. Informative References 10.2. Informative References
[RFC2782] Gulbrandsen, A., Vixie, P., and L. Esibov, "A DNS RR for [RFC2782] Gulbrandsen, A., Vixie, P., and L. Esibov, "A DNS RR for
specifying the location of services (DNS SRV)", RFC 2782, specifying the location of services (DNS SRV)", RFC 2782,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2782, February 2000, DOI 10.17487/RFC2782, February 2000,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2782>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2782>.
[RFC7683] Korhonen, J., Ed., Donovan, S., Ed., Campbell, B., and L.
Morand, "Diameter Overload Indication Conveyance",
RFC 7683, DOI 10.17487/RFC7683, October 2015,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7683>.
Appendix A. Topology Scenarios Appendix A. Topology Scenarios
This section presents a number of Diameter topology scenarios, and This section presents a number of Diameter topology scenarios, and
discusses how load information might be used in each scenario. discusses how load information might be used in each scenario.
A.1. No Agent A.1. No Agent
Figure 6 shows a simple client-server scenario, where a client picks Figure 6 shows a simple client-server scenario, where a client picks
from a set of candidate servers available for a particular realm and from a set of candidate servers available for a particular realm and
application. The client selects the server for a given transaction application. The client selects the server for a given transaction
 End of changes. 10 change blocks. 
17 lines changed or deleted 17 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/