--- 1/draft-ietf-dime-load-03.txt 2016-12-01 06:13:25.409830359 -0800 +++ 2/draft-ietf-dime-load-04.txt 2016-12-01 06:13:25.449831356 -0800 @@ -1,47 +1,47 @@ Internet Engineering Task Force B. Campbell Internet-Draft S. Donovan, Ed. Intended status: Standards Track Oracle -Expires: March 31, 2017 JJ. Trottin +Expires: June 4, 2017 JJ. Trottin Nokia - September 27, 2016 + December 1, 2016 Diameter Load Information Conveyance - draft-ietf-dime-load-03 + draft-ietf-dime-load-04 Abstract This document defines a mechanism for conveying of Diameter load - information. [RFC7068] describes requirements for Overload Control - in Diameter. This includes a requirement to allow Diameter nodes to - send "load" information, even when the node is not overloaded. The - Diameter Overload Information Conveyance (DOIC) [RFC7683] solution + information. RFC7068 describes requirements for Overload Control in + Diameter. This includes a requirement to allow Diameter nodes to + send "load" information, even when the node is not overloaded. + RFC7683 (Diameter Overload Information Conveyance (DOIC)) solution describes a mechanism meeting most of the requirements, but does not currently include the ability to send load information. Status of This Memo This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 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 (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved. This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents @@ -58,21 +58,21 @@ 3. Conventions Used in This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4. Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4.1. Differences between Load and Overload information . . . . 4 4.2. How is Load Information Used? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 5. Solution Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5.1. Theory of Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 6. Load Mechanism Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 6.1. Reporting Node Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 6.1.1. Endpoint Reporting Node Behavior . . . . . . . . . . 10 6.1.2. Agent Reporting Node Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 - 6.2. Receiving Node Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 + 6.2. Reacting Node Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 6.3. Extensibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 6.4. Addition and removal of Nodes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 7. Attribute Value Pairs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 7.1. Load AVP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 7.2. Load-Type AVP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 7.3. Load-Value AVP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 7.4. SourceID AVP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 7.5. Attribute Value Pair flag rules . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 @@ -127,22 +127,22 @@ requirements from RFC 7068. 2. Terminology and Abbreviations DOIC Diameter Overload Information Conveyance ([RFC7683]) Load - The he relative usage of the Diameter message processing capacity - of a Diameter node. A low load level indicates that the Diameter + The relative usage of the Diameter message processing capacity of + a Diameter node. A low load level indicates that the Diameter node is under utilized. A high load level indicates that the node is closer to being fully utilized. Offered Load The actual traffic sent to the reporting node after overload abatement and routing decisions are made. Reporting, Reacting Node Reporting node and reacting node terminology is defined in @@ -512,21 +512,21 @@ requirement 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 include load reports when the load value has changed by some meaningful value, as long as the agent insures that all peers receive the report. It is also acceptable to include the load 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 reports. 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 Load AVP received in the same answer message or from multiple answer messages. Note that the node needs to be able to handle messages with no @@ -710,32 +710,32 @@ [RFC6733] Fajardo, V., Ed., Arkko, J., Loughney, J., and G. Zorn, Ed., "Diameter Base Protocol", RFC 6733, DOI 10.17487/RFC6733, October 2012, . [RFC7068] McMurry, E. and B. Campbell, "Diameter Overload Control Requirements", RFC 7068, DOI 10.17487/RFC7068, November 2013, . - [RFC7683] Korhonen, J., Ed., Donovan, S., Ed., Campbell, B., and L. - Morand, "Diameter Overload Indication Conveyance", - RFC 7683, DOI 10.17487/RFC7683, October 2015, - . - 10.2. Informative References [RFC2782] Gulbrandsen, A., Vixie, P., and L. Esibov, "A DNS RR for specifying the location of services (DNS SRV)", RFC 2782, DOI 10.17487/RFC2782, February 2000, . + [RFC7683] Korhonen, J., Ed., Donovan, S., Ed., Campbell, B., and L. + Morand, "Diameter Overload Indication Conveyance", + RFC 7683, DOI 10.17487/RFC7683, October 2015, + . + Appendix A. Topology Scenarios This section presents a number of Diameter topology scenarios, and discusses how load information might be used in each scenario. A.1. No Agent Figure 6 shows a simple client-server scenario, where a client picks from a set of candidate servers available for a particular realm and application. The client selects the server for a given transaction