draft-ietf-dime-load-05.txt   draft-ietf-dime-load-06.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: June 5, 2017 JJ. Trottin Expires: June 9, 2017 JJ. Trottin
Nokia Nokia
December 2, 2016 December 6, 2016
Diameter Load Information Conveyance Diameter Load Information Conveyance
draft-ietf-dime-load-05 draft-ietf-dime-load-06
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 in information. RFC7068 describes requirements for Overload Control 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. send "load" information, even when the node is not overloaded.
RFC7683 (Diameter Overload Information Conveyance (DOIC)) 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.
skipping to change at page 1, line 38 skipping to change at page 1, line 38
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 5, 2017. This Internet-Draft will expire on June 9, 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 37 skipping to change at page 2, line 37
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
9.1. AVP Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 9.1. AVP Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
9.2. New Registries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 9.2. New Registries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
10.1. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
10.2. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Appendix A. Topology Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Appendix A. Topology Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
A.1. No Agent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 A.1. No Agent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
A.2. Single Agent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 A.2. Single Agent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
A.3. Multiple Agents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 A.3. Multiple Agents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
A.4. Linked Agents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 A.4. Linked Agents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
A.5. Shared Server Pools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 A.5. Shared Server Pools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
A.6. Agent Chains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 A.6. Agent Chains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
A.7. Fully Meshed Layers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 A.7. Fully Meshed Layers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
A.8. Partitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 A.8. Partitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
A.9. Active-Standby Nodes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 A.9. Active-Standby Nodes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
skipping to change at page 16, line 11 skipping to change at page 16, line 11
Section Section 7. All AVP codes are allocated from the Section Section 7. All AVP codes are allocated from the
'Authentication, Authorization, and Accounting (AAA) Parameters' AVP 'Authentication, Authorization, and Accounting (AAA) Parameters' AVP
Codes registry. Codes registry.
9.2. New Registries 9.2. New Registries
This document makes no new registry requests of IANA. This document makes no new registry requests of IANA.
10. References 10. References
10.1. Informative References 10.1. Normative 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,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2782>.
[RFC7068] McMurry, E. and B. Campbell, "Diameter Overload Control
Requirements", RFC 7068, DOI 10.17487/RFC7068, November
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. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-dime-agent-overload] [I-D.ietf-dime-agent-overload]
Donovan, S., "Diameter Agent Overload", draft-ietf-dime- Donovan, S., "Diameter Agent Overload", draft-ietf-dime-
agent-overload-02 (work in progress), August 2015. agent-overload-02 (work in progress), August 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, 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>.
[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,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2782>.
[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>.
[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
[RFC7068] McMurry, E. and B. Campbell, "Diameter Overload Control
Requirements", RFC 7068, DOI 10.17487/RFC7068, November
2013, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7068>.
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. 8 change blocks. 
23 lines changed or deleted 23 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/