draft-ietf-dime-load-06.txt   draft-ietf-dime-load-07.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 9, 2017 JJ. Trottin Expires: August 11, 2017 JJ. Trottin
Nokia Nokia
December 6, 2016 February 7, 2017
Diameter Load Information Conveyance Diameter Load Information Conveyance
draft-ietf-dime-load-06 draft-ietf-dime-load-07
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 9, 2017. This Internet-Draft will expire on August 11, 2017.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2017 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
skipping to change at page 2, line 26 skipping to change at page 2, line 26
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. Reacting 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
7.1. Load AVP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 7.1. Load AVP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
7.5. Attribute Value Pair flag rules . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 7.5. Attribute Value Pair flag rules . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
9.1. AVP Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 9.1. AVP Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
9.2. New Registries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 9.2. New Registries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Appendix A. Topology Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Appendix A. Topology Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
A.1. No Agent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 A.1. No Agent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
A.2. Single Agent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 A.2. Single Agent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
A.3. Multiple Agents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 A.3. Multiple Agents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
A.4. Linked Agents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 A.4. Linked Agents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
A.5. Shared Server Pools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 A.5. Shared Server Pools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
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
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
[RFC7068] describes requirements for Overload Control in Diameter [RFC7068] describes requirements for Overload Control in Diameter
[RFC6733]. The DIME working group has finished the Diameter Overload [RFC6733]. The DIME working group has finished the Diameter Overload
skipping to change at page 12, line 48 skipping to change at page 12, line 48
DiameterIdentity included in the SourceID AVP in the Load report. DiameterIdentity included in the SourceID AVP in the Load report.
If the Diameter node determines that the Load report of type PEER was If the Diameter node determines that the Load report of type PEER was
not received from the peer that sent or relayed the answer message not received from the peer that sent or relayed the answer message
then the node MUST ignore the Load report. then the node MUST ignore the Load report.
If the Diameter node determines that the Load report of type PEER was If the Diameter node determines that the Load report of type PEER was
received from the peer that sent or relayed the answer message then received from the peer that sent or relayed the answer message then
the node SHOULD save the load information in its routing information. the node SHOULD save the load information in its routing information.
In all cases, a Diameter Agent MUST strip all load reports of type
peer received in answer messages.
Note: This ensures that there will be precisely one load report of
type peer, that of the Diameter node sending the message, in any
answer messages sent by the Diameter agent.
How a Diameter node uses load information for making routing How a Diameter node uses load information for making routing
decisions is an implementation decision. However, the distribution decisions is an implementation decision. However, the distribution
algorithm MUST result in similar behavior as the algorithm described algorithm MUST result in similar behavior as the algorithm described
for the use of weigth values in [RFC2782]. for the use of weigth values in [RFC2782].
6.3. Extensibility 6.3. Extensibility
The Load mechanism can be extended to include additional information The Load mechanism can be extended to include additional information
in the load reports. in the load reports.
 End of changes. 12 change blocks. 
15 lines changed or deleted 22 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/