--- 1/draft-ietf-dime-load-06.txt 2017-02-07 09:13:09.374258906 -0800 +++ 2/draft-ietf-dime-load-07.txt 2017-02-07 09:13:09.418259945 -0800 @@ -1,20 +1,20 @@ Internet Engineering Task Force B. Campbell Internet-Draft S. Donovan, Ed. Intended status: Standards Track Oracle -Expires: June 9, 2017 JJ. Trottin +Expires: August 11, 2017 JJ. Trottin Nokia - December 6, 2016 + February 7, 2017 Diameter Load Information Conveyance - draft-ietf-dime-load-06 + draft-ietf-dime-load-07 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. 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. @@ -27,25 +27,25 @@ 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 June 9, 2017. + This Internet-Draft will expire on August 11, 2017. 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. 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 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as @@ -61,39 +61,39 @@ 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. 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. Attribute Value Pairs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 + 7.1. Load AVP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 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 + 7.4. SourceID AVP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 + 7.5. Attribute Value Pair flag rules . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 - 9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 - 9.1. AVP Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 + 9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 + 9.1. AVP Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 9.2. New Registries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 - Appendix A. Topology Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 - A.1. No Agent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 + Appendix A. Topology Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 + A.1. No Agent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 A.2. Single Agent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 - A.3. Multiple Agents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 + A.3. Multiple 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.7. Fully Meshed Layers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 A.8. Partitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 A.9. Active-Standby Nodes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 1. Introduction [RFC7068] describes requirements for Overload Control in Diameter [RFC6733]. The DIME working group has finished the Diameter Overload @@ -549,20 +549,27 @@ DiameterIdentity included in the SourceID AVP in the Load report. 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 then the node MUST ignore the Load report. 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 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 decisions is an implementation decision. However, the distribution algorithm MUST result in similar behavior as the algorithm described for the use of weigth values in [RFC2782]. 6.3. Extensibility The Load mechanism can be extended to include additional information in the load reports.