Re: [Dime] [dime] #34: Semantics of OC-Report-Type AVP

Steve,

first of all I would like to better understand the usecase especially on the reporting side.
Which node would act as a reporting node generating new realm-type reports?
How would this node detect that the complete realm is in overload (and what does that mean? All servers in the realm, also clients? Agents? )?
Would this node be (logically) a single node? If not, how to synchronize different new-realm-type reporting nodes so that they don't report different things to the same reacting node?

Ulrich

From: DiME [mailto:dime-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of ext Steve Donovan
Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2014 1:48 PM
To: dime@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Dime] [dime] #34: Semantics of OC-Report-Type AVP

It shouldn't be much work to add realm overload to the draft.  We would need to do the following (at a minimum):

- Change that name of the current realm report to something like "realm-routed".
- Create a new report type of name realm that applies to all traffic routed to the realm.
- Add a few words in the reporting node section about generation of realm reports.
- Define the interaction between realm, realm-routed and host report types.  This is probably the most difficult part that is likely to require some discussion.

Other then the section on interactions between report types, I don't think this impacts the existing text so it should fold in pretty cleanly.

I'd be happy to take the first shot at this to be included in the -02 version of the draft if there is consensus to add it.

Steve
On 2/18/14 4:11 AM, Maria Cruz Bartolome wrote:
Hello all,

Overload of the realm is one of the use cases that is required by 3GPP applications.
And I think this should be part of the basic mechanism, or?

Best regards
/MCruz

From: DiME [mailto:dime-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of TROTTIN, JEAN-JACQUES (JEAN-JACQUES)
Sent: lunes, 17 de febrero de 2014 18:53
To: dime@ietf.org<mailto:dime@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Dime] [dime] #34: Semantics of OC-Report-Type AVP

Hi

I share the view to analyze the overload of the realm as a whole in a separate extension  and see if this lead to another report type.

Best regards

JJacques

De : DiME [mailto:dime-bounces@ietf.org] De la part de Steve Donovan
Envoyé : lundi 17 février 2014 17:13
À : Ben Campbell
Cc : dime@ietf.org<mailto:dime@ietf.org> list
Objet : Re: [Dime] [dime] #34: Semantics of OC-Report-Type AVP

I do think it would be a new report type, as it would require different behavior from reacting nodes.

I'm ok with this being in a separate extension if the group thinks this is the correct approach.  We are creating a good number of relatively small extensions.  It might lead to the need to pull them all together in a future version of the DOIC draft/RFC.

Steve
On 2/14/14 4:21 PM, Ben Campbell wrote:

(Apologies for coming late to this thread)

On Feb 13, 2014, at 6:35 AM, Steve Donovan <srdonovan@usdonovans.com><mailto:srdonovan@usdonovans.com> wrote:

Ok, Ok, no reason to gang up on me. :-)

What we have here is an overload report to reduce realm routed requests.  I think we should be explicit in the draft to define it as such.

At the risk of joining the anti-Steve gang, I feel the need to belatedly mention that my personal intent way back when we talked about the mixed-state problem was that realm reports applied to realm-routed requests.

I am still concerned that we do not have a way to indicate overload of the realm as a whole.  I'll enter a new trouble ticket to capture this issue.

I do not object to adding that ability. Would it be a new OLR type? If so, would it need to go in the base draft or could it be an extension?

Steve

_______________________________________________

DiME mailing list

DiME@ietf.org<mailto:DiME@ietf.org>

https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime