Re: [Dime] Diameter retransmission -- to use same hop-by-hop and end-to-end IDs?

Jouni Korhonen <> Fri, 04 March 2016 22:56 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A27771A92EF for <>; Fri, 4 Mar 2016 14:56:25 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Y0C3MnugyGPZ for <>; Fri, 4 Mar 2016 14:56:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c03::22a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 414CE1A92EE for <>; Fri, 4 Mar 2016 14:56:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id fy10so41995875pac.1 for <>; Fri, 04 Mar 2016 14:56:22 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=wiExykzh42D0ttdICQ8NPtWIR/tM/6DOeqtbaOwIZc4=; b=vZDnEaR9rI1DhnhQY4sNWfMa1imtWhdPVMCV3J4IuK7ylzYSc74Ibouv7Dh7tzQqmP bN96yV98DE3nvz9JmeZVTemgbpadNaCHc8avbLnC2h+zlq5b7g1zGy74KnNwtMcYmjZP cdw0TYnsKfTIU6h+k07skw5h9xKLtAexBDzchzYmQ448DB/w/HeuQ+oyiu5bGUBaTyTH bXCslxt709Y3KL7TJz9R4LObXd0lhIkGy/bPJbLMVcjTTGG10oUvkihFAF0eVKESQy4Q vDjkLYsz4IDnZnMzN2WQr8j3Z3yIxCfXa+Q1ASKOQLkY3bOwH+COOUPA7AhsLYFl6uSj AMTQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=wiExykzh42D0ttdICQ8NPtWIR/tM/6DOeqtbaOwIZc4=; b=diRKCden3Wc5x7ZQYJ2uYxy9Dc5KOM/fF6g5QJwVueehbwHX0jEKPFLikzQxN1b+0t KiaVlCQR4kftPChXL+ZdnXL01/0th+SlXtgBBSlDo9oZtpSwaAO2O3d7Hvy2YnkUOtGd 6RyEdquXsLa1dqKLdYDUdLIS7x5PMxNkHmHxSec42SgwFT/lgI+gAQEvDYHEj2px3I2L 1OOQRV15WCQSsWxOl9ZTpbamfFTsoNYqRIlwJKnP/zwudNILBaayHtdJqdWyIcj+ZKSr ysNQ0+0oYIKI3kpYTYyv09cRXWXFXn5xpHoLusM6DnBljhV1WuIAnMjCGFRiF3JBIcj9 Yq3g==
X-Gm-Message-State: AD7BkJIIRN3Or0Uacg99aEk3cRCCMjowoF4/vBb50DhiarwnOoCNhHk4WcBB+GFkYpPuGA==
X-Received: by with SMTP id gr8mr15720915pac.23.1457132181878; Fri, 04 Mar 2016 14:56:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] ([]) by with ESMTPSA id ud8sm7824372pac.11.2016. for <> (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Fri, 04 Mar 2016 14:56:21 -0800 (PST)
References: <>
From: Jouni Korhonen <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Fri, 04 Mar 2016 14:56:20 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Dime] Diameter retransmission -- to use same hop-by-hop and end-to-end IDs?
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 04 Mar 2016 22:56:25 -0000


On top of my head.. and in a tired condition :)

3/4/2016, 7:55 AM, Dave Dolson kirjoitti:
> Hello Diameter experts,
> We’ve been looking to the specs in order to answer the question as to
> whether a
> retransmitted Diameter request MUST/SHOULD/SHOULD NOT/MAY use the same
> hop-by-hop and end-to-end identifiers as the original request.
> Can anyone point to the position of the standards, or ad hoc standards
> in this regard?

RFC6733 Section 3 says "The sender MUST ensure that the Hop-by-Hop 
Identifier in a request is unique on a given connection at any given 
time". So if a different transport connection is used as a result of 
retransmission, the h-b-h id could potentially be different than in the 
original request. If different h-b-h ids were used over the same 
connection for the same buffered request messages that should also 
work.. I do not recall any text specifically prohibiting that. Not that 
I would find this kind of behaviour good, either..

RFC6733 Section 3 says "The End-to-End Identifier MUST NOT be modified 
by Diameter agents of any kind." Also "Duplicate requests SHOULD cause 
the same answer to be transmitted (modulo the Hop-by-Hop Identifier 
field and any routing AVPs that may be present), and they MUST NOT 
affect any state that was set when the original request was processed." 
And Section 5.5.4. says "The End-to-End Identifier field in the Diameter 
header along with the Origin-Host AVP MUST be used to identify duplicate 

The combination of Origin-Host and e-t-e id must be unique for duplicate 
detection. Now if either one changes the receiver potentially has issues 
determining correctly to which previously seen message the request was a 
retransmission for.

> A secondary question is whether an agent MUST/SHOULD/SHOULD NOT/MAY
> use the same hop-by-hop identifier when forwarding a retransmitted
> request that it used the
> first time the message was seen.
> My sense is that an agent is not required to do so, but may it do so?

See above.

- JOuni

> Thanks in advance,
> David Dolson
> Senior Software Architect, Sandvine Inc.
> _______________________________________________
> DiME mailing list