Re: [Dime] Definition of host report

<lionel.morand@orange.com> Tue, 08 April 2014 12:20 UTC

Return-Path: <lionel.morand@orange.com>
X-Original-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB9221A0387 for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 8 Apr 2014 05:20:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id iqUzUnJHvi2W for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 8 Apr 2014 05:20:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from relais-inet.francetelecom.com (relais-ias244.francetelecom.com [80.12.204.244]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A6D7E1A0228 for <dime@ietf.org>; Tue, 8 Apr 2014 05:20:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from omfeda05.si.francetelecom.fr (unknown [xx.xx.xx.198]) by omfeda10.si.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id AAAC83742EC; Tue, 8 Apr 2014 14:20:35 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from Exchangemail-eme1.itn.ftgroup (unknown [10.114.1.183]) by omfeda05.si.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 911081800A0; Tue, 8 Apr 2014 14:20:35 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from PEXCVZYM13.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([fe80::cc7e:e40b:42ef:164e]) by PEXCVZYH02.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([::1]) with mapi id 14.03.0181.006; Tue, 8 Apr 2014 14:20:35 +0200
From: <lionel.morand@orange.com>
To: Steve Donovan <srdonovan@usdonovans.com>, "dime@ietf.org" <dime@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Dime] Definition of host report
Thread-Index: AQHPUqiD40GtsuX80E2Kxe3h4DRr4JsHZV8g
Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2014 12:20:34 +0000
Message-ID: <7558_1396959635_5343E993_7558_7400_1_6B7134B31289DC4FAF731D844122B36E54C514@PEXCVZYM13.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
References: <5342AAD9.9030803@usdonovans.com> <28937_1396879717_5342B165_28937_9147_1_6B7134B31289DC4FAF731D844122B36E548C2D@PEXCVZYM13.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <534318C7.1060502@usdonovans.com>
In-Reply-To: <534318C7.1060502@usdonovans.com>
Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US
Content-Language: fr-FR
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.197.38.2]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-PMX-Version: 6.0.3.2322014, Antispam-Engine: 2.7.2.2107409, Antispam-Data: 2014.4.8.91220
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dime/HdDC9UExfrIcyCkF9IDl9n_HV4A
Subject: Re: [Dime] Definition of host report
X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group <dime.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dime>, <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dime/>
List-Post: <mailto:dime@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime>, <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 08 Apr 2014 12:20:43 -0000

Hi Steve,

I understand your point now. Thank you for the clarification.

However, I don't think that it leads necessarily to the need for a Diameter Id in the OLR.

The clarification could be that, in case of direct connection between clients and servers, the Host report type applies also to the peer connection for which the peer id is equal to the origin-host in the answer containing the OLR. Such binding is required and the Diameter Id in the OLR will not provide added-value compared to the origin-host of the answer.

Regards, 

Lionel


De : Steve Donovan [mailto:srdonovan@usdonovans.com] 
Envoyé : lundi 7 avril 2014 23:30
À : MORAND Lionel IMT/OLN; dime@ietf.org
Objet : Re: [Dime] Definition of host report

Lionel,

Please see inline.

Steve
On 4/7/14 9:07 AM, lionel.morand@orange.com wrote:
Hi Steve,

As defined today, the originator of a Host-based report is the node identified by the Origin-host in the answer. I don't understand what is wrong with the existing definition in the draft.

Please see below.

Regards,

Lionel

De : DiME [mailto:dime-bounces@ietf.org] De la part de Steve Donovan
Envoyé : lundi 7 avril 2014 15:41
À : dime@ietf.org
Objet : [Dime] Definition of host report

All,

I believe that the current definition of the host report needs to be enhanced.

The following is what is currently in the -02 draft:
   0  A host report.  The overload treatment should apply to requests
      for which all of the following conditions are true:

      The Destination-Host AVP is present in the request and its value
      matches the value of the Origin-Host AVP of the received message
      that contained the OC-OLR AVP.

      The value of the Destination-Realm AVP in the request matches the
      value of the Origin-Realm AVP of the received message that
      contained the OC-OLR AVP.

      The value of the Application-ID in the Diameter Header of the
      request matches the value of the Application-ID of the Diameter
      Header of the received message that contained the OC-OLR AVP.

The second paragraph says that only requests that contain a Destination-Host AVP can be used for overload treatment.

This does not address the case where there is no agent between the reacting and reporting nodes. 
[LM] I think you mean: this does ONLY address, right?
SRD> No, I mean the case where a client is connected directly to a set of servers.  One of the servers becomes overloaded and sends a host report.  The server is telling clients to reduce the traffic sent to it by x%.  The client selects a route for the request.  Any request that would be routed to the connection to the server should be a candidate for overload treatment.  If this is not the case then how do you protect a server for an application that has 100% realm routed requests?

In other words, the reacting node has a direct connection to the reporting node.  In this case the reacting node should include all messages that would be sent to the reporting node, including those that do not contain a Destination-Host AVP and those that the reacting node would sent to the reporting node through normal route selection for requests that do not contain a Destination-Host AVP.
[LM] I'm not sure to understand the reasoning above. Why should a reacting node include request with no Dest-Host AVP?
SRD> Because there is nothing else in the network that can manage that traffic.



I propose that the second paragraph be changed to the following:

"The reacting node knows that the request will be routed to the overloaded Diameter node identified by the Diameter ID in the OLR.  This is the value of the Origin-Host AVP in the message that carried the OLR.  There are two cases where the reacting node will know that the request will be routed to the overloaded node.  The first is the request contains a Destination-Host AVP that matches the Diameter ID contained in the OLR.  The second is when the reacting node selects a route that is a direct connection to the overloaded Diameter node."
[LM] this is not needed if the Origin-host in the answer is enough to identify which node is overloaded, that is the current assumption in the draft.

Regards,

Steve

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.

This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;
they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
Thank you.




_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.

This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;
they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
Thank you.