Re: [Dime] DOIC: Self-Contained OLRs

[Steve Donovan <[e-mail]>]

JJacques,

The self contained OLR proposal is about including host, realm and
application-id in the overload report.  There is nothing about
"Overload-Infoscope" AVPs in what I understand to be the self contained
OLRs.

It is true that what was specified in the Roach draft could be used for
self contained OLRs.  That is not, however, what is being proposed here.

Steve

On 12/11/13 12:01 PM, TROTTIN, JEAN-JACQUES (JEAN-JACQUES) wrote:
>
> Hi Steve
>
>  
>
> I am sorry, Steve,  I do not see the difference between the Draft
> Roach scope approach and the self contained OLRs.
>
>  
>
> With the scope approach in Draft Roach : there is an overload metric
> AVP  (eg containing a % of traffic reduction) coupled with one or
> several Overlaod-Infoscope AVPs, an overlaod infoscope identifying an
> application or a destination host or... . These Overlaod-Infoscope
> AVPs can be combined  with also  the possibility of  multi instances
> to have a list of applications, a list of destination hosts etc  to
> which the overload metric would apply.
>
> With self contained OLR as you have described them, un OLR will also
> contain an OC-Reduction-Percentage AVP coupled with one or several
> others AVPs (the self containment approach) to indicate which
> application(s), destinations host (s) etc the
>   OC-Reduction-Percentage AVP applies.
>
>  
>
> Where is the difference?
>
>  
>
> So the drawbacks identified for the scope approach also apply with the
> self contained approach
>
>  
>
> Best regards
>
>  
>
> JJacques
>
>  
>
>  
>
>  
>
> *De :*DiME [mailto:[e-mail]] *De la part de* Steve Donovan
> *Envoyé :* mercredi 11 décembre 2013 14:20
> *À :* [e-mail]
> *Objet :* Re: [Dime] DOIC: Self-Contained OLRs
>
>  
>
> JJacques,
>
> While the self contained overload report concept may be similar to the
> scopes concept in the Roach draft, they are not the same.  As such, I
> don't agree with your assertion that the previous rejection of the
> Roach draft requires us to reject self contained overload reports as
> currently being discussed.
>
> Steve
>
> On 12/11/13 2:27 AM, TROTTIN, JEAN-JACQUES (JEAN-JACQUES) wrote:
>
>     Hi Ben and all
>
>      
>
>     I remind my mail of 05/12, where the self contained OLRs approach
>     is quite similar to the self contained scopes  of Draft Roach
>     which drives to multiply the number of AVPs in the OLRs (AVPs
>     identifying Application, destination Host or even a list of
>     Destination Hosts,  Origin-Host etc ) with all the combinational
>     aspects behind (a list of such combinational were addressed in
>     draft Roach).  
>
>     This also result in a piggybacking  to be done  in any message ,
>     as the self contained OLR may contain many things which are not
>     related to the answer message conveying the self contained OLR .
>     This also  implies that at each hop, the self contained  OLRs are
>     opened to be reprocessed in order to recreate  new self contained
>     OLR(s)  to various destinations.
>
>     I remind that, now 6 months ago:
>
>     Many companies considered these scopes  approach too much complex,
>     and all people including you  or your colleagues agreed to evolve
>     towards a more simple way to proceed, which drove to the current
>     draft content. This decision is a strong argument that still
>     prevails  for the current baseline described in the current draft.
>
>      
>
>     This is why I remain in favor of the baseline  described in the
>     current  draft, as as I have always and regularly  expressed for 
>     a while.
>
>      
>
>     As also said, when news requirements will appear (eg session group
>     or APN examples)  the baseline is extensible to support these new
>     requirements .  I prefer this way of progressive extensions ,
>     rather than to create a self contained OLR  with an  immediate and
>     not needed complexity    
>
>      
>
>     Best regards
>
>      
>
>     JJacques
>
>      
>
>      
>
>     *De :*DiME [mailto:[e-mail]] *De la part de*
>     Shishufeng (Susan)
>     *Envoyé :* mardi 10 décembre 2013 04:58
>     *À :* Ben Campbell; [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> list
>     *Objet :* Re: [Dime] DOIC: Self-Contained OLRs
>
>      
>
>     Hi Ben,
>
>      
>
>     Each solution has its pros and cons. The key point here is to
>     select a right one which could satisfy the requirements but with
>     less resource consuming.
>
>      
>
>     Quick thinking on the pros you listed for self-contained OLR.
>
>      
>
>     -          The first two pros can be seen as optimization, on
>     which we are still arguing if these optimization are worth doing
>     or not, since such optimization brings extra cost.
>
>     -          The third one is not a key issue, which could be
>     addressed with several ways as discussed. As a last resort, the
>     overloaded server may send something in a request towards the
>     client to inform the end of the overload.
>
>     -          The last three pros are mainly for the case of overload
>     of agent, if I understood them correctly. Overload of agent is
>     still a controversial scenario, we may need more discussion in the
>     future. But anyway, with definition of new AVPs containing the
>     application-id, host, realm information as implied by the
>     piggybacking messages in the draft, as complement to the OLR so
>     far defined, they could reach the same intention as with the
>     self-contained OLR.
>
>      
>
>     Best Regards,
>
>     Susan
>
>      
>
>     *From:*Ben Campbell [mailto:[e-mail]]
>     *Sent:* Tuesday, December 10, 2013 7:53 AM
>     *To:* [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> list
>     *Subject:* Re: [Dime] DOIC: Self-Contained OLRs
>
>      
>
>     I am willing to call the discussion concluded for the purposes of
>     what goes in version 01 of the DOIC  draft. But I'd like to poke a
>     little more on what we do for a later (or final) version.
>
>      
>
>     So far, I've seen 4 people opposed to self-contained OLRs (Lionel,
>     Nirav, Maria, and Susan), and 3 in favor (Martin, Steve, and
>     obviously me.) I don't think that fits the usual definition of
>     rough consensus. So I'd like to look at the pros and cons a little
>     more explicitly. Here's my view of them. I'm sure others will have
>     other views--but I've yet to see those in the first group explain
>     what they think the pros of implicit OLRs might be beyond those
>     that I've included. I've also omitted any appeal to software
>     layering, since people disputed that already.
>
>      
>
>     It would also be good to hear from anyone who has not already
>     weighed into this.
>
>      
>
>     *Self-Contained OLRS:*
>
>      
>
>     Pros:
>
>       * Allows an easy, generic solution to Maria's "all-application"
>         scoped overload use case.
>       * Allows an overloaded node to signal overload for multiple
>         applications at once, instead of having to signal each one
>         separately.
>       * Allows an easy solution to our "loss" algorithm corner case of
>         not being able to signal the end of a 100% overload condition
>       * Makes it easier to solve the agent overload problem, without
>         requiring inconsistent behavior.
>       * Allows out-of-band transmission of OLRs without a new format
>       * Makes it easier to do things like adding a dedicated
>         application for overload, without a new format. (Yes, I think
>         there's still a use case for that, and I will detail it shortly.)
>
>     Cons: 
>
>      
>
>       * The recipient cannot assume an OLR matches the context of the
>         transaction in which it is received.  
>       * It's different than what's in the draft.
>
>      
>
>     *Implicit OLRs:*
>
>      
>
>     Pros:
>
>       * The recipient can infer the OLR scope from a combination of
>         the transaction context and the report type. [I don't
>         understand why this is valuable, but am including it since
>         people mentioned it.]
>       * Currently described in the draft.
>
>     Cons:
>
>       * Would need special-case behavior to allow the
>         "all-application" scope.
>       * An overloaded node needs to send a separate report for every
>         supported application.
>       * Needs special-case behavior to solve agent overload
>       * Cannot signal the end of a loss algorithm 100% overload condition
>       * cannot be used out-of-band.
>       * cannot be used with dedicated applications.
>
>      
>
>      
>
>      
>
>     On Dec 9, 2013, at 5:09 AM, Jouni Korhonen <[e-mail]
>     <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>
>
>
>     OK. Lets call this thread concluded then. I keep the old OC-OLR
>      semantics
>     regarding its information context then unmodified.
>
>     - Jouni
>
>      
>
>
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>
>     DiME mailing list
>
>     [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>
>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime
>
>  
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> DiME mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime