Re: [Dime] #52: Throttling not needed to be based on previous history - conclusion
"TROTTIN, JEAN-JACQUES (JEAN-JACQUES)" <jean-jacques.trottin@alcatel-lucent.com> Fri, 21 February 2014 18:11 UTC
Return-Path: <jean-jacques.trottin@alcatel-lucent.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 839801A0559 for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 21 Feb 2014 10:11:19 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5] 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 B-PkHK6rOAtt for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 21 Feb 2014 10:11:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from hoemail2.alcatel.com (hoemail2.alcatel.com [192.160.6.149]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3039B1A0204 for <dime@ietf.org>; Fri, 21 Feb 2014 10:11:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from fr712usmtp2.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (h135-239-2-42.lucent.com [135.239.2.42]) by hoemail2.alcatel.com (8.13.8/IER-o) with ESMTP id s1LIB6c6013228 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for <dime@ietf.org>; Fri, 21 Feb 2014 12:11:07 -0600 (CST)
Received: from FR711WXCHHUB02.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (fr711wxchhub02.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com [135.239.2.112]) by fr712usmtp2.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (GMO) with ESMTP id s1LIB6lN023975 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL) for <dime@ietf.org>; Fri, 21 Feb 2014 19:11:06 +0100
Received: from FR712WXCHMBA12.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com ([169.254.8.164]) by FR711WXCHHUB02.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.239.2.112]) with mapi id 14.02.0247.003; Fri, 21 Feb 2014 19:11:06 +0100
From: "TROTTIN, JEAN-JACQUES (JEAN-JACQUES)" <jean-jacques.trottin@alcatel-lucent.com>
To: "dime@ietf.org" <dime@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Dime] #52: Throttling not needed to be based on previous history - conclusion
Thread-Index: Ac8u4I7lZ6EisnBRQGeKN2pRy2ep6wAMcrsAAAQQ/wAAArURAA==
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2014 18:11:05 +0000
Message-ID: <E194C2E18676714DACA9C3A2516265D20266A27D@FR712WXCHMBA12.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com>
References: <087A34937E64E74E848732CFF8354B9209784017@ESESSMB101.ericsson.se> <53077290.8080501@usdonovans.com> <16056_1393003995_53078DDB_16056_14391_1_6B7134B31289DC4FAF731D844122B36E4B629F@PEXCVZYM13.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
In-Reply-To: <16056_1393003995_53078DDB_16056_14391_1_6B7134B31289DC4FAF731D844122B36E4B629F@PEXCVZYM13.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US
Content-Language: fr-FR
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [135.239.27.39]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_E194C2E18676714DACA9C3A2516265D20266A27DFR712WXCHMBA12z_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dime/LIvm0Fqp2dq3ebtoL23FFebke-c
Subject: Re: [Dime] #52: Throttling not needed to be based on previous history - conclusion
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: Fri, 21 Feb 2014 18:11:19 -0000
Hi MCruz, Steve I also agree on the "would send " instead of the "would have sent" for sure. But I have a small concern/ clarification about the Steve comment on "for the period that the overload report is active" and the example to which it refers. During the time the OLR is active, which may be rather long, the traffic the reacting node would send may be 100 packet when it has just received the OLR. A bit later, the traffic it would send could be 120 (or 80), and from the OLR definition, it would send 120x0,9 (or 80* 0,9) packets, on which I agree. This is in line with the every 10th packet dropping on which I also agree. As the text would be written with the Steve modification , we may understand it is 80 Packet during all the time the OLR is active. Not yet think to an alternative text, but first to see if you agree with my remark. JJacques De : DiME [mailto:dime-bounces@ietf.org] De la part de lionel.morand@orange.com Envoyé : vendredi 21 février 2014 18:33 À : Steve Donovan; dime@ietf.org Objet : Re: [Dime] #52: Throttling not needed to be based on previous history - conclusion +1 (including Steve comment) De : DiME [mailto:dime-bounces@ietf.org] De la part de Steve Donovan Envoyé : vendredi 21 février 2014 16:37 À : dime@ietf.org<mailto:dime@ietf.org> Objet : Re: [Dime] #52: Throttling not needed to be based on previous history - conclusion Maria Cruz, I support your suggested changes. I have one further suggested change below. Steve On 2/21/14 2:40 AM, Maria Cruz Bartolome wrote: #52: Throttling not needed to be based on previous history Following agreement is reached: Now (chapter 4.7): The OC-Reduction-Percentage AVP (AVP code TBD8) is type of Unsigned32 and describes the percentage of the traffic that the sender is requested to reduce, compared to what it otherwise would have sent. Proposal: The OC-Reduction-Percentage AVP (AVP code TBD8) is type of Unsigned32 and describes the percentage of the traffic that the sender is requested to reduce, compared to what it otherwise would send. <---- Now (chapter 5.5.2): Indicates that the reporting node urges the reacting node to reduce its traffic by a given percentage. For example if the reacting node has been sending 100 packets per second to the reporting node, then a reception of OC-Reduction-Percentage value of 10 would mean that from now on the reacting node MUST only send 90 packets per second. How the reacting node achieves the "true reduction" transactions leading to the sent request messages is up to the implementation. The reacting node MAY simply drop every 10th packet from its output queue and let the generic application logic try to recover from it.0 < value < 100 Proposal: Indicates that the reporting node urges the reacting node to reduce its traffic by a given percentage. For example if the reacting node would send 100 packets to the <--- reporting node, then a reception of OC-Reduction-Percentage value of 10 would mean that from now on the reacting node MUST only send 90 packets instead of 100. How the reacting node achieves the "true <--- reduction" transactions leading to the sent request messages is up to the implementation. The reacting node MAY simply drop every 10th packet from its output queue and let the generic application logic try to recover from it. SRD> Replace "from now on" in the above with "for the period that the overload report is active" _______________________________________________ DiME mailing list DiME@ietf.org<mailto:DiME@ietf.org> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 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.
- [Dime] #52: Throttling not needed to be based on … Maria Cruz Bartolome
- Re: [Dime] #52: Throttling not needed to be based… Steve Donovan
- Re: [Dime] #52: Throttling not needed to be based… lionel.morand
- Re: [Dime] #52: Throttling not needed to be based… TROTTIN, JEAN-JACQUES (JEAN-JACQUES)
- Re: [Dime] #52: Throttling not needed to be based… lionel.morand
- Re: [Dime] #52: Throttling not needed to be based… TROTTIN, JEAN-JACQUES (JEAN-JACQUES)
- Re: [Dime] #52: Throttling not needed to be based… lionel.morand
- Re: [Dime] #52: Throttling not needed to be based… Steve Donovan
- Re: [Dime] #52: Throttling not needed to be based… Wiehe, Ulrich (NSN - DE/Munich)
- Re: [Dime] #52: Throttling not needed to be based… Maria Cruz Bartolome
- Re: [Dime] #52: Throttling not needed to be based… lionel.morand
- Re: [Dime] #52: Throttling not needed to be based… Steve Donovan
- Re: [Dime] #52: Throttling not needed to be based… TROTTIN, JEAN-JACQUES (JEAN-JACQUES)
- Re: [Dime] #52: Throttling not needed to be based… Maria Cruz Bartolome
- Re: [Dime] #52: Throttling not needed to be based… lionel.morand
- Re: [Dime] #52: Throttling not needed to be based… Janet P Gunn
- Re: [Dime] #52: Throttling not needed to be based… Steve Donovan
- Re: [Dime] #52: Throttling not needed to be based… Janet P Gunn
- Re: [Dime] #52: Throttling not needed to be based… Maria Cruz Bartolome
- Re: [Dime] #52: Throttling not needed to be based… Janet P Gunn
- Re: [Dime] #52: Throttling not needed to be based… lionel.morand