Re: [Dime] issue #56 proposed conclusion
Steve Donovan <srdonovan@usdonovans.com> Tue, 25 March 2014 12:20 UTC
Return-Path: <srdonovan@usdonovans.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 F2A2F1A00D1 for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 25 Mar 2014 05:20:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.779
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.779 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_40=-0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_NEUTRAL=0.779] autolearn=no
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 xC8xh58pD37i for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 25 Mar 2014 05:20:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from biz131.inmotionhosting.com (biz131.inmotionhosting.com [23.235.209.16]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1239C1A00BE for <dime@ietf.org>; Tue, 25 Mar 2014 05:20:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cpe-76-187-100-94.tx.res.rr.com ([76.187.100.94]:65432 helo=Steves-MacBook-Air-2.local) by biz131.inmotionhosting.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1:DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from <srdonovan@usdonovans.com>) id 1WSQLY-0000SQ-FM; Tue, 25 Mar 2014 05:20:52 -0700
Message-ID: <5331749F.5090200@usdonovans.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2014 07:20:47 -0500
From: Steve Donovan <srdonovan@usdonovans.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Wiehe, Ulrich (NSN - DE/Munich)" <ulrich.wiehe@nsn.com>, "dime@ietf.org" <dime@ietf.org>
References: <5BCBA1FC2B7F0B4C9D935572D9000668151D1F0A@DEMUMBX014.nsn-intra.net> <533081C6.9080103@usdonovans.com> <5BCBA1FC2B7F0B4C9D935572D9000668151D205C@DEMUMBX014.nsn-intra.net>
In-Reply-To: <5BCBA1FC2B7F0B4C9D935572D9000668151D205C@DEMUMBX014.nsn-intra.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------090307040902010104050503"
X-OutGoing-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.9
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - biz131.inmotionhosting.com
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - usdonovans.com
X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: biz131.inmotionhosting.com: authenticated_id: srd+usdonovans.com/only user confirmed/virtual account not confirmed
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dime/LvxwtAn4a010FyWXQqvkP6M3JrI
Subject: Re: [Dime] issue #56 proposed 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: Tue, 25 Mar 2014 12:20:57 -0000
Ulrich, Please see inline. Steve > Reporting nodes create an OCS identified by OCS-Id = (app-id,Alg) when receiving a > > request of application app-id containing an OC-Supported-Features AVP > > indicating support of the Abatement Algorithm Alg (which the reporting > > node selects) while being overloaded, unless such OCS already exists. > > SRD> I would think the reporting node would create the OCS when it > determines it needs a reduction, independent when it receives requests > from various reacting nodes. > <Ulrich> when not receiving requests, there is no need for reduction; > the need of reduction is determined when a request is received. > > Furthermore: If the reporting node determines that it needs a > reduction independently from a received request, which Algorithm would > it select? </Ulrich> > SRD2> You are correct that the algorithm can't be selected until the request arrives. My point was that there would be state indicating the reporting node is overloaded already in place. > > > > Reporting nodes delete an OCS when it expires. > > SRD> Or when it explicitly sends an OLR with validity duration of zero. > > <Ulrich> no. Let me give an example: > > Server S has an OCS identified by the pair (Application x, Loss) with > the content: Sequence number =5, duration= 30 sec/expiry time= > 9:45:59, percentage =10%. > > At 9:45:30 Client C1 sends an application x request to S and gets back > an OLR indicating 10% for 30 sec. > > At 9.45:57 Client C2 send an application x request to S and gets back > an OLR indicating 10% for 30sec. > > At 9:45:58 S decides that it is no longer overloaded. It therefore > updates the OCS to contain: sequence number=6, duration = 0sec/expiry > time= 9:46:30, percentage =0%. > > At 9:45:59 C1 sends an application x request to S and gets back the > explicit OLR with validity duration of zero. S must not delet the OCS > at this time. > > At 9:46:01 C2 sends an application x request to S and (because the OCS > was not deleted in the previous step) gets back the explicit OLR with > validity duration of zero. If the OCS was deleted in the previous step > C2 would continue throttling until 9:46:27.</Ulrich> > SRD> This is a good description of the need to keep the state in the server until it times out. Thanks. > > > > > > Reporting nodes update the OCS identified by OCS-Id = (app-id,Alg) when they detect the > need to modify the requested amount of application app-id traffic reduction. > > Ulrich > > > _______________________________________________ > DiME mailing list > DiME@ietf.org <mailto:DiME@ietf.org> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime > >
- [Dime] issue #56 proposed conclusion Wiehe, Ulrich (NSN - DE/Munich)
- Re: [Dime] issue #56 proposed conclusion Wiehe, Ulrich (NSN - DE/Munich)
- Re: [Dime] issue #56 proposed conclusion TROTTIN, JEAN-JACQUES (JEAN-JACQUES)
- Re: [Dime] issue #56 proposed conclusion TROTTIN, JEAN-JACQUES (JEAN-JACQUES)
- Re: [Dime] issue #56 proposed conclusion Steve Donovan
- Re: [Dime] issue #56 proposed conclusion Steve Donovan
- Re: [Dime] issue #56 proposed conclusion Wiehe, Ulrich (NSN - DE/Munich)
- Re: [Dime] issue #56 proposed conclusion Wiehe, Ulrich (NSN - DE/Munich)
- Re: [Dime] issue #56 proposed conclusion Wiehe, Ulrich (NSN - DE/Munich)
- Re: [Dime] issue #56 proposed conclusion Wiehe, Ulrich (NSN - DE/Munich)
- Re: [Dime] issue #56 proposed conclusion TROTTIN, JEAN-JACQUES (JEAN-JACQUES)
- Re: [Dime] issue #56 proposed conclusion Steve Donovan
- Re: [Dime] issue #56 proposed conclusion Steve Donovan
- Re: [Dime] issue #56 proposed conclusion Steve Donovan
- Re: [Dime] issue #56 proposed conclusion TROTTIN, JEAN-JACQUES (JEAN-JACQUES)
- Re: [Dime] issue #56 proposed conclusion TROTTIN, JEAN-JACQUES (JEAN-JACQUES)
- Re: [Dime] issue #56 proposed conclusion Wiehe, Ulrich (NSN - DE/Munich)
- Re: [Dime] issue #56 proposed conclusion TROTTIN, JEAN-JACQUES (JEAN-JACQUES)
- Re: [Dime] issue #56 proposed conclusion Steve Donovan
- Re: [Dime] issue #56 proposed conclusion Steve Donovan
- Re: [Dime] issue #56 proposed conclusion Steve Donovan
- Re: [Dime] issue #56 proposed conclusion TROTTIN, JEAN-JACQUES (JEAN-JACQUES)
- Re: [Dime] issue #56 proposed conclusion Steve Donovan
- Re: [Dime] issue #56 proposed conclusion TROTTIN, JEAN-JACQUES (JEAN-JACQUES)
- Re: [Dime] issue #56 proposed conclusion Steve Donovan