IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Dime] Ongoing Throttling Information in request messages

Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com> Tue, 26 November 2013 19:56 UTC

Return-Path: <ben@nostrum.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 06A421ADF9B; Tue, 26 Nov 2013 11:56:57 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.036
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.036 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311] 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 SBQTa8VsLCTE; Tue, 26 Nov 2013 11:56:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from shaman.nostrum.com (nostrum-pt.tunnel.tserv2.fmt.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f03:267::2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E132A1ADF93; Tue, 26 Nov 2013 11:56:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.0.1.29] (cpe-173-172-146-58.tx.res.rr.com [173.172.146.58]) (authenticated bits=0) by shaman.nostrum.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id rAQJukhr094284 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Tue, 26 Nov 2013 13:56:48 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from ben@nostrum.com)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.0 \(1822\))
From: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>
In-Reply-To: <5BCBA1FC2B7F0B4C9D935572D900066815192D5F@DEMUMBX014.nsn-intra.net>
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2013 13:56:45 -0600
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <DCB30089-EEA0-47C7-9FF5-0069A066966F@nostrum.com>
References: <5BCBA1FC2B7F0B4C9D935572D9000668151918EC@DEMUMBX014.nsn-intra.net> <A9CA33BB78081F478946E4F34BF9AAA014CF3131@xmb-rcd-x10.cisco.com> <5BCBA1FC2B7F0B4C9D935572D900066815192B2B@DEMUMBX014.nsn-intra.net> <A9CA33BB78081F478946E4F34BF9AAA014CF31E9@xmb-rcd-x10.cisco.com> <5BCBA1FC2B7F0B4C9D935572D900066815192B90@DEMUMBX014.nsn-intra.net> <A9CA33BB78081F478946E4F34BF9AAA014CF3237@xmb-rcd-x10.cisco.com> <5BCBA1FC2B7F0B4C9D935572D900066815192BF7@DEMUMBX014.nsn-intra.net> <A9CA33BB78081F478946E4F34BF9AAA014CF32CD@xmb-rcd-x10.cisco.com> <5BCBA1FC2B7F0B4C9D935572D900066815192CD2@DEMUMBX014.nsn-intra.net> <A9CA33BB78081F478946E4F34BF9AAA014CF4801@xmb-rcd-x10.cisco.com> <5BCBA1FC2B7F0B4C9D935572D900066815192D5F@DEMUMBX014.nsn-intra.net>
To: "Wiehe, Ulrich (NSN - DE/Munich)" <ulrich.wiehe@nsn.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1822)
Received-SPF: pass (shaman.nostrum.com: 173.172.146.58 is authenticated by a trusted mechanism)
Cc: "dime@ietf.org" <dime@ietf.org>, "doc-dt@ietf.org" <doc-dt@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Dime] Ongoing Throttling Information in request messages
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, 26 Nov 2013 19:56:57 -0000

On Nov 7, 2013, at 4:23 AM, Wiehe, Ulrich (NSN - DE/Munich) <ulrich.wiehe@nsn.com> wrote:

> Furthermore you seem not to take REQ 10 seriously. My understanding was that timeout is last resort, not the normal way.

I disagree with that conclusion.

Quoting RFC 7068:

> Consumers of overload information MUST be able to determine
>            when the overload condition improves or ends.



That text does not contemplate any particular mechanism, e.g. timeouts vs explicit notification. It merely requires that a mechanism exists.  The solution draft actually has _two_ mechanism for this (i.e. timeouts and explicit notification.) It's up to the implementation to figure out the exact details. Sure, it would be bad form for a node to declare an hour long overload period, have it resolve in a few seconds, and then leave the reacting nodes hanging for the rest of the hour.

 OTOH, I see nothing wrong at the protocol level with Nirav's case of having a short timeout, and just letting it expire. Whether it's the most efficient approach is another issue. We might offer guidance on that, but I would expect such guidance to be non-normative advice.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email