Re: [Dime] OLR applicable for any/all applications

Jouni Korhonen <jouni.nospam@gmail.com> Tue, 03 December 2013 11:10 UTC

Return-Path: <jouni.nospam@gmail.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 A905A1AE10A for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Dec 2013 03:10:06 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 0thFlTmHaA0b for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Dec 2013 03:10:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-bk0-x231.google.com (mail-bk0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4008:c01::231]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 55D131AE08D for <dime@ietf.org>; Tue, 3 Dec 2013 03:10:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-bk0-f49.google.com with SMTP id my13so5903356bkb.22 for <dime@ietf.org>; Tue, 03 Dec 2013 03:10:01 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=5AU9ybOTh41qGup+Cq9XQHCCadZIfn22t8W8rIhp4T8=; b=jWKb0lipgGDyHcrzj7Yx1KIf8k87HwNL3AbIofV4icaIBgKa7ldQiVaBLDrGzkD1I2 yPBl8dkU1JnQ+0/LAM+M48yLUcmSiV++UFjeJad8/In7cyyAjvhHRx+tUcpQ7jH6G79r qE5/PPXAv2oYhr6yuIWIlgr2QG+DgfIzNegVc5nXmejSla3304hVu+aBcwtMxrc/ZDJT fuuIfCgp7Rv6mQZjQTow2yqf4eWRuTWdRS7tPsdNfk4ANZdPmrIMwEAaVpI1DeCFw8/Y +4BMuJVJyUZwkd60x/ZN+Cnuc0wf8bmwQtq7UsaOdu2xK/c/qgaVNnurH5nJho3VQ1FY 5pOA==
X-Received: by 10.204.168.142 with SMTP id u14mr35929bky.187.1386069001068; Tue, 03 Dec 2013 03:10:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ?IPv6:2001:6e8:480:60:8140:b30:4238:2452? ([2001:6e8:480:60:8140:b30:4238:2452]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id l5sm33078396bko.7.2013.12.03.03.09.58 for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 03 Dec 2013 03:09:58 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.6 \(1510\))
From: Jouni Korhonen <jouni.nospam@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <087A34937E64E74E848732CFF8354B920972BE76@ESESSMB101.ericsson.se>
Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2013 13:09:57 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <6E1A8DB2-A029-4FEE-ACF4-F5731E3D31EC@gmail.com>
References: <087A34937E64E74E848732CFF8354B920972BE0C@ESESSMB101.ericsson.se> <14D4A644-96B1-4B0F-892E-B969922C94D3@gmail.com> <087A34937E64E74E848732CFF8354B920972BE76@ESESSMB101.ericsson.se>
To: Maria Cruz Bartolome <maria.cruz.bartolome@ericsson.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1510)
Cc: "dime@ietf.org" <dime@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Dime] OLR applicable for any/all applications
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, 03 Dec 2013 11:10:06 -0000

We had an attempt to have applications other than
the piggybacked from the very beginning. That was
also ruled out. What has changed since?

- Jouni


On Dec 3, 2013, at 11:34 AM, Maria Cruz Bartolome <maria.cruz.bartolome@ericsson.com> wrote:

> Not exactly.
> It was opposition to duplicate information.
> 
> Cheers
> /MCruz
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jouni Korhonen [mailto:jouni.nospam@gmail.com] 
> Sent: martes, 03 de diciembre de 2013 10:26
> To: Maria Cruz Bartolome
> Cc: dime@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Dime] OLR applicable for any/all applications
> 
> 
> Hmm.. wasn't there just recently rather strong opposition to include anything beyond "implicit" information into the OLR?
> 
> - Jouni
> 
> 
> On Dec 3, 2013, at 10:42 AM, Maria Cruz Bartolome <maria.cruz.bartolome@ericsson.com> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> Dear all,
>> 
>> There may be a need by a reporting node to request traffic reduction for all traffic, application independent, e.g. if an operator's network becomes severely overloaded, it may be of interest to signal directly general overload to the client.  
>> 
>> In this case, since reacting node obtains affected application from the application message, we may need to extend OLR.
>> 
>> At least we got following options:
>> 
>> 
>> A)     Define a new optional AVP that could be included into OLR, like e.g.:
>>   OC-OLR ::= < AVP Header: TBD2 >
>>              < TimeStamp >
>>              [ Reduction-Percentage ]
>>              [ ValidityDuration ]
>>              [ ReportType ]
>>              [All applications]
>>            * [ AVP ]
>> 
>> 
>> B)      Extend  ReportTypes like e.g.:
>> 
>>   3  Destination-Host All Applications report.  Similar to Destination-Host report but it would apply to any application regardless the application message this report is received within.
>> 
>>   4  Realm (aggregated) All Applications report.  Similar to Realm report but it would apply to any application regardless the application message this report is received within.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> I tend to prefer option A, but let me know your opinions and preferences.
>> Best regards
>> /MCruz
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> DiME mailing list
>> DiME@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime
> 
> _______________________________________________
> DiME mailing list
> DiME@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime