Re: [Dime] DOIC: Multiple instance of OC-OLR AVP (of the same type) within a response message

Maria Cruz Bartolome <maria.cruz.bartolome@ericsson.com> Tue, 03 December 2013 09:43 UTC

Return-Path: <maria.cruz.bartolome@ericsson.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 A9D9B1AE099 for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Dec 2013 01:43:11 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=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 3AdwFOYXQPHS for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Dec 2013 01:43:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sesbmg20.ericsson.net (sesbmg20.ericsson.net [193.180.251.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 02C081AE067 for <dime@ietf.org>; Tue, 3 Dec 2013 01:43:04 -0800 (PST)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb38-b7f2c8e000006d25-2f-529da7a5a5ca
Received: from ESESSHC012.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.125]) by sesbmg20.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 0D.7B.27941.5A7AD925; Tue, 3 Dec 2013 10:43:01 +0100 (CET)
Received: from ESESSMB101.ericsson.se ([169.254.1.118]) by ESESSHC012.ericsson.se ([153.88.183.54]) with mapi id 14.02.0347.000; Tue, 3 Dec 2013 10:43:01 +0100
From: Maria Cruz Bartolome <maria.cruz.bartolome@ericsson.com>
To: "dime@ietf.org" <dime@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: DOIC: Multiple instance of OC-OLR AVP (of the same type) within a response message
Thread-Index: Ac7wCaL7cwdoL1xIRoywlc8N1o+kQQAAb2rA
Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2013 09:43:00 +0000
Message-ID: <087A34937E64E74E848732CFF8354B920972BE90@ESESSMB101.ericsson.se>
References: <A9CA33BB78081F478946E4F34BF9AAA014D22C9C@xmb-rcd-x10.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <A9CA33BB78081F478946E4F34BF9AAA014D22C9C@xmb-rcd-x10.cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [153.88.183.19]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_087A34937E64E74E848732CFF8354B920972BE90ESESSMB101erics_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFrrILMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyM+Jvre7S5XODDPp3mlnM7V3B5sDosWTJ T6YAxigum5TUnMyy1CJ9uwSujL3Pd7MW3L/KVDFp6mXWBsb5y5m6GDk5JARMJHp+/WWHsMUk Ltxbz9bFyMUhJHCEUeLJpj5mCGcxkHNzAjNIFZuAncSl0y+Aujk4RASUJU7/cgAJCwskSiy5 cI4NxBYRSJJ4N/8TC4RtJDFl6wGwOIuAikTT532MIDavgK9EW1cPWI2QgI/E1l/HwOKcQPFT dyaB1TMCHfT91BqwQ5kFxCVuPZkPdbSAxJI955khbFGJl4//sULYihLtTxsYIerzJTZ0P2WC 2CUocXLmE5YJjCKzkIyahaRsFpIyiLiexI2pU9ggbG2JZQtfM0PYuhIz/h1iQRZfwMi+ipGj OLU4KTfdyGATIzBaDm75bbGD8fJfm0OM0hwsSuK8H986BwkJpCeWpGanphakFsUXleakFh9i ZOLglGpgnJZZltT2NipgcnTblP/VV9yfXhTjiGSdkBh14GPEj9qVQg8ZZwWVnHF551/QYLfh RVyCRn/hRUEjO6nLfcyij1xm+bz3ethZFN2vxNCkkcSxUJBvC+O3c2f16maeL5/RUjFtX4o5 f+Jilg2+X3a1KTBP/aDtoymYviftYp5ywZkJCaW/012VWIozEg21mIuKEwE1gbr/ZAIAAA==
Subject: Re: [Dime] DOIC: Multiple instance of OC-OLR AVP (of the same type) within a response message
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 09:43:11 -0000

Nirav,

Yes, I agree the restriction to do not allow multiple instances with the same Report-Type does not seem necessary.

In fact, if we want to narrow OLR applicability, in case a new ReportType is defined, it means that it should apply to host OR/AND realm plus something else. This information should be either provided by the ReportType definition and/or by adding extra AVPs into corresponding OLR, what makes things more complex. I agree we could benefit from the flexibility to allow more than one instance of same ReportType.

Best regards
/MCruz

From: Nirav Salot (nsalot) [mailto:nsalot@cisco.com]
Sent: martes, 03 de diciembre de 2013 10:26
To: Maria Cruz Bartolome; dime@ietf.org
Subject: RE: DOIC: Multiple instance of OC-OLR AVP (of the same type) within a response message

Maria-Cruz,

> we may think that we need two different OLRs with ReportType=host, and one of them includes the extra info (AVPs) required for that application
Yes. The above is my concern. I tried giving APN as one example AVP which we may want to include in OC-OLR. Let me give another possible example.
As of now, the OC-OLR can indicate application + host/realm level "required-reduction-percentage".
However, for the given application (e.g. Gx) we may want to define a narrower scope with "session-type = {M2M, Others}" AVP. So basically, the Gx nodes can advertise different "required-reduction-percentage" for M2M sessions v/s other type of sessions for the same application Gx and for the same destination-host.

So in general, if any application needs to define a different (i.e. narrower) scope than application + host/realm, it can do so by adding a new AVP in OC-OLR.
And then we might have two instances of OC-OLR from the same host.

We could achieve the above by defining new Report-Type for each new AVP added by each application. But would this scale or is this a reasonable approach?
I am not sure and you have already identified one of my concerns below
> if we extend ReportType, does it need to be done by IETF, or could it be done per application by 3GPP?

In summary, in my view, we need to define the handling of multiple instances with the same Report-Type as part of the DOIC draft. Or we say that multiple instances with the same Report-Type is not allowed - this seems unnecessary restriction to me.
Otherwise, if later, we realize the need to do so then we may not be able to do so since the handling is not defined in the base solution.

Regards,
Nirav.

From: DiME [mailto:dime-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Maria Cruz Bartolome
Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2013 1:57 PM
To: dime@ietf.org<mailto:dime@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Dime] DOIC: Multiple instance of OC-OLR AVP (of the same type) within a response message

Nirav,

I think I understand your concern. It may occur that we need that a reacting node should apply two different OLR when sending a request towards one specific host.
Then, we may think that we need two different OLRs with ReportType=host, and one of them includes the extra info (AVPs) required for that application, I think this is your interpretation, but... we can as well consider a new ReportType=applicX_ReportY, that may apply e.g. for any request send to this application, or just for this application+host, and then Host could be another AVP to be included in the OLR, or we could define expected behaviour when defining this new ReportType.

Would this cover your concerns? If not, could you try to provide an example that requires two OLR with ReportType=host?

A part from that, a question for all, if we extend ReportType, does it need to be done by IETF, or could it be done per application by 3GPP?

Thanks
/MCruz

From: DiME [mailto:dime-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Nirav Salot (nsalot)
Sent: jueves, 28 de noviembre de 2013 17:11
To: lionel.morand@orange.com<mailto:lionel.morand@orange.com>
Cc: dime@ietf.org<mailto:dime@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Dime] DOIC: Multiple instance of OC-OLR AVP (of the same type) within a response message

Hi Lionel,

I am not sure if defining new ReportType for every new AVP 3GPP would add for a specific application would be a good solution.
I thought ReportType would indicate if the corresponding OC-OLR should be used while sending the traffic towards the host or towards the realm.
So from that point of view, all the OC-OLR generated by the server should have ReportType=host. i.e. when the reacting node sends the traffic towards that host, it should make use of the corresponding OC-OLR. Now, this OC-OLR may contain the AVPs defined by DOIC draft as well as 3GPP application specific AVPs.

In general, I was just thinking that it may be good idea to define some of the principles such as

-          More than one instances of OC-OLR with ReportType=host may be present in the answer message if the OC-OLR definition is extended by the application using the same. In that case, it is the responsibility of the application to define the valid combination of OC-OLR instances in a given message

-          If the reporting node includes more than one instance of OC-OLR, the reporting node shall always include all the active instances of OC-OLR in a response message.

-          When the reacting node receives one or more instances of OC-OLR with the given ReportType and with new timestamp value, it should overwrite all the existing OC-OLR of the same ReportType.

Regards,
Nirav.

From: lionel.morand@orange.com<mailto:lionel.morand@orange.com> [mailto:lionel.morand@orange.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 28, 2013 7:39 PM
To: Nirav Salot (nsalot)
Cc: dime@ietf.org<mailto:dime@ietf.org>
Subject: RE: DOIC: Multiple instance of OC-OLR AVP (of the same type) within a response message

Hi Nirav,

The Report Type should be able to differentiate such cases. In your example, I would define a specific Report type.
But difficult to appraise all the future use cases. But for me, the main use of the report type is to differentiate OC-OLR received in the same message.
And it is the reasons of my recommendation. Actually, the exact wording will be a "SHOULD" saying that it is recommended but you may have serious reasons to do otherwise.

Lionel

De : Nirav Salot (nsalot) [mailto:nsalot@cisco.com]
Envoyé : jeudi 28 novembre 2013 13:00
À : MORAND Lionel IMT/OLN
Cc : dime@ietf.org<mailto:dime@ietf.org>
Objet : RE: DOIC: Multiple instance of OC-OLR AVP (of the same type) within a response message


Lionel,

3gpp may define an optional avp which can be included by the reporting node if it wishes to do so. E.g. APN can be additionally included by the reporting node to indicate APN specific overload within the given application.
In that case, the reporting node may also want to indicate application level overload without including the APN (e.g. this overload report is applicable to all other APNs).

And hence there is a possibility of including multiple instances of the overload report.

I am not suggesting that 3gpp will define APN (or any other avp) within overload report. But later, if 3gpp need to define the same, then corresponding handling needs to be defined within IETF now.

Regards,
Nirav.
On Nov 28, 2013 3:56 PM, "lionel.morand@orange.com<mailto:lionel.morand@orange.com>" <lionel.morand@orange.com<mailto:lionel.morand@orange.com>> wrote:
Hi Nirav,

Not sure to understand the proposal or question.
The OLR is significant per application (piggybacking principle). So if the 3GPP decides to add specific AVPs in the OLR (that will be possible), what would be the need to add the OLR without the specific 3GPP AVPs as the OLR will be anyway handle by 3GPP aware entities?

Lionel

De : DiME [mailto:dime-bounces@ietf.org] De la part de Nirav Salot (nsalot)
Envoyé : jeudi 28 novembre 2013 10:33
À : dime@ietf.org<mailto:dime@ietf.org>
Objet : [Dime] DOIC: Multiple instance of OC-OLR AVP (of the same type) within a response message

Hi,

As I understand IETF will define the base overload control solution as part of DOIC. Then 3GPP would adopt the defined solution for each of its application.
When that happens, 3GPP might want to add 3GPP specific AVP within OC-OLR AVP. Based on the current definition of the OC-OLR AVP this should be allowed since it contains "* [AVP]" in its definition.
e.g. for a given application 3GPP decides to add information into OC-OLR which changes the scope of the OC-OLR from application level to the provided information level.
Additionally, the reporting may want to advertise the OC-OLR at the application level scope - i.e. the OC-OLR without any 3GPP specific info.

So if the above is allowed, we will have the possibility of the reporting node wanting to include two instances of OC-OLR with the Report-Type="host".
And then we need to define the handling of multiple instances of OC-OLR in the DOIC draft.

So the questions are,

-          Is 3GPP (or any other SDO) allowed to extend the definition of OC-OLR by adding information into it?

-          If no, can we guarantee that application level scope of OC-OLR (which is what we have defined currently) is sufficient (and not restricting) to all the applications of 3GPP?

Regards,
Nirav.


_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________



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.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________



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.