[Dime] FW: WGLC #1 for draft-ietf-dime-agent-overload-05
Maria Cruz Bartolome <maria.cruz.bartolome@ericsson.com> Fri, 03 June 2016 11:17 UTC
Return-Path: <maria.cruz.bartolome@ericsson.com>
X-Original-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A7E6712D0D3 for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 3 Jun 2016 04:17:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.221
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.221 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=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 aPNNd9Z53qQe for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 3 Jun 2016 04:17:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sessmg22.ericsson.net (sessmg22.ericsson.net [193.180.251.58]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9606612B008 for <dime@ietf.org>; Fri, 3 Jun 2016 04:17:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb3a-f79386d00000467b-27-57516733dfe7
Received: from ESESSHC020.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.183.78]) by sessmg22.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 66.D9.18043.33761575; Fri, 3 Jun 2016 13:17:07 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from ESESSMB101.ericsson.se ([169.254.1.197]) by ESESSHC020.ericsson.se ([153.88.183.78]) with mapi id 14.03.0294.000; Fri, 3 Jun 2016 13:17:07 +0200
From: Maria Cruz Bartolome <maria.cruz.bartolome@ericsson.com>
To: "dime@ietf.org" <dime@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Dime] WGLC #1 for draft-ietf-dime-agent-overload-05
Thread-Index: AQHRtScjgLxS0Hs/VUWoFFfQd/sxcp/Kx0EggAzgsnA=
Date: Fri, 03 Jun 2016 11:17:06 +0000
Message-ID: <087A34937E64E74E848732CFF8354B92181EEAED@ESESSMB101.ericsson.se>
References: <5bba2470-8921-f7db-0f1b-aad280eae684@gmail.com> <087A34937E64E74E848732CFF8354B92181E2DAF@ESESSMB101.ericsson.se>
In-Reply-To: <087A34937E64E74E848732CFF8354B92181E2DAF@ESESSMB101.ericsson.se>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [153.88.183.148]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFmpnkeLIzCtJLcpLzFFi42KZGbHdT9c4PTDc4NIFK4u5vSvYLDY08Tgw eSxZ8pPJY9XbPtYApigum5TUnMyy1CJ9uwSujMkLPrAV7POsuL/tK0sD43LLLkZODgkBE4kn fU/ZIWwxiQv31rN1MXJxCAkcYZSYO+8cE4SzmFGi6/J3JpAqNgE7iUunXwDZHBwiAsoSp385 gISZBTwlbrZ1MYOEhQUcJdbf8AUJiwg4SXw78JAVwraSePN/IdgUFgEViXW9S1hAbF4BX4nL s25B7W1glDg55S8bSIJTwE/i1I7FYMcxAh33/dQaJohd4hK3nsxngjhaQGLJnvPMELaoxMvH /1ghbCWJxiVPWCHqdSQW7P7EBmFrSyxb+JoZYrGgxMmZT1gmMIrNQjJ2FpKWWUhaZiFpWcDI sopRtDi1uDg33chIL7UoM7m4OD9PLy+1ZBMjMHoObvlttYPx4HPHQ4wCHIxKPLwJawLChVgT y4orcw8xSnAwK4nwPkgKDBfiTUmsrEotyo8vKs1JLT7EKM3BoiTO6/9SMVxIID2xJDU7NbUg tQgmy8TBKdXAuPCifedJ+w+rUiof/HaYXe0sqyQddujSNVfNE1733f114wKFvyv779bliZ75 e+bxGxtty99LB97+uCp8UsBkZ9Yncfs/zDSYxbXgp73B+SdZl1cI8feYiIr6OmZWVG6o+Hu9 wmjRlu2JWd+UDk1jEsjgf6mWf+bd9nb+51vOJsm+DdZS4jqppMRSnJFoqMVcVJwIADnWGAKa AgAA
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dime/WUwL7CHigFUa5MXByQ0dQkylv5g>
Subject: [Dime] FW: WGLC #1 for draft-ietf-dime-agent-overload-05
X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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, 03 Jun 2016 11:17:12 -0000
Hello, Not sure this email was distributed since I did not receive the corresponding copy and I have not received any comments. Just resending, sorry if you receive it twice. Cheers /MCruz -----Original Message----- From: Maria Cruz Bartolome Sent: viernes, 27 de mayo de 2016 14:30 To: jouni.nospam@gmail.com; dime@ietf.org; Lionel.morand@orange.com Subject: RE: [Dime] WGLC #1 for draft-ietf-dime-agent-overload-05 Hello all, I would like to provide some questions, proposed changes and typos, see in different sections to ease reading. Best regards /MCruz =========== SOME QUESTIONS ===========: 1. Clause 2 Why for the definition of Diameter Node and Endpoint there is an specific mention of the RFC6733? 2. Clause 5.2.3 "In all cases, if the reacting node is a relay then it MUST strip the OC-OLR AVP from the message." But, will the relay react against the overload report received? i.e. is it a "reacting node" or it is just relaying the message? =========== PROPOSED CHANGES ===========: 1. Clause 2: Reacting Node A DOIC Node that receives and acts on a Diameter overload report. Proposed: A DOIC Node that receives and acts on a DOIC overload report. 2. Clause 3: Now: This section outlines representative use cases for the peer report used to communicate agent overload. There are two primary classes of use cases currently identified, those involving the overload of agents and those involving overload of Diameter endpoints (Diameter Clients and Diameter Servers) that wish to use an overload algorithm suited controlling traffic sent from a peer. Proposed: This section outlines representative use cases for the peer report used. There are two primary classes of use cases currently identified, those involving the overload of agents and those involving overload of Diameter endpoints that wish to use an overload algorithm that requires controlling traffic sent towards peers. Reasoning: For the second use case considered the peer report does not communicate agent overload, but Diameter server overload. Diameter Endpoint is already defined. Last sentence as it is, it is a bit difficult to understand. 3. Clause 3.1.1 Now: This will result in the throtting of the abated traffic that would have been sent to the agent, as there is no alternative route, with the appropriate indication given to the service request that resulted in the need for the Diameter transaction. Proposed: This will result in the queuing (temporally at least) and/or the throttling of the abated traffic that would have been sent to the agent, as there is no alternative route. Reasoning: Traffic could be queued, at least temporally, before being throttled. I do not think it is required to inform about what is sent back to the originator of the initial request. 4. Clause 3.1.2 Now: The second case, in Figure 4, illustrates the case where the connections to the agents are both actively used. In this case, the client will have local distribution policy to determine the percentage of the traffic sent through each client. Proposed: The second case, in Figure 4, illustrates the case where the connections to the agents are both actively used. In this case, the client will have local distribution policy to determine the traffic sent through each client. Reasoning: Avoid using "percentage of traffic" since it seems to imply that the "selection" of each agent is based in an algorithm that bases the distribution in traffic percentages, what is just a particular case. 5. Clause 3.1.2 "In the case where one of the agents in the above scenarios become overloaded, the client should reduce the amount of traffic sent to the overloaded agent by the amount requested. " This paragraph only applies to Figure 4, it does not apply to the Active/Standby case. 6. Clause 3.1.2 In the case where both agents are reporting overload, the client may need to start decreasing the total traffic sent to the agents. This would be done in a similar fashion as discussed in section *3.1.* *3.1* should be *3.1.1* 7. Clause 3.1.3 "Another example of this type of deployment is when there are multiple sets of servers, each supporting a subset of the Diameter traffic." This example does not include an "agent chain", since for each Client-Server connection there is only one single Agent in the chain, right? 8. Clause 4 "Any messages that survive throttling due to host or realm reports should then go through abatement for the peer overload report." There is an interaction between PEER and HOST reports. The reduction of traffic towards a HOST reduces as well the traffic through the agents in the path. This should be taken into account when applying reduction for that particular PEER. However, depending on the routing schema it may not be straight forward to identify what is the reduction for each agent path when reducing traffic towards a HOST. 9. Clause 5.1.2 Now: The following are indications that the peer does not support the OC_PEER_REPORT feature: The request does not contain an OC-Supported-Features AVP. The received request contains an OC-Supported-Features AVP with no OC-Feature-Vector. The received request contains an OC-Supported-Features AVP with a OC-Feature-Vector with the OC_PEER_REPORT feature bit cleared. The received request contains an OC-Supported-Features AVP with a OC-Feature-Vector with the OC_PEER_REPORT feature bit set but with a SourceID AVP with a DiameterIdentity that does not match the DiameterIdentity of the peer from which the request was received. Proposal (remove) Reasoning This explanation is not required, this is covered by the following paragraph: "The peer supports the OC_PEER_REPORT feature if the received request contains an OC-Supported-Features AVP with the OC-Feature-Vector with the OC_PEER_REPORT feature bit set and with a SourceID AVP with a Diameter ID that matches the DiameterIdentity of the peer from which the request was received." 10. Clause 5.2 Now 5.2. Peer Report Overload Report Handling Proposed: 5.2. Peer Overload Report Handling 11. Clause 5.2.1.1 Now: If different abatement specific contents are sent to each peer then the reporting node MUST maintain a separate *peer* node peer report OCS entry per peer to which a peer overload report is sent. Proposed: If different abatement specific contents are sent to each peer then the reporting node MUST maintain a separate *reporting* node peer report OCS entry per peer to which a peer overload report is sent. 12. Clause 5.2.1.2 Is any reason why "Validity Duration" is not included as possible information? 13. Clause 5.2.2 Now: A reporting node SHOULD create a new Reporting Node Peer Report OCS entry Section 5.2.1.1 in an overload condition *and* sending a peer overload report to a peer for the first time. Proposed: A reporting node SHOULD create a new Reporting Node Peer Report OCS entry Section 5.2.1.1 in an overload condition *when* sending a peer overload report to a peer for the first time. =========== TYPOS========: 1. Clause 2: Reporting Node A DOIC Node that sends *and* overload report in a Diameter answer message. *and* should be *an* 2. Clause 2: *DIOC* Node *DIOC* should be *DOIC* 3. Clause 3.1.1 This will result in the *throtting* of the abated traffic 4. Clause 3.1.3 The handling of peer overload reports is similar to that discussed in section *2.2*. *2.2* is incorrect, not sure though which is the right section. 5. Clause 5.1.1 Note: The sender of a request can be a Diameter Client or Diameter Server that originates the *Diamter* request or a Diameter Agent that relays the request. 6. Clause 5.1.1 Supported-Features AVP, a DOIC node that *supuports* the OC_PEER_REPORT 7. Clause 5.2.5 If the request matches *and* active OCS then 8. Clause 5.2.5 meaning that *it* the reporting node 9. Clause 6.3 In the case of peer reports, the SourceID AVP indicates the node that support *for* this feature -----Original Message----- From: DiME [mailto:dime-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Jouni Korhonen Sent: lunes, 23 de mayo de 2016 21:13 To: dime@ietf.org; Jouni; Lionel.morand@orange.com Subject: [Dime] WGLC #1 for draft-ietf-dime-agent-overload-05 Folks, This email starts the WGLC #1 for draft-ietf-dime-agent-overload-05. Please, review the document, post your comments to the mailing list and also insert them into the Issue Tracker with your proposed resolution. WGLC starts: 5/23/2016 ends: 6/6/2016 EOB PDT - Jouni & Lionel _______________________________________________ DiME mailing list DiME@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime
- Re: [Dime] RE : Re: WGLC #1 for draft-ietf-dime-a… Steve Donovan
- Re: [Dime] RE : Re: WGLC #1 for draft-ietf-dime-a… lionel.morand
- Re: [Dime] RE : Re: WGLC #1 for draft-ietf-dime-a… Steve Donovan
- Re: [Dime] RE : Re: WGLC #1 for draft-ietf-dime-a… lionel.morand
- Re: [Dime] RE : Re: WGLC #1 for draft-ietf-dime-a… Steve Donovan
- Re: [Dime] RE : Re: WGLC #1 for draft-ietf-dime-a… Steve Donovan
- Re: [Dime] RE : Re: WGLC #1 for draft-ietf-dime-a… lionel.morand
- [Dime] WGLC #1 for draft-ietf-dime-agent-overload… Jouni Korhonen
- Re: [Dime] WGLC #1 for draft-ietf-dime-agent-over… Maria Cruz Bartolome
- Re: [Dime] WGLC #1 for draft-ietf-dime-agent-over… A. Jean Mahoney
- [Dime] FW: WGLC #1 for draft-ietf-dime-agent-over… Maria Cruz Bartolome
- Re: [Dime] FW: WGLC #1 for draft-ietf-dime-agent-… Steve Donovan
- Re: [Dime] WGLC #1 for draft-ietf-dime-agent-over… Steve Donovan
- Re: [Dime] WGLC #1 for draft-ietf-dime-agent-over… Steve Donovan
- Re: [Dime] WGLC #1 for draft-ietf-dime-agent-over… Maria Cruz Bartolome
- [Dime] RE : Re: WGLC #1 for draft-ietf-dime-agent… lionel.morand
- Re: [Dime] WGLC #1 for draft-ietf-dime-agent-over… Steve Donovan
- Re: [Dime] WGLC #1 for draft-ietf-dime-agent-over… Steve Donovan
- Re: [Dime] WGLC #1 for draft-ietf-dime-agent-over… A. Jean Mahoney
- Re: [Dime] WGLC #1 for draft-ietf-dime-agent-over… Maria Cruz Bartolome
- Re: [Dime] WGLC #1 for draft-ietf-dime-agent-over… Steve Donovan
- Re: [Dime] WGLC #1 for draft-ietf-dime-agent-over… Steve Donovan
- Re: [Dime] WGLC #1 for draft-ietf-dime-agent-over… Steve Donovan
- Re: [Dime] WGLC #1 for draft-ietf-dime-agent-over… Maria Cruz Bartolome
- Re: [Dime] WGLC #1 for draft-ietf-dime-agent-over… lionel.morand