Re: [Dime] Proposed resolutions of LOAD discussion

Maria Cruz Bartolome <> Thu, 25 August 2016 09:31 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9233912D7BC for <>; Thu, 25 Aug 2016 02:31:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.221
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 ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id k_Y3CIh8-v7h for <>; Thu, 25 Aug 2016 02:31:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 03A841288B8 for <>; Thu, 25 Aug 2016 02:31:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb2d-917ff700000019a3-c8-57bebb0157f2
Received: from (Unknown_Domain []) by (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 03.1F.06563.10BBEB75; Thu, 25 Aug 2016 11:31:46 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.03.0301.000; Thu, 25 Aug 2016 11:31:45 +0200
From: Maria Cruz Bartolome <>
To: Steve Donovan <>, "" <>
Thread-Topic: [Dime] Proposed resolutions of LOAD discussion
Thread-Index: AQHR982IgzbA9rocjkqyt2JxmheRAqBZdIeA
Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2016 09:31:45 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFvrALMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyM2J7lC7T7n3hBn8X81jM7V3BZrGhiceB yWPJkp9MHqve9rEGMEVx2aSk5mSWpRbp2yVwZaz5+4al4LF0xazzzxkbGOeJdTFyckgImEg8 e3+QrYuRi0NIYD2jxPLlR6GcJYwSs75tYAapYhOwk7h0+gUTiC0i4CtxvPM0C4gtLGAtsX3v bmaIuI3Ehx8boGqMJOYfW8sKYrMIqEpsXniBEcTmBeo9Nu0CWK+QgKPE8/d7wGxOASeJ1+82 sYHYjAJiEt9PrQGbwywgLnHryXwmiEsFJJbsOc8MYYtKvHz8jxXCVpRof9rACFGvI7Fg9yc2 CFtbYtnC18wQewUlTs58wjKBUWQWkrGzkLTMQtIyC0nLAkaWVYyixanFxbnpRsZ6qUWZycXF +Xl6eaklmxiB8XBwy2/dHYyrXzseYhTgYFTi4V3wYG+4EGtiWXFl7iFGCQ5mJRHe6J37woV4 UxIrq1KL8uOLSnNSiw8xSnOwKInz+r9UDBcSSE8sSc1OTS1ILYLJMnFwSjUw9j6VmsB1Yxmj 65epHC3PNDVaecLtwtq8Ku+JBbZu1tQ0uNIuLVI1Qav6qfbkQqEr6UbLZULsBTIeNK53/Jqb 3+7hx/E1YufcPD4m1sd+qU9XaEee2cn765zEjRfx2dYigfWbS5/b7sxhjlkcbmnddYzx/fX3 wpUprJu2nHzqkdxw9e/rpUZKLMUZiYZazEXFiQBcYUglgwIAAA==
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Dime] Proposed resolutions of LOAD discussion
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2016 09:31:51 -0000

Hello Steve,

Thanks for the proposals, see below
Best regards

-----Original Message-----
From: DiME [] On Behalf Of Steve Donovan
Sent: martes, 16 de agosto de 2016 16:50
Subject: [Dime] Proposed resolutions of LOAD discussion


I have outlined proposed solutions for the issues raised in the discussion around the Diameter Load draft.

Please let me know if I've missed anything from the discussion.



Primary Issues:

1) Use of DNS SRV weighted value as format for LOAD value.

This was discussed and agreed to early in the process.  It has the advantage that Diameter nodes can use a combination of values received via the DNS SRV interface and dynamic values received through the Diameter LOAD interface.  While I agree that it isn't as intuitive as a straight percentage value, I don't see this as compelling enough of a reason to change a decision the working group has already made.
[MCruz] I still think using SRV values is error prone and anti-intuitive, but I can live with this if you really think it is not possible to re-evaluate this now.

2) Need to add wording that the calculated LOAD value needs to be based on overall available capacity.

I agree with Maria Cruz's comment that we need to add wording indicating that the calculated LOAD value needs to reflect available capacity.  To this end, I propose adding the following to section 6.1 (this is based on wording proposed by Maria Cruz):

The calculated LOAD value MUST reflect the Diameter nodes capacity relative to the total available capacity across the Diameter nodes to which requests can be routed.  This could be either a set of Diameter endpoints or a set of Diameter agents, depending on the type of the LOAD report.  The method for determining the total available capacity is outside of the scope of this document.

    Note: The LOAD value should be calculated in a way that reflects the available load independently of the weight of each
    server.  This allows the Diameter node that routes a request, including nodes doing server selection and agents routing
    requests, to accurately compare values from different nodes.  Any specific LOAD value needs to identify  the same
    amount of available capacity, regardless the Diameter node that calculates the value.

The mechanism used to calculate the LOAD value that fulfills this requirement is an implementation decision.

[MCruz] Some comments to proposed text:
" The calculated LOAD value MUST reflect the Diameter nodes capacity relative to the total available capacity across the Diameter nodes to which requests can be routed. ": I think it may be misleading what is the "total available capacity across nodes".
See proposal:
" The calculated LOAD value MUST reflect each Diameter node capacity relative to the maximum available capacity for a Diameter node to which requests can be routed.  "

3) Wording in Appendix A.

Before we reword Appendix A, we need to decide if it is still needed.  
It was valuable in helping to generate the solution but I'm not convinced it is still needed in the document.  Is there objection to removing this section?

[MCruz] I prefer this to remain, it provides some hints that may be valuable for first time readers. 

DiME mailing list