Re: [Dime] OVLI: comments to 4.3

Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com> Mon, 09 December 2013 22:25 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 5EC591AE607 for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 Dec 2013 14:25:00 -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 rbXheJYxbmXn for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 Dec 2013 14:24:58 -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 5F2B91AE5FF for <dime@ietf.org>; Mon, 9 Dec 2013 14:24:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.119.72.250] (173.234.16.35.rdns.ubiquity.io [173.234.16.35] (may be forged)) (authenticated bits=0) by shaman.nostrum.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id rB9MOnRH031715 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Mon, 9 Dec 2013 16:24:50 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from ben@nostrum.com)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.0 \(1822\))
From: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>
In-Reply-To: <A9CA33BB78081F478946E4F34BF9AAA014D2D548@xmb-rcd-x10.cisco.com>
Date: Mon, 09 Dec 2013 16:24:42 -0600
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <2495B298-0B49-406A-884C-0C354D87948E@nostrum.com>
References: <5BCBA1FC2B7F0B4C9D935572D90006681519DB1B@DEMUMBX014.nsn-intra.net> <AA10DFBD-CAC9-4B7B-8876-A4F28E63D83F@gmail.com> <5BCBA1FC2B7F0B4C9D935572D90006681519DD2A@DEMUMBX014.nsn-intra.net> <FBC2AC60-A7A8-4D71-8B0F-ADECC10A1311@nostrum.com> <A9CA33BB78081F478946E4F34BF9AAA014D29713@xmb-rcd-x10.cisco.com> <5BCBA1FC2B7F0B4C9D935572D90006681519DF8A@DEMUMBX014.nsn-intra.net> <A9CA33BB78081F478946E4F34BF9AAA014D2D548@xmb-rcd-x10.cisco.com>
To: "Nirav Salot (nsalot)" <nsalot@cisco.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1822)
Received-SPF: pass (shaman.nostrum.com: 173.234.16.35 is authenticated by a trusted mechanism)
Cc: "dime@ietf.org" <dime@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Dime] OVLI: comments to 4.3
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: Mon, 09 Dec 2013 22:25:00 -0000

On Dec 9, 2013, at 6:43 AM, Nirav Salot (nsalot) <nsalot@cisco.com> wrote:

> Ulrich,
> 
>> it is also an important part that the reacting node calculates the expiry time of an OLR based on the included timestamp and duration and not based on the reception time and the included duration.
> I do not agree that this is important.

> I do not see any issue if the reacting node starts the timer equal to Validity-Period on reception of the message containing a fresh OC-OLR.
> I agree that this means each reacting node will run this timer for different duration since each of them will start the timer of the same value but starting from the time when they received OC-OLR. But this is not an issue since Validity-Period is anyway a guestimate and it would provide a natural ramp up effect (to avoid message storm at the reporting node) if each of the reacting node stops the throttling at different time.
> 

Nirav and I agree on something for a change :-) The validity period is from the time you first get the OLR. It's not based on a timestamp in the message. The in-transit times for an OLR are not going to be so long, and the need for precision not so high, to justify the need for a time reference in the OLR.


>> It is much simpler for reporting nodes to include a pre-calculated OLR into the answer rather than  to adjust the validity-duration in the OLR in dependency of the time when the OLR is included into the answer.
> I agree. The reporting node should not be required to adjust Validity-Period while sending OC-OLR to different reacting nodes. I do not see any need to do so based on my explanation above.
> 

This would only be an issue if we expect an overloaded node to keep the same overload state for relatively long periods of time. The nature of overload is such that I do not expect that to be true.

However, one point we need to be clear on is that receipt of a new copy of the same OLR does not restart the timer.