Re: [Dime] Definition of host report

Steve Donovan <> Mon, 07 April 2014 21:29 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C4521A02D2 for <>; Mon, 7 Apr 2014 14:29:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.12
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.12 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_NEUTRAL=0.779] autolearn=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7J3xVYYBZNvX for <>; Mon, 7 Apr 2014 14:29:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D6BF91A02CD for <>; Mon, 7 Apr 2014 14:29:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ([]:57511 helo=SDmac.local) by with esmtpsa (TLSv1:DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from <>) id 1WXH6q-0002B3-Id; Mon, 07 Apr 2014 14:29:45 -0700
Message-ID: <>
Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2014 16:29:43 -0500
From: Steve Donovan <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To:, "" <>
References: <> <28937_1396879717_5342B165_28937_9147_1_6B7134B31289DC4FAF731D844122B36E548C2D@PEXCVZYM13.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
In-Reply-To: <28937_1396879717_5342B165_28937_9147_1_6B7134B31289DC4FAF731D844122B36E548C2D@PEXCVZYM13.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------080903000002030701060706"
X-OutGoing-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.9
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname -
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain -
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain -
X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: authenticated_id:
Subject: Re: [Dime] Definition of host report
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2014 21:29:57 -0000


Please see inline.


On 4/7/14 9:07 AM, wrote:
> Hi Steve,
> As defined today, the originator of a Host-based report is the node identified by the Origin-host in the answer. I don't understand what is wrong with the existing definition in the draft.
> Please see below.
> Regards,
> Lionel
> De : DiME [] De la part de Steve Donovan
> Envoyé : lundi 7 avril 2014 15:41
> À :
> Objet : [Dime] Definition of host report
> All,
> I believe that the current definition of the host report needs to be enhanced.
> The following is what is currently in the -02 draft:
>    0  A host report.  The overload treatment should apply to requests
>       for which all of the following conditions are true:
>       The Destination-Host AVP is present in the request and its value
>       matches the value of the Origin-Host AVP of the received message
>       that contained the OC-OLR AVP.
>       The value of the Destination-Realm AVP in the request matches the
>       value of the Origin-Realm AVP of the received message that
>       contained the OC-OLR AVP.
>       The value of the Application-ID in the Diameter Header of the
>       request matches the value of the Application-ID of the Diameter
>       Header of the received message that contained the OC-OLR AVP.
> The second paragraph says that only requests that contain a Destination-Host AVP can be used for overload treatment.
> This does not address the case where there is no agent between the reacting and reporting nodes. 
> [LM] I think you mean: this does ONLY address, right?
SRD> No, I mean the case where a client is connected directly to a set
of servers.  One of the servers becomes overloaded and sends a host
report.  The server is telling clients to reduce the traffic sent to it
by x%.  The client selects a route for the request.  Any request that
would be routed to the connection to the server should be a candidate
for overload treatment.  If this is not the case then how do you protect
a server for an application that has 100% realm routed requests?
> In other words, the reacting node has a direct connection to the reporting node.  In this case the reacting node should include all messages that would be sent to the reporting node, including those that do not contain a Destination-Host AVP and those that the reacting node would sent to the reporting node through normal route selection for requests that do not contain a Destination-Host AVP.
> [LM] I'm not sure to understand the reasoning above. Why should a reacting node include request with no Dest-Host AVP?
SRD> Because there is nothing else in the network that can manage that
> I propose that the second paragraph be changed to the following:
> "The reacting node knows that the request will be routed to the overloaded Diameter node identified by the Diameter ID in the OLR.  This is the value of the Origin-Host AVP in the message that carried the OLR.  There are two cases where the reacting node will know that the request will be routed to the overloaded node.  The first is the request contains a Destination-Host AVP that matches the Diameter ID contained in the OLR.  The second is when the reacting node selects a route that is a direct connection to the overloaded Diameter node."
> [LM] this is not needed if the Origin-host in the answer is enough to identify which node is overloaded, that is the current assumption in the draft.
> Regards,
> Steve
> _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
> 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.