IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Dime] OLR applicable for any/all applications

"Nirav Salot (nsalot)" <nsalot@cisco.com> Tue, 03 December 2013 09:41 UTC

Return-Path: <nsalot@cisco.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 B4E351AE099 for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Dec 2013 01:41:31 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.501
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.501 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] 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 PRjC345svm5u for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Dec 2013 01:41:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from alln-iport-7.cisco.com (alln-iport-7.cisco.com [173.37.142.94]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E0131AE067 for <dime@ietf.org>; Tue, 3 Dec 2013 01:41:29 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=13804; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1386063686; x=1387273286; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to: mime-version; bh=6BqlpvCK/OcnJSBbRaMUXrSgBJzNRrAkvD8iO9petDU=; b=E8sQz02UVQr/DKh8bNwwScPKn6zDOpa6mtE90dMWY7O/97OAhYRisHTi wt3EjhPU9sXnWLBgBEI5K1riX4RKP29T61+ajVmlmavwMXab9VV6adjo1 juI7DWwET4A7gSSzD4L6YUhvAsDJYiRiqc8k/OGtBqEVHUnOVbet76aGL E=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AhgFAEemnVKtJV2Z/2dsb2JhbABagkNEOFO4Z4EZFnSCJQEBAQQtXAIBCBEEAQELHQcyFAkIAQEEARIIh3nBHBeOTTcBBoMagRMDqieDKYIq
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.93,816,1378857600"; d="scan'208,217";a="3899150"
Received: from rcdn-core-2.cisco.com ([173.37.93.153]) by alln-iport-7.cisco.com with ESMTP; 03 Dec 2013 09:41:26 +0000
Received: from xhc-aln-x01.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x01.cisco.com [173.36.12.75]) by rcdn-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id rB39fQgZ016395 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Tue, 3 Dec 2013 09:41:26 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-x10.cisco.com ([169.254.15.250]) by xhc-aln-x01.cisco.com ([173.36.12.75]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Tue, 3 Dec 2013 03:41:25 -0600
From: "Nirav Salot (nsalot)" <nsalot@cisco.com>
To: Maria Cruz Bartolome <maria.cruz.bartolome@ericsson.com>, "dime@ietf.org" <dime@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: OLR applicable for any/all applications
Thread-Index: Ac7wA2nX03YOMS5NT1qqOpqV4/v8iQAB0nIQ
Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2013 09:41:25 +0000
Message-ID: <A9CA33BB78081F478946E4F34BF9AAA014D22CDC@xmb-rcd-x10.cisco.com>
References: <087A34937E64E74E848732CFF8354B920972BE0C@ESESSMB101.ericsson.se>
In-Reply-To: <087A34937E64E74E848732CFF8354B920972BE0C@ESESSMB101.ericsson.se>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.70.233.77]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_A9CA33BB78081F478946E4F34BF9AAA014D22CDCxmbrcdx10ciscoc_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [Dime] OLR applicable for any/all applications
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 09:41:31 -0000

Maria-Cruz,

The existing OC-OLR definition (without "All Application" AVP) already addresses your use case. E.g. reporting  node includes same value of "Reduction-Percentage" in all the application messages sent by it. So we don't need "All Application" AVP additionally.
Besides, reporting "Reduction-Percentage" of a different application violates the basic principle of the piggybacking.
Finally, in 3GPP (as far as I remember) we do not have any use case of two nodes interfacing with each other over more than one application. i.e. we have only one application between any pair of nodes and if that is so then I fail to see the practicality of the use case you have mentioned below.

Regards,
Nirav.

From: DiME [mailto:dime-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Maria Cruz Bartolome
Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2013 2:13 PM
To: dime@ietf.org
Subject: [Dime] OLR applicable for any/all applications


Dear all,

There may be a need by a reporting node to request traffic reduction for all traffic, application independent, e.g. if an operator's network becomes severely overloaded, it may be of interest to signal directly general overload to the client.
In this case, since reacting node obtains affected application from the application message, we may need to extend OLR.

At least we got following options:



A)     Define a new optional AVP that could be included into OLR, like e.g.:

   OC-OLR ::= < AVP Header: TBD2 >

              < TimeStamp >

              [ Reduction-Percentage ]

              [ ValidityDuration ]

              [ ReportType ]

              [All applications]

            * [ AVP ]



B)      Extend  ReportTypes like e.g.:

   3  Destination-Host All Applications report.  Similar to Destination-Host report but it would apply to any application regardless the application message this report is received within.

   4  Realm (aggregated) All Applications report.  Similar to Realm report but it would apply to any application regardless the application message this report is received within.



I tend to prefer option A, but let me know your opinions and preferences.
Best regards
/MCruz

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email