IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Dime] [dime] #34: Semantics of OC-Report-Type AVP

"Wiehe, Ulrich (NSN - DE/Munich)" <ulrich.wiehe@nsn.com> Wed, 05 February 2014 11:38 UTC

Return-Path: <ulrich.wiehe@nsn.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 C0FBC1A00B2 for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 5 Feb 2014 03:38:02 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-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 9yCeLAPjrT5V for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 5 Feb 2014 03:37:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from demumfd001.nsn-inter.net (demumfd001.nsn-inter.net [93.183.12.32]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 098E81A00E8 for <dime@ietf.org>; Wed, 5 Feb 2014 03:37:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from demuprx016.emea.nsn-intra.net ([10.150.129.55]) by demumfd001.nsn-inter.net (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id s15BbvjF030337 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Wed, 5 Feb 2014 12:37:57 +0100
Received: from DEMUHTC001.nsn-intra.net ([10.159.42.32]) by demuprx016.emea.nsn-intra.net (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id s15BbvcV018860 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Wed, 5 Feb 2014 12:37:57 +0100
Received: from DEMUHTC008.nsn-intra.net (10.159.42.39) by DEMUHTC001.nsn-intra.net (10.159.42.32) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.123.3; Wed, 5 Feb 2014 12:37:57 +0100
Received: from DEMUMBX014.nsn-intra.net ([169.254.14.242]) by DEMUHTC008.nsn-intra.net ([10.159.42.39]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Wed, 5 Feb 2014 12:37:56 +0100
From: "Wiehe, Ulrich (NSN - DE/Munich)" <ulrich.wiehe@nsn.com>
To: "ext lionel.morand@orange.com" <lionel.morand@orange.com>, "dime@ietf.org" <dime@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [dime] #34: Semantics of OC-Report-Type AVP
Thread-Index: AQHPIcxQ8/v/z65LoEmP8SlQdkHvG5qme77Q
Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2014 11:37:56 +0000
Message-ID: <5BCBA1FC2B7F0B4C9D935572D9000668151B2062@DEMUMBX014.nsn-intra.net>
References: <066.b54c2f5aeb31c9b3f88c96008120290d@trac.tools.ietf.org> <24563_1391533955_52F11F82_24563_614_1_6B7134B31289DC4FAF731D844122B36E477563@PEXCVZYM13.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
In-Reply-To: <24563_1391533955_52F11F82_24563_614_1_6B7134B31289DC4FAF731D844122B36E477563@PEXCVZYM13.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.159.42.122]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-purgate-type: clean
X-purgate-Ad: Categorized by eleven eXpurgate (R) http://www.eleven.de
X-purgate: clean
X-purgate: This mail is considered clean (visit http://www.eleven.de for further information)
X-purgate-size: 11458
X-purgate-ID: 151667::1391600277-000025D0-7413441B/0-0/0-0
Subject: Re: [Dime] [dime] #34: Semantics of OC-Report-Type AVP
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: Wed, 05 Feb 2014 11:38:02 -0000

Sorry, I don't understand the question.

An agent that is configured to take the role of a reporting node for a realm 
- will send (insert) realm type OLRs in answer messages that correspond to realm type request messages (request messages that do not contain a destination host), and
- will be transparent with regard to host type request messages (request messages that contain a destination hostand answer messages) and the corresponding answer messages.
Consequently the reacting node will receive realm type OLRs from the agent and host type OLRs from the servers.
The received realm type OLR will be relevant for the reacting node when sending/throttling realm type requests; the received host type OLR will be relevant for the reacting node when sending/throttling host type requests.



+--------+                                         +--------+                +--------+
| Client |                                         | Agent  |                | Server |
|        |                                         |        |                |        |
|        |                                         |        |                |        | 
+--------+                                         +--------+                +--------+
    |                                                |                             |
    |<---DOIC association 1------------------------->|<-------DOIC association 2-->|
    |                                                |                             |
    |<-----------------DOIC association 3----------------------------------------->|
    |                                                |                             |
    |                                                |                             |
    |                                                |                             |
    |---1.xxR-----(realm type request)-------------->|agent selects server         |
    |                                                |--------2.xxR--------------->| 
    |                                                |<-------3.xxA----------------|
    |<--4.xxA-----(realm type OLR )------------------|agent inserts OLR            |
    |                                                |                             |
    |                                                |                             |
    |                                                |                             |
    |                                                |                             |
    |                                                |                             |
    |                                                |                             |
    |---5.xxR-----(host type request)----------------|---------------------------->|
    |                                                |agent is transparent         |
    |<--6.xxA-----(host type OLR)--------------------|-----------------------------|
    |                                                |                             |
    |                                                |                             |
    |---7.xxR--(realm type request)->x throttled     |                             |
    |                                  according to  |                             |
    |                                  the receive   |                             |
    |                                  realm type OLR|                             |
    |                                                |                             |
    |                                                |                             |
    |---8.xxR--(host type request)->x  throttled     |                             |
    |                                  according to  |                             |
    |                                  the receive   |                             |
    |                                  host type OLR |                             |
    |                                                |                             |
    |                                                |                             | 
-----Original Message-----
From: DiME [mailto:dime-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of ext lionel.morand@orange.com
Sent: Tuesday, February 04, 2014 6:13 PM
To: dime@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Dime] [dime] #34: Semantics of OC-Report-Type AVP

The case "Realm" as described below raises another question: is it prohibited for a realm to only rely on a global overload report for the whole realm, whatever the nodes inside this realm?
If not, only OLR with the report type "realm" would be received by the reacting node. And the reduction indicated in the OLR will apply always for the realm, whatever the presence of Destination-host AVP in the request... except if an explicit report with the type "Host" as been received for this destination-host.

Does it make sense?

Lionel

-----Message d'origine-----
De : dime issue tracker [mailto:trac+dime@trac.tools.ietf.org] 
Envoyé : mardi 4 février 2014 09:55
À : MORAND Lionel IMT/OLN
Cc : dime@ietf.org
Objet : [dime] #34: Semantics of OC-Report-Type AVP

#34: Semantics of OC-Report-Type AVP

 Text in clause 4.6  does not fully explain to which requests overload
 treatment of a given report type applies.
 Proposal:

    0  A host report.  The overload treatment should apply to requests
       for which all of the following conditions are true:
       a) 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.
       b) 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.
       c) 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.



    1  A realm report.  The overload treatment should apply to
       requests for which all of the following conditions are true:
       a) The Destination-Host AVP is absent in the request.
       b) 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.
       c) 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.

-- 
--------------------------------------+--------------------------
 Reporter:  lionel.morand@orange.com  |      Owner:  Ulrich Wiehe
     Type:  defect                    |     Status:  new
 Priority:  major                     |  Milestone:
Component:  draft-docdt-dime-ovli     |    Version:
 Severity:  Active WG Document        |   Keywords:
--------------------------------------+--------------------------

Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/dime/trac/ticket/34>
dime <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/dime/>


_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

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.

_______________________________________________
DiME mailing list
DiME@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email