Re: [sip-overload] soc-overload-control-05
"Vijay K. Gurbani" <vkg@bell-labs.com> Fri, 13 January 2012 23:43 UTC
Return-Path: <vkg@bell-labs.com>
X-Original-To: sip-overload@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sip-overload@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix)
with ESMTP id 8347411E809C for <sip-overload@ietfa.amsl.com>;
Fri, 13 Jan 2012 15:43:53 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.499
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.499 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.100,
BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com
[127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id adR8rYMdnm3I for
<sip-overload@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Jan 2012 15:43:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ihemail3.lucent.com (ihemail3.lucent.com [135.245.0.37]) by
ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9EF3C11E8098 for
<sip-overload@ietf.org>; Fri, 13 Jan 2012 15:43:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from usnavsmail1.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com
(usnavsmail1.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com [135.3.39.9]) by ihemail3.lucent.com
(8.13.8/IER-o) with ESMTP id q0DNhmVr004285 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3
cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK);
Fri, 13 Jan 2012 17:43:48 -0600 (CST)
Received: from umail.lucent.com (umail-ce2.ndc.lucent.com [135.3.40.63]) by
usnavsmail1.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/GMO) with ESMTP id
q0DNhmrg013028 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256
verify=NOT); Fri, 13 Jan 2012 17:43:48 -0600
Received: from shoonya.ih.lucent.com (shoonya.ih.lucent.com [135.185.238.235])
by umail.lucent.com (8.13.8/TPES) with ESMTP id q0DNhlCh001482;
Fri, 13 Jan 2012 17:43:48 -0600 (CST)
Message-ID: <4F10C29E.4000009@bell-labs.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2012 17:47:42 -0600
From: "Vijay K. Gurbani" <vkg@bell-labs.com>
Organization: Bell Laboratories, Alcatel-Lucent
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686;
rv:8.0) Gecko/20111115 Thunderbird/8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "NOEL, ERIC C (ERIC C)" <ecnoel@research.att.com>
References: <4EEA1BB3.7020509@bell-labs.com>
<2F8FB48C17221643AD77FA295756D2A72405E641CE@njfpsrvexg6.research.att.com>
<4EF9F50F.0@bell-labs.com>
<2F8FB48C17221643AD77FA295756D2A724060158A8@njfpsrvexg6.research.att.com>
In-Reply-To: <2F8FB48C17221643AD77FA295756D2A724060158A8@njfpsrvexg6.research.att.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.57 on 135.245.2.37
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.64 on 135.3.39.9
Cc: "sip-overload@ietf.org" <sip-overload@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [sip-overload] soc-overload-control-05
X-BeenThere: sip-overload@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: SIP Overload <sip-overload.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/sip-overload>,
<mailto:sip-overload-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sip-overload>
List-Post: <mailto:sip-overload@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sip-overload-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip-overload>,
<mailto:sip-overload-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2012 23:43:53 -0000
Eric: Closing this loop. Please see inline.
On 01/03/2012 12:34 PM, NOEL, ERIC C (ERIC C) wrote:
> Vijay,
>
> Thanks for your reply and the suggested email threads.
>
> Another way to express my concern is that in reading your client
> default loss control algorithm, the client normalization of oc-loss
> seems to imply that the server estimates oc-loss assuming it could
> equally be rejecting all requests (initial-dialog or out-of-dialog or
> mid-dialog requests).
Correct.
> This is in contrast with my simulation implementation of rate and
> loss controls in support of the SIP overload control working group
> activities a few years ago. There, both my simulated servers and
> clients used the implicit assumption that throttling was limited to
> the same requests in both the servers and clients (at the time just
> INVITE messages).
>
> Basically I am concerned that the throttling algorithms may not work
> properly if the clients normalize oc-loss/oc-rate/oc-other based on a
> "reduction/no reduction" mix of messages locally created, while the
> servers estimate optimal oc-loss/oc-rate based on a different mix.
True. Following the discussion we have had, I will clarify that the
basis for calculating the "oc" parameter value must include all
the messages. The suggested text is below.
OLD
5.3 Determining the 'oc' Parameter Value
The value of the "oc" parameter is determined by the overloaded
server using any pertinent information at its disposal. The process
by which an overloaded server determines the value of the "oc"
parameter is considered out of scope for this document.
NEW
5.3 Determining the 'oc' Parameter Value
The value of the "oc" parameter is determined by the overloaded
server using any pertinent information at its disposal. The only
constraint imposed by this document is that the server control
algorithm MUST produce a value for the "oc" parameter
such that the receiving clients can apply it to all downstream
messages (dialogue forming as well as in-dialogue). Beyond this
stipulation, the process by which an overloaded server determines
the value of the "oc" parameter is considered out of scope for this
document.
Note that this stipulation is required so that both the
and server have an common view of which messages to include
in the calculation of the feedback. With this stipulation
in place, the client can prioritize messages as discussed
in Section 5.10.1.
As an example, a value of "oc=10" when the loss-based algorithm is
uses implies that 10% of all messages (dialog forming as well as
in-dialogue) are subject to reduction at the client. Analogously,
a value of "oc=10" when the rate-based algorithm is used indicates
that the client should send SIP requests at a rate no greater than
or equal to 10 SIP requests per second.
Is that okay? Please let me know if you or anyone else has any further
issues with this. If not, I will revise the draft.
Thanks,
- vijay
--
Vijay K. Gurbani, Bell Laboratories, Alcatel-Lucent
1960 Lucent Lane, Rm. 9C-533, Naperville, Illinois 60566 (USA)
Email: vkg@{bell-labs.com,acm.org} / vijay.gurbani@alcatel-lucent.com
Web: http://ect.bell-labs.com/who/vkg/
- [sip-overload] soc-overload-control-05 Vijay K. Gurbani
- [sip-overload] draft-noel-soc-overload-rate-contr… NOEL, ERIC C (ERIC C)
- Re: [sip-overload] soc-overload-control-05 NOEL, ERIC C (ERIC C)
- Re: [sip-overload] soc-overload-control-05 phil.m.williams
- Re: [sip-overload] soc-overload-control-05 Vijay K. Gurbani
- Re: [sip-overload] soc-overload-control-05 Vijay K. Gurbani
- Re: [sip-overload] soc-overload-control-05 Janet P Gunn
- Re: [sip-overload] soc-overload-control-05 Vijay K. Gurbani
- Re: [sip-overload] soc-overload-control-05 NOEL, ERIC C (ERIC C)
- Re: [sip-overload] draft-noel-soc-overload-rate-c… Salvatore Loreto
- Re: [sip-overload] soc-overload-control-05 Vijay K. Gurbani
- Re: [sip-overload] soc-overload-control-05 Volker Hilt
- Re: [sip-overload] soc-overload-control-05 NOEL, ERIC C (ERIC C)
- Re: [sip-overload] soc-overload-control-05 Salvatore Loreto
- Re: [sip-overload] soc-overload-control-05 Vijay K. Gurbani