Re: [sip-overload] draft-ietf-soc-overload-control-01 submitted

["Vijay K. Gurbani" <[e-mail]>]

On 02/08/2011 07:55 AM, [e-mail] wrote:
> [BC] I was trying to find a solution for the case where the proxy has
> been upgraded to support filtering of messages but not AS-A. I
> believe this will frequently happen in real networks (e.g. AS-A is an
> old system hosting basic telephony applications for user A while AS-B
> is a new system hosting a new overload control sensitive application,
> the core network proxies are upgraded).

Bruno: I see.  The thing that bothers me about this approach --- and I
readily subscribe to your assertion that this may happen in real
networks --- is that (a) we are essentially performing overload control
for AS-B two hops away, and (b) we are attempting to codify B2BUA
behaviour in the context of overload.

Even then, the proxy must have a filter so only those messages that
AS-A will send to AS-B will be quenched.  What is the nature of this
filter?  Is it prescribed anywhere?  Is loading this filter an
administrative task or will AS-A automatically send it to the proxy?
And if so, how?  These are all questions that arise in the context of
your scenario.  To what extent do we need to flesh these out if we go
this route?

> [BC] I agree under certain assumptions REQ-23 can be met. That's why
> I think that "partial" is more suitable than "Yes". "Yes under
> certain assumptions" would be fine as well.

I agree; that is probably the best we can do.  Unless someone else has
any objections, I will update REQ-23 to read "Partial".

Thank you,

- 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} / [e-mail]
Web:   http://ect.bell-labs.com/who/vkg/