Re: [sip-overload] soc-overload-control-05

"NOEL, ERIC C (ERIC C)" <ecnoel@research.att.com> Sat, 14 January 2012 00:25 UTC

Return-Path: <ecnoel@research.att.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 596F61F0C48 for <sip-overload@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Jan 2012 16:25:34 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -105.949
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.949 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.650, 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 M+TD4rIN4Dd8 for <sip-overload@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Jan 2012 16:25:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pink.research.att.com (mail-pink.research.att.com [192.20.225.111]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1CCD51F0C49 for <sip-overload@ietf.org>; Fri, 13 Jan 2012 16:25:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-blue.research.att.com (unknown [135.207.178.11]) by mail-pink.research.att.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B3355120608; Fri, 13 Jan 2012 19:25:32 -0500 (EST)
Received: from njfpsrvexg7.research.att.com (njfpsrvexg7.research.att.com [135.207.177.33]) by mail-blue.research.att.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A33F5EF758; Fri, 13 Jan 2012 19:25:32 -0500 (EST)
Received: from njfpsrvexg6.research.att.com ([fe80::a8f7:a94a:d5bd:fe0b]) by njfpsrvexg7.research.att.com ([fe80::3598:75fe:b400:9299%11]) with mapi; Fri, 13 Jan 2012 19:22:41 -0500
From: "NOEL, ERIC C (ERIC C)" <ecnoel@research.att.com>
To: Volker Hilt <volker.hilt@alcatel-lucent.com>, "sip-overload@ietf.org" <sip-overload@ietf.org>
Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2012 19:26:14 -0500
Thread-Topic: [sip-overload] soc-overload-control-05
Thread-Index: AczSTlYFNX8NNzBhQ8+QdELArIe/lgABHPzY
Message-ID: <2F8FB48C17221643AD77FA295756D2A72405C10594@njfpsrvexg6.research.att.com>
References: <4EEA1BB3.7020509@bell-labs.com> <2F8FB48C17221643AD77FA295756D2A72405E641CE@njfpsrvexg6.research.att.com> <4EF9F50F.0@bell-labs.com> <2F8FB48C17221643AD77FA295756D2A724060158A8@njfpsrvexg6.research.att.com> <4F10C29E.4000009@bell-labs.com>, <4F10C307.7010507@alcatel-lucent.com>
In-Reply-To: <4F10C307.7010507@alcatel-lucent.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
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: Sat, 14 Jan 2012 00:25:34 -0000

Vijay,

Everything looks good to me, this is consistent to what we agreed off line.

Thanks,

Eric
________________________________________
From: sip-overload-bounces@ietf.org [sip-overload-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Volker Hilt [volker.hilt@alcatel-lucent.com]
Sent: Friday, January 13, 2012 6:49 PM
To: sip-overload@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [sip-overload] soc-overload-control-05

Hi Vijay,

as a nit - I'd suggest to consistently talk about requests (and not
messages) in the text. Otherwise, I think this looks good.

Thanks,

Volker



On 1/13/2012 6:47 PM, Vijay K. Gurbani wrote:
> 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
_______________________________________________
sip-overload mailing list
sip-overload@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip-overload