Re: [sip-overload] A modest (and new) proposal on multiple algorithms for overload control

["NOEL, ERIC C (ERIC C)" <[e-mail]>]

Volker, Vijay,

I understand the need to have a simple default algorithm in this RFC and I also agree it should not preclude extension to other algorithms.

However, my interpretation of draft-ietf-soc-overload-control-02 is that on one hand it allows for different class of algorithms to be used through the oc-algo parameter, and on the other hand it excludes other algorithms by limiting the oc parameter value to a loss rate percentage (MUST be a number between 0 and 100) irrespective of the selected oc-algo parameter. 

Provided my interpretation is correct, could draft-ietf-soc-overload-control-02 be modified so that the oc parameter is a loss rate percentage only when used with the default algorithm?

If there is a push for multiple simultaneous RFCs, then should not draft-ietf-soc-overload-control-02 require oc-algo to be set to the value "loss-control" with no mentioning of other controls? 

Thanks,

Eric Noel 
LMTS
AT&T Labs, Inc. 
Rethink Possible

Network Design and Performance Analysis
200 South Laurel Avenue, D5-3D19
Middletown, NJ 07748
P: 732.420.4174
[e-mail]


-----Original Message-----
From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Volker Hilt
Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2011 10:00 AM
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [sip-overload] A modest (and new) proposal on multiple algorithms for overload control

Hadriel,

the idea is to have a mandatory algorithm in the base draft and, at the 
same time, to leave the draft open for extensions to other algorithms. 
The second draft will then specify such an algorithm.

That way RFC A is the common denominator supported by all devices and 
advanced devices can implement RFC A and B.

Thanks,

Volker (as individual)





On 7/12/2011 9:09 AM, Hadriel Kaplan wrote:
>
> So in summary you're proposing to resolve the issue that having two mechanisms is a bad idea, by specifying the two mechanisms in two separate docs??
>
> OK, well if we have to have two ways of doing the same thing, then I suggest we MANDATE BOTH, by putting them in the same document and a "MUST implement both" written right in it.
> Otherwise, if you have RFC A and RFC B, then some devices will do A and others B and there won't be interop.
>
> -hadriel
>
>
> On Jun 27, 2011, at 5:47 PM, Vijay K. Gurbani wrote:
>
>> Folks: I am trying to close the conversation on SIP overload
>> control algorithms.
>>
>> To recap, we had a decision on making loss-based as the default
>> mandatory-to-implement algorithm and had agreed to allow the
>> choice of rate- and windows-based algorithms.
>>
>> This is what's currently reflected in the protocol draft [1].
>>
>> During the Prague IETF, it was suggested that we revisit this
>> decision and use only one algorithm.  This suggestion lead to
>> a subsequent thread [2] about which algorithm should be
>> chosen --- loss-, rate- or windows-based one.
>>
>> I think we have to be realistic here in recognizing that
>> the relative performance of all the algorithms is about the same.
>> So therefore, if the relative performance is the same then there
>> may be certain network deployments where the choice of one algorithm
>> seems better than the other.
>>
>> Rate-based one will work well in managed networks where the set of
>> upstream clients sending requests is bounded and rather static; this
>> also makes it easier to apply capacity guarantees.  Loss-based one
>> works well where the set of upstream clients sending traffic is
>> unbounded and frequently changing.
>>
>> The loss-based algorithm is less complex than the rate-based one
>> or the windows-based one.
>>
>> Phil Williams has put out a proposal [3] to support all three
>> algorithms simultaneously, thereby eliminating the need for protocol
>> machinations to choose one.  However, issues still remain: first,
>> this will force implementations to implement all of the algorithms,
>> and this I believe is a heavy burden.
>>
>> Second, it does not eliminate the need or the desire to change
>> algorithms mid stream, and finally, this decision forces an overloaded
>> server to maintain considerable state as to which particular
>> algorithm has been chosen with the paired upstream client.
>>
>> It seems that we are at an impasse.
>>
>> So, let me suggest another concrete proposal, which will help move
>> the work forward expeditiously if all agree.
>>
>> I propose that draft-ietf-soc-overload-control continue as it
>> is now with the following exception:
>>
>>     1) Take window class out of the mix, leaving rate and
>>        loss.  No one is explicitly championing the windows-based
>>        one; it could be added later if desired.
>>
>>     2) Invite Phil Williams, Eric Noel, or Janet Gunn to start
>>        working on a rate-based draft that uses the agreement
>>        mechanisms defined in draft-ietf-soc-overload-control
>>        and fleshes out how rate-based mechanism will function.
>>
>>     3) Move draft-ietf-soc-overload-control and the new draft
>>        in (2) as a bundle so that no one algorithm gets an
>>        undue advantage of being specified first.
>>
>> Note that (2) and (3) effectively mitigate Phil's concern that
>> "proceeding with a single mandated algorithm would result in
>> non-adoption of the other algorithms by suppliers and in effect the
>> alternatives would become redundant."
>>
>> Personally I do not think that the market will favour a sub-optimal
>> algorithm and if loss-based does not work I am sure it will
>> be replaced in short order.  But I do empathize with the perceived
>> advantage that loss-based one seems to benefit from if it is made the
>> only mandatory-to-implement algorithm in [1].  Therefore, (2) and
>> (3) above should mitigate this particular concern.
>>
>> I suspect what will end up happening is that implementations geared
>> to managed network providers will end up supporting both loss-
>> and rate-based algorithms while other implementations can support
>> only the loss-based one.
>>
>> Do folks think that this is an agreeable compromise?  It is no
>> worse off than what we had agreed to before, and in fact it is
>> much better since we have eliminated windows-based one and are
>> moving loss-based and rate-based ahead at the same time.
>>
>> I do note that the chairs may have to re-negotiate the charter
>> deliverables with the ADs, but modifying the charter or deciding
>> to make the rate-based draft as an extension to the second
>> deliverable ("2. A specification for an SIP overload control
>> mechanism based on implicit/explicit feedback.") is a minor
>> detail once everyone agrees to this proposal.
>>
>> Please comment.  Thank you.
>>
>> [1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-soc-overload-control-02
>> [2] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sip-overload/current/msg00616.html
>> [3] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sip-overload/current/msg00629.html
>>
>> - 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/
>> _______________________________________________
>> sip-overload mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip-overload
>
> _______________________________________________
> sip-overload mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip-overload
_______________________________________________
sip-overload mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip-overload