[Sipping] Re: draft-rosenberg-sipping-overload-reqs recovery

Cullen Jennings <fluffy@cisco.com> Wed, 08 November 2006 03:11 UTC

Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Ghdqw-0005cQ-Uf; Tue, 07 Nov 2006 22:11:50 -0500
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Ghdqu-0005Yg-Qg for sipping@ietf.org; Tue, 07 Nov 2006 22:11:48 -0500
Received: from sj-iport-6.cisco.com ([171.71.176.117]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GhdoO-0001nV-2K for sipping@ietf.org; Tue, 07 Nov 2006 22:09:13 -0500
Received: from sj-dkim-3.cisco.com ([171.71.179.195]) by sj-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 07 Nov 2006 19:09:11 -0800
X-IronPort-AV: i="4.09,399,1157353200"; d="scan'208"; a="87026179:sNHT48313440"
Received: from sj-core-2.cisco.com (sj-core-2.cisco.com [171.71.177.254]) by sj-dkim-3.cisco.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id kA839Bw6024398 for <sipping@ietf.org>; Tue, 7 Nov 2006 19:09:11 -0800
Received: from xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-211.cisco.com [171.70.151.144]) by sj-core-2.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id kA839Bin001554 for <sipping@ietf.org>; Tue, 7 Nov 2006 19:09:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from xfe-sjc-212.amer.cisco.com ([171.70.151.187]) by xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 7 Nov 2006 19:09:11 -0800
Received: from [130.129.71.112] ([10.21.98.128]) by xfe-sjc-212.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 7 Nov 2006 19:09:11 -0800
In-Reply-To: <454F8A43.8000400@cisco.com>
References: <250EF171-D4BB-4650-9C14-B7C8815FB7CE@cisco.com> <454F8A43.8000400@cisco.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.2)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; delsp="yes"; format="flowed"
Message-Id: <001BC546-95FD-42E4-85A2-57E0B9C551A7@cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Cullen Jennings <fluffy@cisco.com>
Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2006 19:09:15 -0800
To: Jonathan Rosenberg <jdrosen@cisco.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.2)
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 08 Nov 2006 03:09:11.0211 (UTC) FILETIME=[433AD7B0:01C702E3]
DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; l=1893; t=1162955351; x=1163819351; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim3002; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=fluffy@cisco.com; z=From:Cullen=20Jennings=20<fluffy@cisco.com> |Subject:Re=3A=20draft-rosenberg-sipping-overload-reqs=20recovery; X=v=3Dcisco.com=3B=20h=3DNsmclo610L2TAjaPHfHtozoy3kk=3D; b=SLlg4YWTYmfD4wuSm+Wpay/waS50u6GdQyHDXJOuI6Z86YjLXjRTAgAdcoNZis5pU773PMtJ TVKFu+a7AeyDpggogDBNvxh6DMUlotgGrrcN4t5tHFM65La5RkDqV0+2;
Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-3.cisco.com; header.From=fluffy@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com verified; );
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 50a516d93fd399dc60588708fd9a3002
Cc: sipping <sipping@ietf.org>
Subject: [Sipping] Re: draft-rosenberg-sipping-overload-reqs recovery
X-BeenThere: sipping@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: "SIPPING Working Group \(applications of SIP\)" <sipping.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipping>, <mailto:sipping-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:sipping@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sipping-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipping>, <mailto:sipping-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: sipping-bounces@ietf.org

Clearly this was a long way from the text for a requirement but, yes,  
I was proposing that this be added as one of the requirements. I  
don't feel strongly about this and if we can't figure out how to  
express this as a requirement that is useful, I can certainly live  
with not adding it.

The reason I think it is a requirement is I can easily imagine that  
the mechanism for doing overload push-back causes the systems to fail  
in the way I described below (i.e. never recover back to steady state).


On Nov 6, 2006, at 11:17 AM, Jonathan Rosenberg wrote:

>
>
> Cullen Jennings wrote:
>
>> A possible additional requirement....
>> Imagine a system (perhaps a single proxy) that could do 100cps. It  
>> is  in steady state doing 80cps with very few retransmission. Then  
>> for 5  minutes the incoming requests goes to 500cps then drops  
>> back to an  incoming call rate of 80cps. The question is, how long  
>> before the  system gets back to the state where it if is  
>> successfully processing  all the 80cps?
>
> As soon as it can. Are you suggesting a requirement here? Seems  
> like this is an implementation thing and wouldn't impact any  
> protocol mechanisms.
>
>> I have seen systems that never recover - that is bad. I think one  
>> of  the design goals is that it is at least possible to build to  
>> systems  that recover back to steady state relatively quickly  
>> after an  overload impulse.
>
> Sure; but I'm not sure I see the protocol requirement.
>
> -Jonathan R.
>
>
>
> -- 
> Jonathan D. Rosenberg, Ph.D.                   600 Lanidex Plaza
> Cisco Fellow                                   Parsippany, NJ  
> 07054-2711
> Cisco Systems
> jdrosen@cisco.com                              FAX:   (973) 952-5050
> http://www.jdrosen.net                         PHONE: (973) 952-5000
> http://www.cisco.com

_______________________________________________
Sipping mailing list  https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipping
This list is for NEW development of the application of SIP
Use sip-implementors@cs.columbia.edu for questions on current sip
Use sip@ietf.org for new developments of core SIP