Diameter Agent Overload and the Peer Overload Report
draft-ietf-dime-agent-overload-04

The information below is for an old version of the document
Document Type Active Internet-Draft (dime WG)
Last updated 2016-03-18
Replaces draft-donovan-dime-agent-overload
Stream IETF
Intended RFC status Proposed Standard
Formats pdf htmlized bibtex
Reviews
Stream WG state WG Document
Document shepherd No shepherd assigned
IESG IESG state I-D Exists
Consensus Boilerplate Unknown
Telechat date
Responsible AD Kathleen Moriarty
Send notices to (None)
Diameter Maintenance and Extensions (DIME)                    S. Donovan
Internet-Draft                                                    Oracle
Intended status: Standards Track                          March 18, 2016
Expires: September 19, 2016

          Diameter Agent Overload and the Peer Overload Report
                 draft-ietf-dime-agent-overload-04.txt

Abstract

   This specification documents an extension to the Diameter Overload
   Indication Conveyance (DOIC) [RFC7683] base solution.  The extension
   defines the Peer overload report type.  The initial use case for the
   Peer report is the handling of occurrences of overload of a Diameter
   agent.

Requirements

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on September 19, 2016.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of

Donovan                Expires September 19, 2016               [Page 1]
Internet-Draft   Diameter Agent Overload and Peer Report      March 2016

   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   2.  Terminology and Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Peer Report Use Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     3.1.  Diameter Agent Overload Use Cases . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
       3.1.1.  Single Agent  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
       3.1.2.  Redundant Agents  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
       3.1.3.  Agent Chains  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     3.2.  Diameter Endpoint Use Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
       3.2.1.  Hop-by-hop Abatement Algorithms . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   4.  Interaction Between Host/Realm and Peer Overload Reports  . .   8
   5.  Peer Report Behavior  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     5.1.  Capability Announcement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
       5.1.1.  Reacting Node Behavior  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
       5.1.2.  Reporting Node Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     5.2.  Peer Report Overload Report Handling  . . . . . . . . . .  10
       5.2.1.  Overload Control State  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
       5.2.2.  Reporting Node Maintenance of Peer Report OCS . . . .  11
       5.2.3.  Reacting Node Maintenance of Peer Report OCS  . . . .  11
       5.2.4.  Peer Report Reporting Node Behavior . . . . . . . . .  13
       5.2.5.  Peer Report Reacting Node Behavior  . . . . . . . . .  13
   6.  Peer Report AVPs  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
     6.1.  OC-Supported-Features AVP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
       6.1.1.  OC-Feature-Vector . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
       6.1.2.  OC-Peer-Algo  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
     6.2.  OC-OLR AVP  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
       6.2.1.  OC-Report-Type AVP  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
     6.3.  OC-SourceID . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
     6.4.  Attribute Value Pair flag rules . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
   7.  IANA  Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
     7.1.  AVP codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
     7.2.  New registries  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
   8.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
   9.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
   10. Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
   Author's Address  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
Show full document text