Diameter Routing Message Priority
draft-ietf-dime-drmp-03

The information below is for an old version of the document
Document Type Active Internet-Draft (dime WG)
Last updated 2016-02-25 (latest revision 2016-02-02)
Replaces draft-donovan-dime-drmp
Stream IETF
Intended RFC status Proposed Standard
Formats plain text pdf html bibtex
Stream WG state Submitted to IESG for Publication (wg milestone: Mar 2016 - Submit I-D 'Diameter... )
Document shepherd Lionel Morand
Shepherd write-up Show (last changed 2016-02-25)
IESG IESG state Publication Requested
Consensus Boilerplate Yes
Telechat date
Responsible AD Stephen Farrell
Send notices to "Lionel Morand" <lionel.morand@orange.com>
Diameter Maintenance and Extensions (DIME)                    S. Donovan
Internet-Draft                                                    Oracle
Intended status: Standards Track                        February 2, 2016
Expires: August 5, 2016

                   Diameter Routing Message Priority
                      draft-ietf-dime-drmp-03.txt

Abstract

   When making routing and resource allocation decisions, Diameter nodes
   currently have no generic mechanism to determine the relative
   priority of Diameter messages.  This document addresses this by
   defining a mechanism to allow Diameter endpoints to indicate the
   relative priority of Diameter transactions.  With this information
   Diameter nodes can factor that priority into routing, resource
   allocation and overload abatement decisions.

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 August 5, 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
   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

Donovan                  Expires August 5, 2016                 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft                    DOIC                     February 2016

   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Terminology and Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Conventions Used in This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   4.  Problem Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   5.  Use Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     5.1.  First Responder Related Signaling . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     5.2.  Emergency Call Related Signaling  . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     5.3.  Differentiated Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     5.4.  Application Specific Priorities . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   6.  Theory of Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   7.  Extensibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   8.  Normative Behavior  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   9.  Attribute Value Pairs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     9.1.  DRMP AVP  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     9.2.  Attribute Value Pair flag rules . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     10.1.  AVP codes  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     10.2.  New registries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   11. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     11.1.  Potential Threat Modes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     11.2.  Denial of Service Attacks  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
     11.3.  End-to End-Security Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   12. Contributors  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
   13. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
     13.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
     13.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
   Author's Address  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16

1.  Introduction

   The DOIC solution [RFC7683] for Diameter overload control introduces
   scenarios where Diameter routing decisions made by Diameter nodes can
   be influenced by the overload state of other Diameter nodes.  This
   includes the scenarios where Diameter endpoints and Diameter agents
   can throttle requests as a result of the target for the request being
   overloaded.

   With currently available mechanisms these Diameter nodes do not have
   a mechanism to differentiate request message priorities when making
   these throttling decisions.  As such, all requests are treated the
   same, meaning that all requests have the same probability of being
Show full document text