Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Rate Control
RFC 7415
| Document | Type | RFC - Proposed Standard (February 2015) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Eric Noel , Philip M. Williams | ||
| Last updated | 2015-10-14 | ||
| RFC stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Additional resources | Mailing list discussion | ||
| IESG | Responsible AD | Richard Barnes | |
| Send notices to | (None) |
RFC 7415
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) E. Noel
Request for Comments: 7415 AT&T Labs
Category: Standards Track P. Williams
ISSN: 2070-1721 BT Innovate & Design
February 2015
Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Rate Control
Abstract
The prevalent use of the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) in Next
Generation Networks necessitates that SIP networks provide adequate
control mechanisms to maintain transaction throughput by preventing
congestion collapse during traffic overloads. A loss-based solution
to remedy known vulnerabilities of the SIP 503 (Service Unavailable)
overload control mechanism has already been proposed. Using the same
signaling, this document proposes a rate-based control scheme to
complement the loss-based control scheme.
Status of This Memo
This is an Internet Standards Track document.
This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
(IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
received public review and has been approved for publication by the
Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on
Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 5741.
Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7415.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2015 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
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Noel & Williams Standards Track [Page 1]
RFC 7415 SIP Rate Control February 2015
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ....................................................2
2. Terminology .....................................................3
3. Rate-Based Algorithm Scheme .....................................3
3.1. Overview ...................................................3
3.2. Via Header Field Parameters for Overload Control ...........4
3.3. Client and Server Rate-Based Control Algorithm Selection ...4
3.4. Server Operation ...........................................5
3.5. Client Operation ...........................................6
3.5.1. Default Algorithm ...................................6
3.5.2. Priority Treatment ..................................9
3.5.3. Optional Enhancement: Avoidance of Resonance .......10
4. Example ........................................................12
5. Syntax .........................................................13
6. Security Considerations ........................................13
7. IANA Considerations ............................................13
8. References .....................................................14
8.1. Normative References ......................................14
8.2. Informative References ....................................14
Acknowledgments ...................................................14
Contributors ......................................................14
Authors' Addresses ................................................15
1. Introduction
The use of SIP [RFC3261] in large-scale Next Generation Networks
requires that SIP-based networks provide adequate control mechanisms
for handling traffic growth. In particular, SIP networks must be
able to handle traffic overloads gracefully, maintaining transaction
throughput by preventing congestion collapse.
A promising SIP-based overload control solution has been proposed in
[RFC7339]. That solution provides a communication scheme for
overload control algorithms. It also includes a default loss-based
overload control algorithm that makes it possible for a set of
clients to limit offered load towards an overloaded server. However,
such a loss control algorithm is sensitive to variations in load so
that any increase in load would be directly reflected by the clients
in the offered load presented to the overloaded servers. More
importantly, a loss-based control scheme cannot guarantee an upper
bound on the load from the clients towards an overloaded server and
requires frequent updates that may have implications for stability.
In accordance with the framework defined in [RFC7339], this document
proposes an alternate overload control scheme: the rate-based
overload control scheme. The rate-based control algorithm guarantees
an upper bound on the rate, constant between server updates, of
Noel & Williams Standards Track [Page 2]
RFC 7415 SIP Rate Control February 2015
requests sent by clients towards an overloaded server. The trade-off
is in terms of algorithmic complexity, since the overloaded server is
more likely to use a different target (maximum rate) for each client
than the loss-based approach.
The proposed rate-based overload control algorithm mitigates
congestion in SIP networks while adhering to the overload signaling
scheme in [RFC7339] and presenting a rate-based control scheme as an
optional alternative to the default loss-based control scheme in
[RFC7339].
2. Terminology
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 [RFC2119].
Unless otherwise specified, all SIP entities described in this
document are assumed to support this specification.
3. Rate-Based Algorithm Scheme
3.1. Overview
The server is the one protected by the overload control algorithm
defined here, and the client is the one that throttles traffic
towards the server.
Following the procedures defined in [RFC7339], the server and clients
signal one another support for rate-based overload control.
Then, periodically, the server relies on internal measurements (e.g.,
CPU utilization or queueing delay) to evaluate its overload state and
estimate a target maximum SIP request rate in number of requests per
second (as opposed to target percent loss in the case of loss-based
control).
When in overload, the server uses the "oc" parameter in the Via
header field [RFC7339] of SIP responses in order to inform clients of
its overload state and of the target maximum SIP request rate for
that client.
Upon receiving the "oc" parameter with a target maximum SIP request
rate, each client throttles new SIP requests towards the overloaded
server.
Noel & Williams Standards Track [Page 3]
RFC 7415 SIP Rate Control February 2015
3.2. Via Header Field Parameters for Overload Control
Four Via header parameters are defined in [RFC7339] and are
summarized below:
o oc: Used by clients in SIP requests to indicate support for
overload control per [RFC7339] and by servers to indicate the load
reduction amount in the loss-based algorithm and the maximum rate,
in messages per second, for the rate-based algorithm described
here.
o oc-algo: Used by clients in SIP requests to advertise supported
overload control algorithms and by servers to notify clients of
the algorithm in effect. Supported values are loss (default) and
rate (optional).
o oc-validity: Used by servers in SIP responses to indicate an
interval of time (in milliseconds) that the load reduction should
be in effect. A value of 0 is reserved for the server to stop
overload control. A non-zero value is required in all other
cases.
o oc-seq: A sequence number associated with the "oc" parameter.
Consult Section 4 for an illustration of the usage of the "oc"
parameter in the Via header field.
3.3. Client and Server Rate-Based Control Algorithm Selection
Per [RFC7339], new clients indicate supported overload control
algorithms to servers by inserting "oc" and "oc-algo", with the names
of the supported algorithms, in the Via header field of SIP requests
destined to servers. The inclusion by the client of the token "rate"
indicates that the client supports a rate-based algorithm.
Conversely, servers notify clients of the selected overload control
algorithm through the "oc-algo" parameter in the Via header field of
SIP responses to clients. The inclusion by the server of the token
"rate" in the "oc-algo" parameter indicates that the rate-based
algorithm has been selected by the server.
Support of rate-based control MUST be indicated by clients including
the token "rate" in the "oc-algo" list. Selection of rate-based
control MUST be indicated by servers by setting "oc-algo" to the
token "rate".
Noel & Williams Standards Track [Page 4]
RFC 7415 SIP Rate Control February 2015
3.4. Server Operation
The actual algorithm used by the server to determine its overload
state and estimate a target maximum SIP request rate is beyond the
scope of this document.
However, the server MUST periodically evaluate its overload state and
estimate a target SIP request rate beyond which it would become
overloaded. The server must determine how it will allocate the
target SIP request rate among its client. The server may set the
same rate for every client or may set different rates for different
clients.
The maximum rate determined by the server for a client applies to the
entire stream of SIP requests, even though throttling may only affect
a particular subset of the requests, since as per [RFC7339] and REQ
13 of [RFC5390], request prioritization is a client's responsibility.
When setting the maximum rate for a particular client, the server may
need to take into account the workload (e.g., CPU load per request)
of the distribution of message types from that client. Furthermore,
because the client may prioritize the specific types of messages it
sends while under overload restriction, this distribution of message
types may be different from the message distribution for that client
under non-overload conditions (e.g., it could have either higher or
lower CPU load).
Note that the "oc" parameter for the rate-based algorithm is an upper
bound (in messages per second) on the traffic sent by the client to
the server. The client may send traffic at a rate significantly
lower than the upper bound for a variety of reasons.
In other words, when multiple clients are being controlled by an
overloaded server, at any given time, some clients may receive
requests at a rate below their target (maximum) SIP request rate
while others above that target rate. But the resulting request rate
presented to the overloaded server will converge towards the target
SIP request rate.
Upon detection of overload and the determination to invoke overload
controls, the server MUST follow the specifications in [RFC7339] to
notify its clients of the allocated target SIP request rate and to
notify them that rate-based control is in effect.
The server MUST use the "oc" parameter defined in [RFC7339] to send a
target SIP request rate to each of its clients.
Noel & Williams Standards Track [Page 5]
RFC 7415 SIP Rate Control February 2015
When a client supports the default loss-based algorithm and not the
rate-based algorithm, the client would be handled in the same way as
in Section 5.10.2 of [RFC7339].
3.5. Client Operation
3.5.1. Default Algorithm
In determining whether or not to transmit a specific message, the
client may use any algorithm that limits the message rate to the "oc"
parameter in units of messages per second. For ease of discussion,
we define T = 1/["oc" parameter] as the target inter-SIP request
interval. The algorithm may be strictly deterministic, or it may be
probabilistic. It may, or may not, have a tolerance factor to allow
for short bursts, as long as the long-term rate remains below 1/T.
The algorithm may have provisions for prioritizing traffic in
accordance with REQ 13 of [RFC5390].
If the algorithm requires other parameters (in addition to "T", which
is 1/["oc" parameter]), they may be set autonomously by the client,
or they may be negotiated between client and server independently of
the SIP-based overload control solution.
In either case, the coordination is out of the scope of this
document. The default algorithms presented here (one with and one
without provisions for prioritizing traffic) are only examples.
To throttle new SIP requests at the rate specified by the "oc"
parameter sent by the server to its clients, the client MAY use the
proposed default algorithm for rate-based control or any other
equivalent algorithm that forward messages in conformance with the
upper bound of 1/T messages per second.
The default leaky bucket algorithm presented here is based on
[ITU-T-I.371], Appendix A.2. The algorithm makes it possible for
clients to deliver SIP requests at a rate specified by the "oc"
parameter with the tolerance parameter TAU (preferably configurable).
Conceptually, the leaky bucket algorithm can be viewed as a finite
capacity bucket whose real-valued content drains out at a continuous
rate of 1 unit of content per time unit and whose content increases
by the increment T for each forwarded SIP request. T is computed as
the inverse of the rate specified by the "oc" parameter, namely
T = 1 / ["oc" parameter].
Noel & Williams Standards Track [Page 6]
RFC 7415 SIP Rate Control February 2015
Note that when the "oc" parameter is 0 with a non-zero "oc-validity",
then the client should reject 100% of SIP requests destined to the
overload server. However, when the "oc-validity" value is 0, the
client should immediately stop throttling.
If, at a new SIP request arrival, the content of the bucket is less
than or equal to the limit value TAU, then the SIP request is
forwarded to the server; otherwise, the SIP request is rejected.
Note that the capacity of the bucket (the upper bound of the counter)
is (T + TAU).
The tolerance parameter TAU determines how close the long-term
admitted rate is to an ideal control that would admit all SIP
requests for arrival rates less than 1/T and then admit SIP requests
precisely at the rate of 1/T for arrival rates above 1/T. In
particular, at mean arrival rates close to 1/T, it determines the
tolerance to deviation of the inter-arrival time from T (the larger
TAU, the more tolerance to deviations from the inter-departure
interval T).
This deviation from the inter-departure interval influences the
admitted rate burstiness or the number of consecutive SIP requests
forwarded to the server (burst size proportional to TAU over the
difference between 1/T and the arrival rate).
In situations where clients are configured with some knowledge about
the server (e.g., operator pre-provisioning), it can be beneficial to
choose a value of TAU based on how many clients will be sending
requests to the server.
Servers with a very large number of clients, each with a relatively
small arrival rate, will generally benefit from a smaller value for
TAU in order to limit queuing (and hence response times) at the
server when subjected to a sudden surge of traffic from all clients.
Conversely, a server with a relatively small number of clients, each
with a proportionally larger arrival rate, will benefit from a larger
value of TAU.
Once the control has been activated, at the arrival time of the k-th
new SIP request, ta(k), the content of the bucket is provisionally
updated to the value
X' = X - (ta(k) - LCT)
where X is the value of the leaky bucket counter after arrival of the
last forwarded SIP request, and LCT is the time at which the last SIP
request was forwarded.
Noel & Williams Standards Track [Page 7]
RFC 7415 SIP Rate Control February 2015
If X' is less than or equal to the limit value TAU, then the new SIP
request is forwarded, the leaky bucket counter X is set to X' (or to
0 if X' is negative) plus the increment T, and LCT is set to the
current time ta(k). If X' is greater than the limit value TAU, then
the new SIP request is rejected, and the values of X and LCT are
unchanged.
When the first response from the server has been received indicating
control activation (oc-validity>0), LCT is set to the time of
activation, and the leaky bucket counter is initialized to the
parameter TAU0 (preferably configurable), which is 0 or larger but
less than or equal to TAU.
TAU can assume any positive real number value and is not necessarily
bounded by T.
TAU=4*T is a reasonable compromise between burst size and throttled
rate adaptation at low offered rates.
Note that specification of a value for TAU and any communication or
coordination between servers are beyond the scope of this document.
A reference algorithm is shown below.
No priority case:
// T: inter-transmission interval, set to 1 / ["oc" parameter]
// TAU: tolerance parameter
// ta: arrival time of the most recent arrival received by the
// client
// LCT: arrival time of last SIP request that was sent to the server
// (initialized to the first arrival time)
// X: current value of the leaky bucket counter (initialized to
// TAU0)
// After most recent arrival, calculate auxiliary variable Xp
Xp = X - (ta - LCT);
if (Xp <= TAU) {
// Transmit SIP request
// Update X and LCT
X = max (0, Xp) + T;
LCT = ta;
} else {
// Reject SIP request
// Do not update X and LCT
}
Noel & Williams Standards Track [Page 8]
RFC 7415 SIP Rate Control February 2015
3.5.2. Priority Treatment
As with the loss-based algorithm in [RFC7339], a client implementing
the rate-based algorithm also prioritizes messages into two or more
categories of requests, for example, requests that are candidates for
reduction and requests that are not subject to reduction (except
under extenuating circumstances when there aren't any messages in the
first category that can be reduced).
Accordingly, the proposed leaky bucket implementation is modified to
support priority using two thresholds for SIP requests that are
candidates for reduction. With two priorities, the proposed leaky
bucket requires two thresholds: TAU1 and TAU2 (where TAU1 < TAU2):
o All new requests would be admitted when the leaky bucket counter
is at or below TAU1.
o Only higher-priority requests would be admitted when the leaky
bucket counter is between TAU1 and TAU2.
o All requests would be rejected when the bucket counter is at or
above TAU2.
This can be generalized to n priorities using n thresholds for n>2 in
the obvious way.
With a priority scheme that relies on two tolerance parameters (TAU2
influences the priority traffic, and TAU1 influences the non-priority
traffic), always set TAU1 < TAU2 (TAU is replaced by TAU1 and TAU2).
Setting both tolerance parameters to the same value is equivalent to
having no priority. TAU1 influences the admitted rate the same way
as TAU does when no priority is set. The larger the difference
between TAU1 and TAU2, the closer the control is to strict priority
queueing.
TAU1 and TAU2 can assume any positive real number value and are not
necessarily bounded by T.
Reasonable values for TAU0, TAU1, and TAU2 are:
o TAU0 = 0,
o TAU1 = 1/2 * TAU2, and
o TAU2 = 10 * T.
Noel & Williams Standards Track [Page 9]
RFC 7415 SIP Rate Control February 2015
Note that specification of a value for TAU1 and TAU2 and any
communication or coordination between servers are beyond the scope of
this document.
A reference algorithm is shown below.
Priority case:
// T: inter-transmission interval, set to 1 / ["oc" parameter]
// TAU1: tolerance parameter of no-priority SIP requests
// TAU2: tolerance parameter of priority SIP requests
// ta: arrival time of the most recent arrival received by the
// client
// LCT: arrival time of last SIP request that was sent to the server
// (initialized to the first arrival time)
// X: current value of the leaky bucket counter (initialized to
// TAU0)
// After most recent arrival, calculate auxiliary variable Xp
Xp = X - (ta - LCT);
if (AnyRequestReceived && Xp <= TAU1) || (PriorityRequestReceived &&
Xp <= TAU2 && Xp > TAU1) {
// Transmit SIP request
// Update X and LCT
X = max (0, Xp) + T;
LCT = ta;
} else {
// Reject SIP request
// Do not update X and LCT
}
3.5.3. Optional Enhancement: Avoidance of Resonance
As the number of client sources of traffic increases or the
throughput of the server decreases, the maximum rate admitted by each
client needs to decrease; therefore, the value of T becomes larger.
Under some circumstances (e.g., if the traffic arises very quickly
simultaneously at many sources), the occupancies of each bucket can
become synchronized, resulting in the admissions from each source
being close in time and batched or having very 'peaky' arrivals at
the server, which gives rise not only to control instability but also
to very poor delays and even lost messages. An appropriate term for
this is 'resonance' [Erramilli].
Noel & Williams Standards Track [Page 10]
RFC 7415 SIP Rate Control February 2015
If the network topology is such that resonance can occur, then a
simple way to avoid resonance is to randomize the bucket occupancy at
two appropriate points -- at the activation of control and whenever
the bucket empties -- as described below.
After updating the value of the leaky bucket to X', generate a value
u as follows:
if X' > 0, then u = 0
else if X' <= 0, then let u be set to a random value uniformly
distributed between -1/2 and +1/2
Then, only if the arrival is admitted, increase the bucket by an
amount T + uT, which will therefore be just T if the bucket hadn't
emptied or lie between T/2 and 3T/2 if it had.
This randomization should also be done when control is activated,
i.e., instead of simply initializing the leaky bucket counter to
TAU0, initialize it to TAU0 + uT, where u is uniformly distributed as
above. Since activation would have been a result of response to a
request sent by the client, the second term in this expression can be
interpreted as being the bucket increment following that admission.
This method has the following characteristics:
o If TAU0 is chosen to be equal to TAU and all sources activate
control at the same time due to an extremely high request rate,
then the time until the first request admitted by each client
would be uniformly distributed over [0,T].
o The maximum occupancy is TAU + (3/2)T, rather than TAU + T without
randomization.
o For the special case of 'classic gapping' where TAU=0, then the
minimum time between admissions is uniformly distributed over
[T/2, 3T/2], and the mean time between admissions is the same,
i.e., T+1/R where R is the request arrival rate.
o As high load randomization rarely occurs, there is no loss of
precision of the admitted rate, even though the randomized
'phasing' of the buckets remains.
Noel & Williams Standards Track [Page 11]
RFC 7415 SIP Rate Control February 2015
4. Example
The example in this section adapts the example in Section 6 of
[RFC7339], where client P1 sends requests to a downstream server P2:
INVITE sips:user@example.com SIP/2.0
Via: SIP/2.0/TLS p1.example.net;
branch=z9hG4bK2d4790.1;received=192.0.2.111;
oc;oc-algo="loss,rate"
...
SIP/2.0 100 Trying
Via: SIP/2.0/TLS p1.example.net;
branch=z9hG4bK2d4790.1;received=192.0.2.111;
oc=0;oc-algo="rate";oc-validity=0;
oc-seq=1282321615.781
...
The first message above is sent by P1 to P2. This message is a SIP
request; because P1 supports overload control, it inserts the "oc"
parameter in the topmost Via header field that it created. P1
supports two overload control algorithms: loss and rate.
The second message, a SIP response, shows the topmost Via header
field amended by P2 according to this specification and sent to P1.
Because P2 also supports overload control, it chooses the rate-based
scheme and sends that back to P1 in the "oc-algo" parameter. It uses
oc-validity=0 to indicate no overload control. In this example,
"oc=0", but "oc" could be any value as "oc" is ignored when
"oc-validity=0".
At some later time, P2 starts to experience overload. It sends the
following SIP message indicating P1 should send SIP requests at a
rate no greater than or equal to 150 SIP requests per second and for
a duration of 1,000 milliseconds.
Noel & Williams Standards Track [Page 12]
RFC 7415 SIP Rate Control February 2015
SIP/2.0 180 Ringing
Via: SIP/2.0/TLS p1.example.net;
branch=z9hG4bK2d4790.1;received=192.0.2.111;
oc=150;oc-algo="rate";oc-validity=1000;
oc-seq=1282321615.782
...
5. Syntax
This specification extends the existing definition of the Via header
field parameters of [RFC7339] as follows:
algo-list =/ "rate"
6. Security Considerations
Aside from the resonance concerns discussed in Section 3.5.3, this
mechanism does not introduce any security concerns beyond the general
overload control security issues discussed in [RFC7339]. Methods to
mitigate the risk of resonance are discussed in Section 3.5.3.
7. IANA Considerations
IANA has registered the "oc-algo" parameter of the Via header field
in the "Header Field Parameters and Parameter Values" subregistry of
the "Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Parameters" registry. The
entry appears as follows:
Header Parameter Predefined References
Field Name Values
___________________________________________________________
Via oc-algo Yes [RFC7339] [RFC7415]
Noel & Williams Standards Track [Page 13]
RFC 7415 SIP Rate Control February 2015
8. References
8.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC3261] Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., Camarillo, G.,
Johnston, A., Peterson, J., Sparks, R., Handley, M.,
and E. Schooler, "SIP: Session Initiation Protocol",
RFC 3261, June 2002,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3261>.
[RFC5390] Rosenberg, J., "Requirements for Management of Overload
in the Session Initiation Protocol", RFC 5390, December
2008, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5390>.
[RFC7339] Gurbani, V., Ed., Hilt, V., and H. Schulzrinne,
"Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Overload Control",
RFC 7339, September 2014,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7339>.
8.2. Informative References
[ITU-T-I.371] ITU-T, "Traffic control and congestion control in
B-ISDN", ITU-T Recommendation I.371, March 2004.
[Erramilli] Erramilli, A., and L. Forys, "Traffic Synchronization
Effects In Teletraffic Systems", ITC-13, 1991.
Acknowledgments
Many thanks to the following individuals for comments and feedback on
this document: Richard Barnes, Keith Drage, Vijay Gurbany, Volker
Hilt, Christer Holmberg, Winston Hong, Peter Yee, and James Yu.
Contributors
Significant contributions to this document were made by Janet Gunn.
Noel & Williams Standards Track [Page 14]
RFC 7415 SIP Rate Control February 2015
Authors' Addresses
Eric Noel
AT&T Labs
200 S Laurel Avenue
Middletown, NJ 07747
United States
EMail: eric.noel@att.com
Philip M. Williams
BT Innovate & Design
Ipswich, IP5 3RE
United Kingdom
EMail: phil.m.williams@bt.com
Noel & Williams Standards Track [Page 15]