[Docs] [txt|pdf|xml|html] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: (draft-donovan-dime-agent-overload) 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11

Diameter Maintenance and Extensions (DIME)                    S. Donovan
Internet-Draft                                                    Oracle
Updates: RFC7683 (if approved)                            March 22, 2017
Intended status: Standards Track
Expires: September 23, 2017


          Diameter Agent Overload and the Peer Overload Report
                 draft-ietf-dime-agent-overload-11.txt

Abstract

   This specification documents an extension to RFC 7683 (Diameter
   Overload Indication Conveyance (DOIC)) 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 23, 2017.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2017 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



Donovan                Expires September 23, 2017               [Page 1]


Internet-Draft   Diameter Agent Overload and Peer Report      March 2017


   (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.

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  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
       3.1.2.  Redundant Agents  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
       3.1.3.  Agent Chains  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     3.2.  Diameter Endpoint Use Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
       3.2.1.  Hop-by-hop Abatement Algorithms . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   4.  Interaction Between Host/Realm and Peer Overload Reports  . .   8
   5.  Peer Report Behavior  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     5.1.  Capability Announcement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
       5.1.1.  Reacting Node Behavior  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
       5.1.2.  Reporting Node Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     5.2.  Peer 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 . . . . . . . . .  12
       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 AVP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
       6.1.2.  OC-Peer-Algo AVP  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
     6.2.  OC-OLR AVP  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
       6.2.1.  OC-Report-Type AVP  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
     6.3.  SourceID AVP  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
     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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
   9.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
   10. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
     10.1.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
     10.2.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
   Author's Address  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18




Donovan                Expires September 23, 2017               [Page 2]


Internet-Draft   Diameter Agent Overload and Peer Report      March 2017


1.  Introduction

   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.

   This document defines the behavior of Diameter nodes when Diameter
   agents enter an overload condition and send an overload report
   requesting a reduction of traffic.  It also defines new overload
   report type, the Peer overload report type, that is used for handling
   of agent overload conditions.  The Peer overload report type is
   defined in a generic fashion so that it can also be used for other
   Diameter overload scenarios.

   The base Diameter overload specification [RFC7683] addresses the
   handling of overload when a Diameter endpoint (a Diameter Client or
   Diameter Server as defined in [RFC6733]) becomes overloaded.

   In the base specification, the goal is to handle abatement of the
   overload occurrence as close to the source of the Diameter traffic as
   feasible.  When possible this is done at the originator of the
   traffic, generally referred to as a Diameter Client.  A Diameter
   Agent might also handle the overload mitigation.  For instance, a
   Diameter Agent might handle Diameter overload mitigation when it
   knows that a Diameter Client does not support the DOIC extension.

   This document extends the base Diameter endpoint overload
   specification to address the case when Diameter Agents become
   overloaded.  Just as is the case with other Diameter nodes --
   Diameter Clients and Diameter Servers -- surges in Diameter traffic
   can cause a Diameter Agent to be asked to handle more Diameter
   traffic than it was configured to handle.  For a more detailed
   discussion of what can cause the overload of Diameter nodes, refer to
   the Diameter Overload Requirements [RFC7068].

   This document defines a new overload report type to communicate
   occurrences of agent overload.  This report type works for the "Loss"
   overload mitigation algorithm defined in [RFC7683] and is expected to
   work for other overload abatement algorithms defined in extensions to
   the DOIC solution.

2.  Terminology and Abbreviations

   AVP

      Attribute Value Pair



Donovan                Expires September 23, 2017               [Page 3]


Internet-Draft   Diameter Agent Overload and Peer Report      March 2017


   Diameter Node

      A [RFC7683] Diameter Client, an [RFC7683] Diameter Server, and
      [RFC7683] Diameter Agent.

   Diameter Endpoint

      An [RFC7683] Diameter Client and [RFC7683] Diameter Server.

   Diameter Agent

      An [RFC7683] Diameter Agent.

   Reporting Node

      A DOIC Node that sends an overload report in a Diameter answer
      message.

   Reacting Node

      A DOIC Node that receives and acts on a DOIC overload report.

   DOIC Node

      A Diameter Node that supports the DOIC solution defined in
      [RFC7683].

3.  Peer Report Use Cases

   This section outlines representative use cases for the peer report
   used to communicate agent overload.

   There are two primary classes of use cases currently identified,
   those involving the overload of agents and those involving overload
   of Diameter endpoints.  In both cases the goal is to use an overload
   algorithm that controls traffic sent towards peers.

3.1.  Diameter Agent Overload Use Cases

   The peer report needs to support the following use cases.

   In the figures in this section, elements labeled "c" are Diameter
   Clients, elements labeled "a" are Diameter Agents and elements
   labeled "s" are Diameter Servers.







Donovan                Expires September 23, 2017               [Page 4]


Internet-Draft   Diameter Agent Overload and Peer Report      March 2017


3.1.1.  Single Agent

   This use case is illustrated in Figure 1.  In this case, the client
   sends all traffic through the single agent.  If there is a failure in
   the agent then the client is unable to send Diameter traffic toward
   the server.

                              +-+    +-+    +-+
                              |c|----|a|----|s|
                              +-+    +-+    +-+


                                 Figure 1

   A more likely case for the use of agents is illustrated in Figure 2.
   In this case, there are multiple servers behind the single agent.
   The client sends all traffic through the agent and the agent
   determines how to distribute the traffic to the servers based on
   local routing and load distribution policy.

                                            +-+
                                          --|s|
                              +-+    +-+ /  +-+
                              |c|----|a|-   ...
                              +-+    +-+ \  +-+
                                          --|s|
                                            +-+


                                 Figure 2

   In both of these cases, the occurrence of overload in the single
   agent must by handled by the client in a similar fashion as if the
   client were handling the overload of a directly connected server.
   When the agent becomes overloaded it will insert an overload report
   in answer messages flowing to the client.  This overload report will
   contain a requested reduction in the amount of traffic sent to the
   agent.  The client will apply overload abatement behavior as defined
   in the base Diameter overload specification [RFC7683] or the
   extension draft that defines the indicated overload abatement
   algorithm.  This will result in the throttling of the abated traffic
   that would have been sent to the agent, as there is no alternative
   route.  The client sends an appropriate error response to the
   originator of the request.







Donovan                Expires September 23, 2017               [Page 5]


Internet-Draft   Diameter Agent Overload and Peer Report      March 2017


3.1.2.  Redundant Agents

   Figure 3 and Figure 4 illustrate a second, and more likely, type of
   deployment scenario involving agents.  In both of these cases, the
   client has Diameter connections to two agents.

   Figure 3 illustrates a client that has a primary connection to one of
   the agents (agent a1) and a secondary connection to the other agent
   (agent a2).  In this scenario, under normal circumstances, the client
   will use the primary connection for all traffic.  The secondary
   connection is used when there is a failure scenario of some sort.

                                     +--+   +-+
                                   --|a1|---|s|
                              +-+ /  +--+\ /+-+
                              |c|-        x
                              +-+ .  +--+/ \+-+
                                   ..|a2|---|s|
                                     +--+   +-+


                                 Figure 3

   The second case, in Figure 4, illustrates the case where the
   connections to the agents are both actively used.  In this case, the
   client will have local distribution policy to determine the traffic
   sent through each client.

                                     +--+   +-+
                                   --|a1|---|s|
                              +-+ /  +--+\ /+-+
                              |c|-        x
                              +-+ \  +--+/ \+-+
                                   --|a2|---|s|
                                     +--+   +-+


                                 Figure 4

   In the case where one of the agents in the above scenarios become
   overloaded, the client should reduce the amount of traffic sent to
   the overloaded agent by the amount requested.  This traffic should
   instead be routed through the non-overloaded agent.  For example,
   assume that the overloaded agent requests a reduction of 10 percent.
   The client should send 10 percent of the traffic that would have been
   routed to the overloaded agent through the non-overloaded agent.





Donovan                Expires September 23, 2017               [Page 6]


Internet-Draft   Diameter Agent Overload and Peer Report      March 2017


   When the client has an active and a standby connection to the two
   agents then an alternative strategy for responding to an overload
   report from an agent is to change the standby connection to active.
   This will result in all traffic being routed through the new active
   connection.

   In the case where both agents are reporting overload, the client may
   need to start decreasing the total traffic sent to the agents.  This
   would be done in a similar fashion as discussed in Section 3.1.1 The
   amount of traffic depends on the combined reduction requested by the
   two agents.

3.1.3.  Agent Chains

   There are also deployment scenarios where there can be multiple
   Diameter Agents between Diameter Clients and Diameter Servers.  An
   example of this type of deployment includes when there are Diameter
   agents between administrative domains.

   Figure 5 illustrates one such network deployment case.  Note that
   while this figure shows a maximum of two agents being involved in a
   Diameter transaction, it is possible that more than two agents could
   be in the path of a transaction.

                                +---+     +---+   +-+
                              --|a11|-----|a21|---|s|
                         +-+ /  +---+ \ / +---+\ /+-+
                         |c|-          x        x
                         +-+ \  +---+ / \ +---+/ \+-+
                              --|a12|-----|a22|---|s|
                                +---+     +---+   +-+


                                 Figure 5

   Handling of overload of one or both of agents a11 or a12 in this case
   is equivalent to that discussed in Section 3.1.2.

   Overload of agents a21 and a22 must be handled by the previous hop
   agents.  As such, agents a11 and a12 must handle the overload
   mitigation logic when receiving an agent overload report from agents
   a21 and a22.

   The handling of peer overload reports is similar to that discussed in
   Section 3.1.2.  If the overload can be addressed using diversion then
   this approach should be taken.





Donovan                Expires September 23, 2017               [Page 7]


Internet-Draft   Diameter Agent Overload and Peer Report      March 2017


   If both of the agents have requested a reduction in traffic then the
   previous hop agent must start throttling the appropriate number of
   transactions.  When throttling requests, an agent uses the same error
   responses as defined in the base DOIC specification [RFC7683].

3.2.  Diameter Endpoint Use Cases

   This section outlines use cases for the peer overload report
   involving Diameter Clients and Diameter Servers.

3.2.1.  Hop-by-hop Abatement Algorithms

   It is envisioned that abatement algorithms will be defined that will
   support the option for Diameter Endpoints to send peer reports.  For
   instance, it is envisioned that one usage scenario for the rate
   algorithm, [I-D.ietf-dime-doic-rate-control], which is being worked
   on by the DIME working group as this document is being written, will
   involve abatement being done on a hop-by-hop basis.

   This rate deployment scenario would involve Diameter Endpoints
   generating peer reports and selecting the rate algorithm for
   abatement of overload conditions.

4.  Interaction Between Host/Realm and Peer Overload Reports

   It is possible that both an agent and an end-point in the path of a
   transaction are overloaded at the same time.  When this occurs,
   Diameter entities need to handle both overload reports.  In this
   scenario the reacting node should first handle the throttling of the
   overloaded host or realm.  Any messages that survive throttling due
   to host or realm reports should then go through abatement for the
   peer overload report.  In this scenario, when doing abatement on the
   PEER report, the reacting node SHOULD take into consideration the
   number of messages already throttled by the handling of the HOST/
   REALM report abatement.

      Note: The goal is to avoid traffic oscillations that might result
      from throttling of messages for both the HOST/REALM overload
      reports and the PEER overload reports.  This is especially a
      concern if both reports indicate the LOSS abatement algorithm.

5.  Peer Report Behavior

   This section defines the normative behavior associated with the Peer
   Report extension to the DOIC solution.






Donovan                Expires September 23, 2017               [Page 8]


Internet-Draft   Diameter Agent Overload and Peer Report      March 2017


5.1.  Capability Announcement

5.1.1.  Reacting Node Behavior

   When sending a Diameter request a DOIC Node that supports the
   OC_PEER_REPORT (as defined in Section 6.1.1) feature MUST include in
   the OC-Supported-Features AVP an OC-Feature-Vector AVP with the
   OC_PEER_REPORT bit set.

   When sending a request a DOIC Node that supports the OC_PEER_REPORT
   feature MUST include a SourceID AVP in the OC-Supported-Features AVP
   with its own DiameterIdentity.

   When a Diameter Agent relays a request that includes a SourceID AVP
   in the OC-Supported-Features AVP, if the Diameter Agent supports the
   OC_PEER_REPORT feature then it MUST remove the received SourceID AVP
   and replace it with a SourceID AVP containing its own
   DiameterIdentity.

5.1.2.  Reporting Node Behavior

   When receiving a request a DOIC Node that supports the OC_PEER_REPORT
   feature MUST update transaction state with an indication of whether
   or not the peer from which the request was received supports the
   OC_PEER_REPORT feature.

      Note: The transaction state is used when the DOIC Node is acting
      as a peer-report reporting node and needs send OC-OLR reports of
      type peer in answer messages.  The peer overload reports are only
      included in answer messages being sent to peers that support the
      OC_PEER_REPORT feature.

   The peer supports the OC_PEER_REPORT feature if the received request
   contains an OC-Supported-Features AVP with the OC-Feature-Vector with
   the OC_PEER_REPORT feature bit set and with a SourceID AVP with a
   value that matches the DiameterIdentity of the peer from which the
   request was received.

   When an agent relays an answer message, a reporting node that
   supports the OC_PEER_REPORT feature MUST strip any SourceID AVP from
   the OC-Supported-Features AVP.

   When sending an answer message, a reporting node that supports the
   OC_PEER_REPORT feature MUST determine if the peer to which the answer
   is to be sent supports the OC_PEER_REPORT feature.






Donovan                Expires September 23, 2017               [Page 9]


Internet-Draft   Diameter Agent Overload and Peer Report      March 2017


   If the peer supports the OC_PEER_REPORT feature then the reporting
   node MUST indicate support for the feature in the OC-Supported-
   Features AVP.

   If the peer supports the OC_PEER_REPORT feature then the reporting
   node MUST insert the SourceID AVP in the OC-Supported-Features AVP in
   the answer message.

   If the peer supports the OC_PEER_REPORT feature then the reporting
   node MUST insert the OC-Peer-Algo AVP in the OC-Supported-Features
   AVP.  The OC-Peer-Algo AVP MUST indicate the overload abatement
   algorithm that the reporting node wants the reacting nodes to use
   should the reporting node send a peer overload report as a result of
   becoming overloaded.

5.2.  Peer Overload Report Handling

   This section defines the behavior for the handling of overload
   reports of type peer.

5.2.1.  Overload Control State

   This section describes the Overload Control State (OCS) that might be
   maintained by both the peer-report reporting node and the peer-report
   reacting node.

   This is an extension of the OCS handling defined in [RFC7683].

5.2.1.1.  Reporting Node Peer Report OCS

   A DOIC Node that supports the OC_PEER_REPORT feature SHOULD maintain
   Reporting Node OCS, as defined in [RFC7683] and extended here.

   If different abatement specific contents are sent to each peer then
   the reporting node MUST maintain a separate reporting node peer
   report OCS entry per peer to which a peer overload report is sent.

      Note: The rate overload abatement algorithm allows for different
      rates to be sent to each peer.

5.2.1.2.  Reacting Node Peer Report OCS

   In addition to OCS maintained as defined in [RFC7683], a reacting
   node that supports the OC_PEER_REPORT feature maintains the following
   OCS per supported Diameter application:

      A peer-type OCS entry for each peer to which it sends requests.




Donovan                Expires September 23, 2017              [Page 10]


Internet-Draft   Diameter Agent Overload and Peer Report      March 2017


   A peer-type OCS entry is identified by the pair of Application-ID and
   the peer's DiameterIdentity.

   The peer-type OCS entry include the following information (the actual
   information stored is an implementation decision):

      Sequence number (as received in the OC-OLR AVP).

      Time of expiry (derived from OC-Validity-Duration AVP received in
      the OC-OLR AVP and time of reception of the message carrying OC-
      OLR AVP).

      Selected abatement algorithm (as received in the OC-Supported-
      Features AVP).

      Input data that is abatement algorithm specific (as received in
      the OC-OLR AVP -- for example, OC-Reduction-Percentage for the
      loss abatement algorithm).

5.2.2.  Reporting Node Maintenance of Peer Report OCS

   All rules for managing the reporting node OCS entries defined in
   [RFC7683] apply to the peer report.

5.2.3.  Reacting Node Maintenance of Peer Report OCS

   When a reacting node receives an OC-OLR AVP with a report type of
   peer it MUST determine if the report was generated by the Diameter
   peer from which the report was received.

   If a reacting node receives an OC-OLR AVP of type peer and the
   SourceID matches the DiameterIdentity of the Diameter peer from which
   the response message was received then the report was generated by a
   Diameter peer.

   If a reacting node receives an OC-OLR AVP of type peer and the
   SourceID does not match the DiameterIdentity of the Diameter peer
   from which the response message was received then the reacting node
   MUST ignore the overload report.

      Note: Under normal circumstances, a Diameter node will not add a
      peer report when sending to a peer that does not support this
      extension.  This requirement is to handle the case where peer
      reports are erroneously or maliciously inserted into response
      messages.






Donovan                Expires September 23, 2017              [Page 11]


Internet-Draft   Diameter Agent Overload and Peer Report      March 2017


   If the peer report was received from a Diameter peer then the
   reacting node MUST determine if it is for an existing or new overload
   condition.

   The peer report is for an existing overload condition if the reacting
   node has an OCS that matches the received peer report.  For a peer
   report, this means it matches the Application-ID and the peer's
   DiameterIdentity in an existing OCS entry.

   If the peer report is for an existing overload condition then it MUST
   determine if the peer report is a retransmission or an update to the
   existing OLR.

   If the sequence number for the received peer report is greater than
   the sequence number stored in the matching OCS entry then the
   reacting node MUST update the matching OCS entry.

   If the sequence number for the received peer report is less than or
   equal to the sequence number in the matching OCS entry then the
   reacting node MUST silently ignore the received peer report.  The
   matching OCS MUST NOT be updated in this case.

   If the received peer report is for a new overload condition then the
   reacting node MUST generate a new OCS entry for the overload
   condition.

   For a peer report this means it creates an OCS entry with a
   DiameterIdentity from the SourceID AVP in the received OC-OLR AVP.

   If the received peer report contains a validity duration of zero
   ("0") then the reacting node MUST update the OCS entry as being
   expired.

   The reacting node does not delete an OCS when receiving an answer
   message that does not contain an OC-OLR AVP (i.e. absence of OLR
   means "no change").

   The reacting node sets the abatement algorithm based on the OC-Peer-
   Algo AVP in the received OC-Supported-Features AVP.

5.2.4.  Peer-Report Reporting Node Behavior

   When there is an existing reporting node peer report OCS entry, the
   reporting node MUST include an OC-OLR AVP with a report type of peer
   using the contents of the reporting node peer report OCS entry in all
   answer messages sent by the reporting node to peers that support the
   OC_PEER_REPORT feature.




Donovan                Expires September 23, 2017              [Page 12]


Internet-Draft   Diameter Agent Overload and Peer Report      March 2017


      The reporting node determines if a peer supports the
      OC_PEER_REPORT feature based on the indication recorded in the
      reporting node's transaction state.

   The reporting node MUST include its DiameterIdentity in the SourceID
   AVP in the OC-OLR AVP.  This is used by DOIC Nodes that support the
   OC_PEER_REPORT feature to determine if the report was received from a
   Diameter peer.

   The reporting agent must follow all other overload reporting node
   behaviors outlined in the DOIC specification.

5.2.5.  Peer-Report Reacting Node Behavior

   A reacting node supporting this extension MUST support the receipt of
   multiple overload reports in a single message.  The message might
   include a host overload report, a realm overload report and/or a peer
   overload report.

   When a reacting node sends a request it MUST determine if that
   request matches an active OCS.

   In all cases, if the reacting node is an agent then it MUST strip the
   Peer Report OC-OLR AVP from the message.

   If the request matches an active OCS then the reacting node MUST
   apply abatement treatment to the request.  The abatement treatment
   applied depends on the abatement algorithm indicated in the OCS.

   For peer overload reports, the preferred abatement treatment is
   diversion.  As such, the reacting node SHOULD attempt to divert
   requests identified as needing abatement to other peers.

   If there is not sufficient capacity to divert abated traffic then the
   reacting node MUST throttle the necessary requests to fit within the
   available capacity of the peers able to handle the requests.

   If the abatement treatment results in throttling of the request and
   if the reacting node is an agent then the agent MUST send an
   appropriate error response as defined in [RFC7683].

   In the case that the OCS entry validity duration expires or has a
   validity duration of zero ("0"), meaning that if the reporting node
   has explicitly signaled the end of the overload condition then
   abatement associated with the OCS entry MUST be ended in a controlled
   fashion.





Donovan                Expires September 23, 2017              [Page 13]


Internet-Draft   Diameter Agent Overload and Peer Report      March 2017


6.  Peer Report AVPs

6.1.  OC-Supported-Features AVP

   This extension adds a new feature to the OC-Feature-Vector AVP.  This
   feature indication shows support for handling of peer overload
   reports.  Peer overload reports are used by agents to indicate the
   need for overload abatement handling by the agent's peer.

   A supporting node must also include the SourceID AVP in the OC-
   Supported-Features capability AVP.

   This AVP contains the DiameterIdentity of the node that supports the
   OC_PEER_REPORT feature.  This AVP is used to determine if support for
   the peer overload report is in an adjacent node.  The value of this
   AVP should be the same Diameter identity used as part of the Diameter
   Capabilities Exchange procedure defined in [RFC7683].

   This extension also adds the OC-Peer-Algo AVP to the OC-Supported-
   Features AVP.  This AVP is used by a reporting node to indicate the
   abatement algorithm it will use for peer overload reports.

    OC-Supported-Features ::= < AVP Header: 621 >
                              [ OC-Feature-Vector ]
                              [ SourceID ]
                              [ OC-Peer-Algo]
                            * [ AVP ]


6.1.1.  OC-Feature-Vector AVP

   The peer report feature defines a new feature bit for the OC-Feature-
   Vector AVP.

   OC_PEER_REPORT (0x0000000000000010)

      When this flag is set by a DOIC Node it indicates that the DOIC
      Node supports the peer overload report type.

6.1.2.  OC-Peer-Algo AVP

   The OC-Peer-Algo AVP (AVP code TBD1) is of type Unsigned64 and
   contains a 64 bit flags field of announced capabilities of a DOIC
   Node.  The value of zero (0) is reserved.

   Feature bits defined for the OC-Feature-Vector AVP and associated
   with overload abatement algorithms are reused for this AVP.




Donovan                Expires September 23, 2017              [Page 14]


Internet-Draft   Diameter Agent Overload and Peer Report      March 2017


6.2.  OC-OLR AVP

   This extension makes no changes to the OC_Sequence_Number or
   OC_Validity_Duration AVPs in the OC-OLR AVP.  These AVPs are also be
   used in peer overload reports.

   The OC_PEER_REPORT feature extends the base Diameter overload
   specification by defining a new overload report type of "peer".  See
   section [7.6] in [RFC7683] for a description of the OC-Report-Type
   AVP.

   The overload report MUST also include the Diameter identity of the
   agent that generated the report.  This is necessary to handle the
   case where there is a non supporting agent between the reporting node
   and the reacting node.  Without the indication of the agent that
   generated the overload report, the reacting node could erroneously
   assume that the report applied to the non-supporting node.  This
   could, in turn, result in unnecessary traffic being either diverted
   or throttled.

   The SourceID AVP is used in the OC-OLR AVP to carry this
   DiameterIdentity.

      OC-OLR ::= < AVP Header: 623 >
                 < OC-Sequence-Number >
                 < OC-Report-Type >
                 [ OC-Reduction-Percentage ]
                 [ OC-Validity-Duration ]
                 [ SourceID ]
               * [ AVP ]


6.2.1.  OC-Report-Type AVP

   The following new report type is defined for the OC-Report-Type AVP.

   PEER_REPORT 2   The overload treatment should apply to all requests
      bound for the peer identified in the overload report.  If the peer
      identified in the overload report is not a peer to the reacting
      endpoint then the overload report should be stripped and not acted
      upon.

6.3.  SourceID AVP

   The SourceID AVP (AVP code TBD2) is of type DiameterIdentity and is
   inserted by a Diameter node to indicate the source of the AVP in
   which it is a part.




Donovan                Expires September 23, 2017              [Page 15]


Internet-Draft   Diameter Agent Overload and Peer Report      March 2017


   In the case of peer reports, the SourceID AVP indicates the node that
   supports this feature (in the OC-Supported-Features AVP) or the node
   that generates an overload with a report type of peer (in the OC-OLR
   AVP).

   It contains the DiameterIdentity of the inserting node.  This is used
   by other Diameter nodes to determine the node that inserted the
   enclosing AVP that contains the SourceID AVP.

6.4.  Attribute Value Pair Flag Rules


                                                             +---------+
                                                             |AVP flag |
                                                             |rules    |
                                                             +----+----+
                             AVP   Section                   |    |MUST|
     Attribute Name          Code  Defined Value Type        |MUST| NOT|
    +--------------------------------------------------------+----+----+
    |OC-Peer-Algo            TBD1   6.1.2  Unsigned64        |    | V  |
    |SourceID                TBD2   6.3    DiameterIdentity  |    | V  |
    +--------------------------------------------------------+----+----+


7.  IANA Considerations

7.1.  AVP Codes

   New AVPs defined by this specification are listed in Section 6.4.
   All AVP codes are allocated from the 'Authentication, Authorization,
   and Accounting (AAA) Parameters' AVP Codes registry.

   One new OC-Report-Type AVP value is defined in Section 6.2.1

7.2.  New Registries

   There are no new IANA registries introduced by this document.

   The values used for the OC-Peer-Algo AVP are the subset of the "OC-
   Feature-Vector AVP Values (code 622)" registry.  Only the values in
   that registry that apply to overload abatement algorithms apply to
   the OC-Peer-Algo AVP.

8.  Security Considerations

   Agent overload is an extension to the base Diameter overload
   mechanism.  As such, all of the security considerations outlined in
   [RFC7683] apply to the agent overload scenarios.



Donovan                Expires September 23, 2017              [Page 16]


Internet-Draft   Diameter Agent Overload and Peer Report      March 2017


   It is possible that the malicious insertion of an agent overload
   report could have a bigger impact on a Diameter network as agents can
   be concentration points in a Diameter network.  Where an end-point
   report would impact the traffic sent to a single Diameter server, for
   example, a peer report could throttle all traffic to the Diameter
   network.

   This impact is amplified in an agent that sits at the edge of a
   Diameter network that serves as the entry point from all other
   Diameter networks.

   The impacts of this attack, as well as the mitigation strategies, are
   the same as outlined in [RFC7683].

9.  Acknowledgements

   Adam Roach and Eric McMurry for the work done in defining a
   comprehensive Diameter overload solution in draft-roach-dime-
   overload-ctrl-03.txt.

   Ben Campbell for his insights and review of early versions of this
   document.

10.  References

10.1.  Informative References

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

   [RFC7068]  McMurry, E. and B. Campbell, "Diameter Overload Control
              Requirements", RFC 7068, DOI 10.17487/RFC7068, November
              2013, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7068>.

10.2.  Normative References

   [I-D.ietf-dime-doic-rate-control]
              Donovan, S. and E. Noel, "Diameter Overload Rate Control",
              draft-ietf-dime-doic-rate-control-03 (work in progress),
              March 2016.

   [RFC6733]  Fajardo, V., Ed., Arkko, J., Loughney, J., and G. Zorn,
              Ed., "Diameter Base Protocol", RFC 6733,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6733, October 2012,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6733>.




Donovan                Expires September 23, 2017              [Page 17]


Internet-Draft   Diameter Agent Overload and Peer Report      March 2017


   [RFC7683]  Korhonen, J., Ed., Donovan, S., Ed., Campbell, B., and L.
              Morand, "Diameter Overload Indication Conveyance",
              RFC 7683, DOI 10.17487/RFC7683, October 2015,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7683>.

Author's Address

   Steve Donovan
   Oracle
   7460 Warren Parkway, Suite 300
   Frisco, Texas  75034
   United States

   Email: srdonovan@usdonovans.com





































Donovan                Expires September 23, 2017              [Page 18]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.121, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/