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

Versions: (draft-docdt-dime-ovli) 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 RFC 7683

Diameter Maintenance and Extensions (DIME)              J. Korhonen, Ed.
Internet-Draft                                                  Broadcom
Intended status: Standards Track                         S. Donovan, Ed.
Expires: April 30, 2015                                      B. Campbell
                                                                  Oracle
                                                               L. Morand
                                                             Orange Labs
                                                        October 27, 2014


                Diameter Overload Indication Conveyance
                      draft-ietf-dime-ovli-04.txt

Abstract

   This specification documents a Diameter Overload Control (DOC) base
   solution and the dissemination of the overload report information.

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 April 30, 2015.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2014 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



Korhonen, et al.         Expires April 30, 2015                 [Page 1]


Internet-Draft                    DOIC                      October 2014


   (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.  Solution Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     3.1.  Piggybacking Principle  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     3.2.  DOIC Capability Announcement  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     3.3.  DOIC Overload Condition Reporting . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     3.4.  DOIC Extensibility  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     3.5.  Simplified Example Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   4.  Solution Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     4.1.  Capability Announcement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
       4.1.1.  Reacting Node Behavior  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
       4.1.2.  Reporting Node Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
       4.1.3.  Agent Behavior  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     4.2.  Overload Report Processing  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
       4.2.1.  Overload Control State  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
       4.2.2.  Reacting Node Behavior  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
       4.2.3.  Reporting Node Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
     4.3.  Protocol Extensibility  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20
   5.  Loss Algorithm  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
     5.1.  Overview  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
     5.2.  Reporting Node Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
     5.3.  Reacting Node Behavior  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
   6.  Attribute Value Pairs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  23
     6.1.  OC-Supported-Features AVP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  23
     6.2.  OC-Feature-Vector AVP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  24
     6.3.  OC-OLR AVP  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  24
     6.4.  OC-Sequence-Number AVP  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  25
     6.5.  OC-Validity-Duration AVP  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  25
     6.6.  OC-Report-Type AVP  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  25
     6.7.  OC-Reduction-Percentage AVP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  26
     6.8.  Attribute Value Pair flag rules . . . . . . . . . . . . .  27
   7.  Error Response Codes  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  27
   8.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  28
     8.1.  AVP codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  28
     8.2.  New registries  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  28
   9.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  29
     9.1.  Potential Threat Modes  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  29
     9.2.  Denial of Service Attacks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  30



Korhonen, et al.         Expires April 30, 2015                 [Page 2]


Internet-Draft                    DOIC                      October 2014


     9.3.  Non-Compliant Nodes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  30
     9.4.  End-to End-Security Issues  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  31
   10. Contributors  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  32
   11. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  32
     11.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  32
     11.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  32
   Appendix A.  Issues left for future specifications  . . . . . . .  33
     A.1.  Additional traffic abatement algorithms . . . . . . . . .  33
     A.2.  Agent Overload  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  33
     A.3.  New Error Diagnostic AVP  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  33
   Appendix B.  Deployment Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  34
   Appendix C.  Requirements Conformance Analysis  . . . . . . . . .  34
   Appendix D.  Considerations for Applications Integrating the DOIC
                Solution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  34
     D.1.  Application Classification  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  34
     D.2.  Application Type Overload Implications  . . . . . . . . .  35
     D.3.  Request Transaction Classification  . . . . . . . . . . .  36
     D.4.  Request Type Overload Implications  . . . . . . . . . . .  37
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  38

1.  Introduction

   This specification defines a base solution for Diameter Overload
   Control (DOC), referred to as Diameter Overload Indication Conveyance
   (DOIC).  The requirements for the solution are described and
   discussed in the corresponding design requirements document
   [RFC7068].  Note that the overload control solution defined in this
   specification does not address all the requirements listed in
   [RFC7068].  A number of overload control related features are left
   for the future specifications.  See Appendix A for a list of
   extensions that are currently being considered.  See Appendix C for
   an analysis of the conformance to the requirements specified in
   [RFC7068].

   The solution defined in this specification addresses Diameter
   overload control between Diameter nodes that support the DOIC
   solution.  Furthermore, the solution which is designed to apply to
   existing and future Diameter applications, requires no changes to the
   Diameter base protocol [RFC6733] and is deployable in environments
   where some Diameter nodes do not implement the Diameter overload
   control solution defined in this specification.

2.  Terminology and Abbreviations

   Abatement






Korhonen, et al.         Expires April 30, 2015                 [Page 3]


Internet-Draft                    DOIC                      October 2014


      Reaction to receipt of an overload report resulting in a reduction
      in traffic sent to the reporting node.  Abatement actions include
      diversion and throttling.

   Abatement Algorithm

      An mechanism requested by reporting nodes and used by reacting
      nodes to reduce the amount of traffic sent during an occurrence of
      overload control.

   Diversion

      Abatement of traffic sent to a reporting node by a reacting node
      in response to receipt of an overload report.  The abatement is
      achieved by diverting traffic from the reporting node to another
      Diameter node that is able to process the request.

   Host-Routed Request

      The set of requests that a reacting node knows will be served by a
      particular host, either due to the presence of a Destination-Host
      AVP, or by some other local knowledge on the part of the reacting
      node.

   Overload Control State (OCS)

      Reporting and reacting node internally maintained state describing
      occurrences of overload control.

   Overload Report (OLR)

      Information sent by a reporting node indicating the start,
      continuation or end of an occurrence of overload control.

   Reacting Node

      A Diameter node that acts upon an overload report.

   Realm-Routed Request

      The set of requests that a reacting node does not know the host
      that will service the request.

   Reporting Node

      A Diameter node that generates an overload report.  (This may or
      may not be the overloaded node.)




Korhonen, et al.         Expires April 30, 2015                 [Page 4]


Internet-Draft                    DOIC                      October 2014


   Throttling

      Throttling is the reduction of the number of requests sent to an
      entity.  Throttling can include a Diameter Client or Diameter
      Server dropping requests, or a Diameter Agent rejecting requests
      with appropriate error responses.  In extreme cases reporting
      nodes can also throttle requests when the requested reductions in
      traffic does not sufficiently address the overload scenario.



3.  Solution Overview

   The Diameter Overload Information Conveyance (DOIC) solution allows
   Diameter nodes to request other nodes to perform overload abatement
   actions, that is, actions to reduce the load offered to the
   overloaded node or realm.

   A Diameter node that supports DOIC is known as a "DOIC node".  Any
   Diameter node can act as a DOIC node, including clients, servers, and
   agents.  DOIC nodes are further divided into "Reporting Nodes" and
   "Reacting Nodes."  A reporting node requests overload abatement by
   sending an Overload Report (OLR) to one or more reacting nodes.

   A reacting node acts upon OLRs, and performs whatever actions are
   needed to fulfil the abatement requests included in the OLRs.  A
   Reporting node may report overload on its own behalf, or on behalf of
   other (typically upstream) nodes.  Likewise, a reacting node may
   perform overload abatement on its own behalf, or on behalf of other
   (typically downstream) nodes.

   A node's role as a DOIC node is independent of its Diameter role.
   For example, Diameter Relay and Proxy Agents may act as DOIC nodes,
   even though they are not endpoints in the Diameter sense.  Since
   Diameter enables bi-directional applications, where Diameter Servers
   can send requests towards Diameter Clients, a given Diameter node can
   simultaneously act as a reporting node and a reacting node.

   Likewise, a relay or proxy agent may act as a reacting node from the
   perspective of upstream nodes, and a reporting node from the
   perspective of downstream nodes.

   DOIC nodes do not generate new messages to carry DOIC related
   information.  Rather, they "piggyback" DOIC information over existing
   Diameter messages by inserting new AVPs into existing Diameter
   requests and responses.  Nodes indicate support for DOIC, and any
   needed DOIC parameters by inserting an OC_Supported_Features AVP




Korhonen, et al.         Expires April 30, 2015                 [Page 5]


Internet-Draft                    DOIC                      October 2014


   (Section 6.2) into existing requests and responses.  Reporting nodes
   send OLRs by inserting OC-OLR AVPs (Section 6.3).

   A given OLR applies to the Diameter realm and application of the
   Diameter message that carries it.  If a reporting node supports more
   than one realm and/or application, it reports independently for each
   combination of realm and application.  Similarly, the OC-Supported-
   Features AVP applies to the realm and application of the enclosing
   message.  This implies that a node may support DOIC for one
   application and/or realm, but not another, and may indicate different
   DOIC parameters for each application and realm for which it supports
   DOIC.

   Reacting nodes perform overload abatement according to an agreed-upon
   abatement algorithm.  An abatement algorithm defines the meaning of
   the parameters of an OLR and the procedures required for overload
   abatement.  This document specifies a single must-support algorithm,
   namely the "loss" algorithm (Section 5).  Future specifications may
   introduce new algorithms.

   Overload conditions may vary in scope.  For example, a single
   Diameter node may be overloaded, in which case reacting nodes may
   reasonably attempt to send requests to other destinations or via
   other agents.  On the other hand, an entire Diameter realm may be
   overloaded, in which case such attempts would do harm.  DOIC OLRs
   have a concept of "report type" (Section 6.6), where the type defines
   such behaviors.  Report types are extensible.  This document defines
   report types for overload of a specific server, and for overload of
   an entire realm.

   A report of type host is sent to indicate the overload of a specific
   server for the application-id indicated in the transaction.  When
   receiving an OLR of type host, a reacting node applies overload
   abatement to what is referred to in this document as host-routed
   requests.  This is the set of requests that the reacting node knows
   will be served by a particular host, either due to the presence of a
   Destination-Host AVP, or by some other local knowledge on the part of
   the reacting node.  The reacting node applies overload abatement on
   those host-routed requests which the reacting node knows will be
   served by the server that matches the Origin-Host AVP of the received
   message that contained the received OLR of type host.

   A report type of realm is sent to indicate the overload of all
   servers in a realm for the application-id.  When receiving an OLR of
   type realm, a reacting node applies overload abatement to what is
   referred to in this document as realm-routed requests.  This is the
   set of requests that are not host-routed as defined in the previous
   paragraph.



Korhonen, et al.         Expires April 30, 2015                 [Page 6]


Internet-Draft                    DOIC                      October 2014


   While a reporting node sends OLRs to "adjacent" reacting nodes, nodes
   that are "adjacent" for DOIC purposes may not be adjacent from a
   Diameter, or transport, perspective.  For example, one or more
   Diameter agents that do not support DOIC may exist between a given
   pair of reporting and reacting nodes, as long as those agents pass
   unknown AVPs through unchanged.  The report types described in this
   document can safely pass through non-supporting agents.  This may not
   be true for report types defined in future specifications.  Documents
   that introduce new report types MUST describe any limitations on
   their use across non-supporting agents.

3.1.  Piggybacking Principle

   The overload control AVPs defined in this specification have been
   designed to be piggybacked on top of existing application messages.
   This is made possible by adding overload control top-level AVPs, the
   OC-OLR AVP and the OC-Supported-Features AVP, as optional AVPs into
   existing commands when the corresponding Command Code Format (CCF)
   specification allows adding new optional AVPs (see Section 1.3.4 of
   [RFC6733]).

   Reacting nodes indicate support for DOIC by including the OC-
   Supported-Features AVP in all request messages originated or relayed
   by the reacting node.

   Reporting nodes indicate support for DOIC by including the OC-
   Supported-Features AVP in all answer messages originated or relayed
   by the reporting node.  Reporting nodes also include overload reports
   using the OC-OLR AVP in answer messages.

      Note: There is no new Diameter application defined to carry
      overload related AVPs.  The DOIC AVPs are carried in existing
      Diameter application messages.

   Note that the overload control solution does not have fixed server
   and client roles.  The DOIC node role is determined based on the
   message type: whether the message is a request (i.e. sent by a
   "reacting node") or an answer (i.e. send by a "reporting node").
   Therefore, in a typical "client-server" deployment, the Diameter
   Client MAY report its overload condition to the Diameter Server for
   any Diameter Server initiated message exchange.  An example of such
   is the Diameter Server requesting a re-authentication from a Diameter
   Client.








Korhonen, et al.         Expires April 30, 2015                 [Page 7]


Internet-Draft                    DOIC                      October 2014


3.2.  DOIC Capability Announcement

   The DOIC solution supports the ability for Diameter nodes to
   determine if other nodes in the path of a request support the
   solution.  This capability is referred to as DOIC Capability
   Announcement (DCA) and is separate from Diameter Capability Exchange.

   The DCA solution uses the OC-Supported-Features AVPs to indicate the
   Diameter overload features supported.

   The first node in the path of a Diameter request that supports the
   DOIC solution inserts the OC-Supported-Feature AVP in the request
   message.  This includes an indication that it supports the loss
   overload abatement algorithm defined in this specification (see
   Section 5).  This ensures that there is at least one commonly
   supported overload abatement algorithm between the reporting node and
   the reacting nodes in the path of the request.

      DOIC must support deployments where Diameter Clients and/or
      Diameter Servers do not support the DOIC solution.  In this
      scenario, it is assumed that Diameter Agents that support the DOIC
      solution will handle overload abatement for the non supporting
      Diameter nodes.  In this case the DOIC agent will insert the OC-
      Supporting-Features AVP in requests that do not already contain
      one, telling the reporting node that there is a DOIC node that
      will handle overload abatement.

   The reporting node inserts the OC-Supported-Feature AVP in all answer
   messages to requests that contained the OC-Supported-Feature AVP.
   The contents of the reporting node's OC-Supported-Feature AVP
   indicate the set of Diameter overload features supported by the
   reporting node with one exception.

   The reporting node only includes an indication of support for one
   overload abatement algorithm.  This is the algorithm that the
   reporting node intends to use should it enter an overload condition
   or requests to use while it actually is in an overload condition.
   Reacting nodes can use the indicated overload abatement algorithm to
   prepare for possible overload reports and must use the indicated
   overload abatement algorithm if traffic reduction is actually
   requested.

      Note that the loss algorithm defined in this document is a
      stateless abatement algorithm.  As a result it does not require
      any actions by reacting nodes prior to the receipt of an overload
      report.  Stateful abatement algorithms that base the abatement
      logic on a history of request messages sent might require reacting




Korhonen, et al.         Expires April 30, 2015                 [Page 8]


Internet-Draft                    DOIC                      October 2014


      nodes to maintain state to ensure that overload reports can be
      properly handled.

   The individual features supported by the DOIC nodes are indicated in
   the OC-Feature-Vector AVP.  Any semantics associated with the
   features will be defined in extension specifications that introduce
   the features.

   The DCA mechanism must also support the scenario where the set of
   features supported by the sender of a request and by agents in the
   path of a request differ.  In this case, the agent updates the OC-
   Supported-Feature AVP to reflect the mixture of the two sets of
   supported features.

      The logic to determine the content of the modified OC-Supported-
      Feature AVP is out-of-scope for this specification and is left to
      implementation decisions.  Care must be taken not to introduce
      interoperability issues for downstream or upstream DOIC nodes.

3.3.  DOIC Overload Condition Reporting

   As with DOIC Capability Announcement, Overload Condition Reporting
   uses new AVPs (Section 6.3) to indicate an overload condition.

   The OC-OLR AVP is referred to as an overload report.  The OC-OLR AVP
   includes the type of report, a sequence number, the length of time
   that the report is valid and abatement algorithm specific AVPs.

   Two types of overload reports are defined in this document, host
   reports and realm reports.

   A report of type host is sent to indicate the overload of a specific
   Diameter node for the application-id indicated in the transaction.
   When receiving an OLR of type host, a reacting node applies overload
   abatement to what is referred to in this document as host-routed
   requests.  This is the set of requests that the reacting node knows
   will be served by a particular host, either due to the presence of a
   Destination-Host AVP, or by some other local knowledge on the part of
   the reacting node.  The reacting node applies overload abatement on
   those host-routed requests which the reacting node knows will be
   served by the server that matches the Origin-Host AVP of the received
   message that contained the received OLR of type host.

   Realm reports apply to realm-routed requests for a specific realm as
   indicated in the Destination-Realm AVP.

   Reporting nodes are responsible for determining the need for a
   reduction of traffic.  The method for making this determination is



Korhonen, et al.         Expires April 30, 2015                 [Page 9]


Internet-Draft                    DOIC                      October 2014


   implementation specific and depend on the type of overload report
   being generated.  A host report, for instance, will generally be
   generated by tracking utilization of resources required by the host
   to handle transactions for the Diameter application.  A realm report
   will generally impact the traffic sent to multiple hosts and, as
   such, will typically require tracking the capacity of the servers
   able to handle realm-routed requests for the application.

   Once a reporting node determines the need for a reduction in traffic,
   it uses the DOIC defined AVPs to report on the condition.  These AVPs
   are included in answer messages sent or relayed by the reporting
   node.  The reporting node indicates the overload abatement algorithm
   that is to be used to handle the traffic reduction in the OC-
   Supported-Features AVP.  The OC-OLR AVP is used to communicate
   information about the requested reduction.

   Reacting nodes, upon receipt of an overload report, are responsible
   for applying the abatement algorithm to traffic impacted by the
   overload report.  The method used for that abatement is dependent on
   the abatement algorithm.  The loss abatement algorithm is defined in
   this document (Section 5).  Other abatement algorithms can be defined
   in extensions to the DOIC solutions.

   As the conditions that lead to the generation of the overload report
   change the reporting node can send new overload reports requesting
   greater reduction if the condition gets worse or less reduction if
   the condition improves.  The reporting node sends an overload report
   with a duration of zero to indicate that the overload condition has
   ended and use of the abatement algorithm is no longer needed.

   The reacting node also determines when the overload report expires
   based on the OC-Validity-Duration AVP in the overload report and
   stops applying the abatement algorithm when the report expires.

3.4.  DOIC Extensibility

   The DOIC solution is designed to be extensible.  This extensibility
   is based on existing Diameter based extensibility mechanisms.

   There are multiple categories of extensions that are expected.  This
   includes the definition of new overload abatement algorithms, the
   definition of new report types and new definitions of the scope of
   messages impacted by an overload report.

   The DOIC solution uses the OC-Supported-Features AVP for DOIC nodes
   to communicate supported features.  The specific features supported
   by the DOIC node are indicated in the OC-Feature-Vector AVP.  DOIC
   extensions must define new values for the OC-Feature-Vector AVP.



Korhonen, et al.         Expires April 30, 2015                [Page 10]


Internet-Draft                    DOIC                      October 2014


   DOIC extensions also have the ability to add new AVPs to the OC-
   Supported-Features AVP, if additional information about the new
   feature is required.

   Reporting nodes use the OC-OLR AVP to communicate overload
   occurrences.  This AVP can also be extended to add new AVPs allowing
   a reporting nodes to communicate additional information about
   handling an overload condition.

   If necessary, new extensions can also define new top-level AVPs.  It
   is, however, recommended that DOIC extensions use the OC-Supported-
   Features and OC-OLR to carry all DOIC related AVPs.

3.5.  Simplified Example Architecture

   Figure 1 illustrates the simplified architecture for Diameter
   overload information conveyance.


    Realm X                                  Same or other Realms
   <--------------------------------------> <---------------------->


      +--^-----+                 : (optional) :
      |Diameter|                 :            :
      |Server A|--+     .--.     : +---^----+ :     .--.
      +--------+  |   _(    `.   : |Diameter| :   _(    `.   +---^----+
                  +--(        )--:-|  Agent |-:--(        )--|Diameter|
      +--------+  | ( `  .  )  ) : +-----^--+ : ( `  .  )  ) | Client |
      |Diameter|--+  `--(___.-'  :            :  `--(___.-'  +-----^--+
      |Server B|                 :            :
      +---^----+                 :            :

                          End-to-end Overload Indication
             1)  <----------------------------------------------->
                             Diameter Application Y

                  Overload Indication A    Overload Indication A'
             2)  <----------------------> <---------------------->
                 standard base protocol   standard base protocol



     Figure 1: Simplified architecture choices for overload indication
                                 delivery

   In Figure 1, the Diameter overload indication can be conveyed (1)
   end-to-end between servers and clients or (2) between servers and



Korhonen, et al.         Expires April 30, 2015                [Page 11]


Internet-Draft                    DOIC                      October 2014


   Diameter agent inside the realm and then between the Diameter agent
   and the clients.

4.  Solution Procedures

   This section outlines the normative behavior associated with the DOIC
   solution.

4.1.  Capability Announcement

   This section defines DOIC Capability Announcement (DCA) behavior.

4.1.1.  Reacting Node Behavior

   A reacting node MUST include the OC-Supported-Features AVP in all
   request messages.

   A reacting node MAY include the OC-Feature-Vector AVP with an
   indication of the loss algorithm.  A reacting node MUST include the
   OC-Feature-Vector AVP to indicate support for abatement algorithms in
   addition to the loss algorithm.

   A reacting node SHOULD indicate support for all other DOIC features
   it supports.

      Not all DOIC features will necessarily apply to all transactions.
      For instance, there may be a future extension that only applies to
      session based applications.  A reacting node that supports this
      extension can choose to not include it for non session based
      applications.

   An OC-Supported-Features AVP in answer messages indicates there is a
   reporting node for the transaction.  The reacting node MAY take
   action based on the features indicated in the OC-Feature-Vector AVP.

      Note that the loss abatement algorithm is the only feature
      described in this document and it does not require action to be
      taken when there is an active overload report.  This behavior is
      described in Section 4.2 and Section 5.

4.1.2.  Reporting Node Behavior

   Upon receipt of a request message, a reporting node determines if
   there is a reacting node for the transaction based on the presence of
   the OC-Supported-Features AVP.






Korhonen, et al.         Expires April 30, 2015                [Page 12]


Internet-Draft                    DOIC                      October 2014


   If the request message contains an OC-Supported-Features AVP then the
   reporting node MUST include the OC-Supported-Features AVP in the
   answer message for that transaction.

   The reporting node MUST NOT include the OC-Supported-Features AVP,
   OC-OLR AVP or any other overload control AVPs defined in extension
   drafts in response messages for transactions where the request
   message does not include the OC-Supported-Features AVP.  Lack of the
   OC-Supported-Features AVP in the request message indicates that there
   is no reacting node for the transaction.

   Based on the content of the OC-Supported-Features AVP in the request
   message, the reporting node knows what overload control functionality
   is supported by the reacting node.  The reporting node then acts
   accordingly for the subsequent answer messages it initiates.

   The reporting node MUST indicate support for one and only one
   abatement algorithm in the OC-Feature-Vector AVP.  The abatement
   algorithm included MUST be from the set of abatement algorithms
   contained in the request message's OC-Supported-Features AVP.  The
   abatement algorithm included MUST indicate the abatement algorithm
   the reporting node wants the reacting node to use when the reporting
   node enters an overload condition.

   For an ongoing overload state, a reacting node MUST keep the
   algorithm that was selected by the reporting node in further requests
   towards the reporting node.  The reporting node SHOULD NOT change the
   selected algorithm during a period of time that it is in an overload
   condition and, as a result, is sending OC-OLR AVPs in answer
   messages.

   The reporting node SHOULD indicate support for other DOIC features
   defined in extension drafts that it supports and that apply to the
   transaction.

      Note that not all DOIC features will apply to all Diameter
      applications or deployment scenarios.  The features included in
      the OC-Feature-Vector AVP are based on local reporting node
      policy.

4.1.3.  Agent Behavior

   Diameter agents that support DOIC MUST ensure that all messages have
   the OC-Supporting-Features AVP.  If a message handled by the DOIC
   agent does not include the OC-Supported-Features AVP then the DOIC
   agent inserts the AVP.  If the message already has the AVP then the
   agent either leaves it unchanged in the relayed message or modifies
   it to reflect a mixed set of DOIC features.



Korhonen, et al.         Expires April 30, 2015                [Page 13]


Internet-Draft                    DOIC                      October 2014


   An agent MAY modify the OC-Supported-Features AVP carried in answer
   messages.

      For instance, if the agent supports a superset of the features
      reported by the reacting node then the agent might choose, based
      on local policy, to advertise that superset of features to the
      reporting node.

      If the agent modifies the OC-Supported-Features AVP sent to the
      reporting node then it might also need to modify the OC-Supported-
      Features AVP sent to a reacting node in the subsequent answer
      message, as it cannot send an indication of support for features
      that are not supported by the reacting node.

      Editor's note: There is an open issue on the wording around agent
      behavior in this case that needs to be resolved prior to finishing
      this document.

4.2.  Overload Report Processing

4.2.1.  Overload Control State

   Both reacting and reporting nodes maintain Overload Control State
   (OCS) for active overload conditions.

4.2.1.1.  Overload Control State for Reacting Nodes

   A reacting node SHOULD maintain the following OCS per supported
   Diameter application:

   o  A host-type OCS entry for each Destination-Host to which it sends
      host-type requests and

   o  A realm-type OCS entry for each Destination-Realm to which it
      sends realm-type requests.

   A host-type OCS entry is identified by the pair of Application-Id and
   Host-Id.

   A realm-type OCS entry is identified by the pair of Application-Id
   and Realm-Id.

   The host-type and realm-type OCS entries MAY include the following
   information (the actual information stored is an implementation
   decision):

   o  Sequence number (as received in OC-OLR)




Korhonen, et al.         Expires April 30, 2015                [Page 14]


Internet-Draft                    DOIC                      October 2014


   o  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)

   o  Selected Abatement Algorithm (as received in OC-Supported-Features
      AVP)

   o  Abatement Algorithm specific input data (as received within the
      OC-OLR AVP, for example, OC-Reduction-Percentage for the Loss
      abatement algorithm)

4.2.1.2.  Overload Control State for Reporting Nodes

   A reporting node SHOULD maintain OCS entries per supported Diameter
   application, per supported (and eventually selected) Abatement
   Algorithm and per report-type.

   An OCS entry is identified by the pair of Application-Id and
   Abatement Algorithm.

   The OCS entry for a given pair of Application and Abatement Algorithm
   MAY include the information (the actual information stored is an
   implementation decision):

   o  Report type

   o  Sequence number

   o  Validity Duration

   o  Expiration Time

   o  Algorithm specific input data (for example, the Reduction
      Percentage for the Loss Abatement Algorithm)

4.2.1.3.  Reacting Node Maintenance of Overload Control State

   When a reacting node receives an OC-OLR AVP, it MUST determine if it
   is for an existing or new overload condition.

      For the remainder of this section the term OLR referres to the
      combination of the contents of the received OC-OLR AVP and the
      abatement algorithm indicated in the received OC-Supported-
      Features AVP.

   The OLR is for an existing overload condition if the reacting node
   has an OCS that matches the received OLR.




Korhonen, et al.         Expires April 30, 2015                [Page 15]


Internet-Draft                    DOIC                      October 2014


   For a host report-type this means it matches the app-id and host-id
   in an existing host OCS entry.

   For a realm report-type this means it matches the app-id and realm-id
   in an existing realm OCS entry.

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

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

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

   For a host report-type this means it creates on OCS entry with the
   app-id of the application-id in the received message and host-id of
   the Origin-Host in the received message.

      Note: This solution assumes that the Origin-Host AVP in the answer
      message included by the reporting node is not changed along the
      path to the reacting node.

   For a realm report-type this means it creates on OCS entry with the
   app-id of the application-id in the received message and realm-id of
   the Origin-Realm in the received message.

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

      Note that it is not necessarily appropriate to delete the OCS
      entry, as there is recommended behavior that the reacting node
      slowly returns to full traffic when ending an overload abatement
      period.

   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").






Korhonen, et al.         Expires April 30, 2015                [Page 16]


Internet-Draft                    DOIC                      October 2014


4.2.1.4.  Reporting Node Maintenance of Overload Control State

   A reporting node SHOULD create a new OCS entry when entering an
   overload condition.

      If the reporting node knows through absence of the OC-Supported-
      Features AVP in received messages that there are no reacting nodes
      supporting DOIC then the reporting node can choose to not create
      OCS entries.

   When generating a new OCS entry the sequence number MAY be set to any
   value if there is no unexpired overload report for previous overload
   conditions sent to any reacting node for the same application and
   report-type.

   When generating sequence numbers for new overload conditions, the new
   sequence number MUST be greater than any sequence number in an active
   (unexpired) overload report previously sent by the reporting node.
   This property MUST hold over a reboot of the reporting node.

   The reporting node MUST update an OCS entry when it needs to adjust
   the validity duration of the overload condition at reacting nodes.

      For instance, if the reporting node wishes to instruct reacting
      nodes to continue overload abatement for a longer period of time
      that originally communicated.  This also applies if the reporting
      node wishes to shorten the period of time that overload abatement
      is to continue.

   A reporting node MUST NOT update the abatement algorithm in an active
   OCS entry.

   A reporting node MUST update an OCS entry when it wishes to adjust
   any abatement algorithm specific parameters, including the reduction
   percentage used for the Loss abatement algorithm.

      For instance, if the reporting node wishes to change the reduction
      percentage either higher, if the overload condition has worsened,
      or lower, if the overload condition has improved, then the
      reporting node would update the appropriate OCS entry.

   The reporting node MUST update the sequence number associated with
   the OCS entry anytime the contents of the OCS entry are changed.
   This will result in a new sequence number being sent to reacting
   nodes, instructing the reacting nodes to process the OC-OLR AVP.

   A reporting node SHOULD update an OCS entry with a validity duration
   of zero ("0") when the overload condition ends.



Korhonen, et al.         Expires April 30, 2015                [Page 17]


Internet-Draft                    DOIC                      October 2014


      If the reporting node knows that the OCS entries in the reacting
      nodes are near expiration then the reporting node can decide to
      delete the OCS entry.

   The reporting node MUST keep an OCS entry with a validity duration of
   zero ("0") for a period of time long enough to ensure that any non-
   expired reacting node's OCS entry created as a result of the overload
   condition in the reporting node is deleted.

4.2.2.  Reacting Node Behavior

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

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

   For the Loss abatement algorithm defined in this specification, see
   Section 5 for the abatement logic applied.

   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 as defined in section Section 7.

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

4.2.3.  Reporting Node Behavior

   The operation on the reporting node is straight forward.

   If there is an active OCS entry then the reporting node SHOULD
   include the OC-OLR AVP in all answer messages to requests that
   contain the OC-Supported-Features AVP and that match the active OCS
   entry.

      A request matches if the application-id in the request matches the
      application-id in any active OCS entry and if the report-type in
      the OCS entry matches a report-type supported by the reporting
      node as indicated in the OC-Supported-Features AVP.

   The contents of the OC-OLR AVP MUST contain all information necessary
   for the abatement algorithm indicated in the OC-Supported-Features
   AVP that is also included in the answer message.



Korhonen, et al.         Expires April 30, 2015                [Page 18]


Internet-Draft                    DOIC                      October 2014


   A reporting node MAY choose to not resend an overload report to a
   reacting node if it can guarantee that this overload report is
   already active in the reacting node.

      Note - In some cases (e.g. when there are one or more agents in
      the path between reporting and reacting nodes, or when overload
      reports are discarded by reacting nodes) the reporting node may
      not be able to guarantee that the reacting node has received the
      report.

   A reporting node MUST NOT send overload reports of a type that has
   not been advertised as supported by the reacting node.

      Note that a reacting node advertises support for the host and
      realm report types by including the OC-Supported-Features AVP in
      the request.  Support for other report types must be explicitly
      indicated by new feature bits in the OC-Feature-Vector AVP.

   A reporting node MAY rely on the OC-Validity-Duration AVP values for
   the implicit overload control state cleanup on the reacting node.
   However, it is RECOMMENDED that the reporting node always explicitly
   indicates the end of a overload condition.

   The reporting node SHOULD indicate the end of an overload occurrence
   by sending a new OLR with OC-Validity-Duration set to a value of zero
   ("0").  The reporting node SHOULD ensure that all reacting nodes
   receive the updated overload report.

      All OLRs sent have an expiration time calculated by adding the
      validity-duration contained in the OLR to the time the message was
      sent.  Transit time for the OLR can be safely ignored.  The
      reporting node can ensure that all reacting nodes have received
      the OLR by continuing to send it in answer messages until the
      expiration time for all OLRs sent for that overload condition have
      expired.

   When a reporting node sends an OLR, it effectively delegates any
   necessary throttling to downstream nodes.  Therefore, the reporting
   node SHOULD NOT apply throttling to the set of messages to which the
   OLR applies.  That is, the same candidate set of messages SHOULD NOT
   be throttled multiple times.

   However, when the reporting node sends and OLR downstream, it MAY
   still be responsible to apply other abatement methods such as
   diversion.  The reporting node might also need to throttle requests
   for reasons other then overload.  For example, an agent or server
   might have a configured rate limit for each client, and throttle




Korhonen, et al.         Expires April 30, 2015                [Page 19]


Internet-Draft                    DOIC                      October 2014


   requests that exceed that limit, even if such requests had already
   been candidates for throttling by downstream nodes.

   This document assumes that there is a single source for realm-reports
   for a given realm, or that if multiple nodes can send realm reports,
   that each such node has full knowledge of the overload state of the
   entire realm.  A reacting node cannot distinguish between receiving
   realm-reports from a single node, or from multiple nodes.

      Editor's Note: There is not yet consensus on the above two
      paragraphs.  Two alternatives are under consideration --
      synchronization of sequence numbers and attribution of reports.
      If no consensus is reached then it will be left to be addressed as
      an extension.

4.3.  Protocol Extensibility

   The overload control solution can be extended, e.g. with new traffic
   abatement algorithms, new report types or other new functionality.

   When defining a new extension a new feature bit MUST be defined for
   the OC-Feature-Vector.  This feature bit is used to communicate
   support for the new feature.

   The extension MAY define new AVPs for use in DOIC Capability
   Announcement and for use in DOIC Overload reporting.  These new AVPs
   SHOULD be defined to be extensions to the OC-Supported-Features and
   OC-OLR AVPs defined in this document.

   It should be noted that [RFC6733] defined Grouped AVP extension
   mechanisms apply.  This allows, for example, defining a new feature
   that is mandatory to be understood even when piggybacked on an
   existing application.

   The handling of feature bits in the OC-Feature-Vector AVP that are
   not associated with overload abatement algorithms MUST be specified
   by the extensions that define the features.

   When defining new report type values, the corresponding specification
   MUST define the semantics of the new report types and how they affect
   the OC-OLR AVP handling.  The specification MUST also reserve a
   corresponding new feature bit in the OC-Feature-Vector AVP.

   The OC-OLR AVP can be expanded with optional sub-AVPs only if a
   legacy DOIC implementation can safely ignore them without breaking
   backward compatibility for the given OC-Report-Type AVP value.  If
   the new sub-AVPs imply new semantics for handling the indicated
   report type, then a new OC-Report-Type AVP value MUST be defined.



Korhonen, et al.         Expires April 30, 2015                [Page 20]


Internet-Draft                    DOIC                      October 2014


   New features (feature bits in the OC-Feature-Vector AVP) and report
   types (in the OC-Report-Type AVP) MUST be registered with IANA.  As
   with any Diameter specification, new AVPs MUST also be registered
   with IANA.  See Section 8 for the required procedures.

5.  Loss Algorithm

   This section documents the Diameter overload loss abatement
   algorithm.

5.1.  Overview

   The DOIC specification supports the ability for multiple overload
   abatement algorithms to be specified.  The abatement algorithm used
   for any instance of overload is determined by the Diameter Overload
   Capability Announcement process documented in Section 4.1.

   The loss algorithm described in this section is the default algorithm
   that must be supported by all Diameter nodes that support DOIC.

   The loss algorithm is designed to be a straightforward and stateless
   overload abatement algorithm.  It is used by reporting nodes to
   request a percentage reduction in the amount of traffic sent.  The
   traffic impacted by the requested reduction depends on the type of
   overload report.

   Reporting nodes use a strategy of applying abatement logic to the
   requested percentage of request messages sent (or handled in the case
   of agents) by the reacting node that are impacted by the overload
   report.

   From a conceptual level, the logic at the reacting node could be
   outlined as follows.

   1.  An overload report is received and the associated overload state
       is either saved or updated (if required) by the reacting node.

   2.  A new Diameter request is generated by the application running on
       the reacting node.

   3.  The reacting node determines that an active overload report
       applies to the request, as indicated by the corresponding OCS
       entry.

   4.  The reacting node determines if abatement should be applied to
       the request.  One approach that could be taken for each request
       is to select a random number between 1 and 100.  If the random
       number is less than the indicated reduction percentage then the



Korhonen, et al.         Expires April 30, 2015                [Page 21]


Internet-Draft                    DOIC                      October 2014


       request is given abatement treatment, otherwise the request is
       given normal routing treatment.

5.2.  Reporting Node Behavior

   The method a reporting nodes uses to determine the amount of traffic
   reduction required to address an overload condition is an
   implementation decision.

   When a reporting node that has selected the loss abatement algorithm
   determines the need to request a traffic reduction it includes an OC-
   OLR AVP in response messages as described in Section 4.2.3.

   The reporting node MUST indicate a percentage reduction in the OC-
   Reduction-Percentage AVP.

   The reporting node MAY change the reduction percentage in subsequent
   overload reports.  When doing so the reporting node must conform to
   overload report handing specified in Section 4.2.3.

   When the reporting node determines it no longer needs a reduction in
   traffic the reporting node SHOULD send an overload report indicating
   the overload report is no longer valid, as specified in
   Section 4.2.3.

5.3.  Reacting Node Behavior

   The method a reacting node uses to determine which request messages
   are given abatement treatment is an implementation decision.

   When receiving an OC-OLR in an answer message where the algorithm
   indicated in the OC-Supported-Features AVP is the loss algorithm, the
   reacting node MUST apply abatement treatment to the requested
   percentage of request messages sent.

      Note: the loss algorithm is a stateless algorithm.  As a result,
      the reacting node does not guarantee that there will be an
      absolute reduction in traffic sent.  Rather, it guarantees that
      the requested percentage of new requests will be given abatement
      treatment.

   When applying overload abatement treatment for the load abatement
   algorithm, the reacting node MUST abate, either by throttling or
   diversion, the requested percentage of requests that would have
   otherwise been sent to the reporting host or realm.

   If reacting node comes out of the 100 percent traffic reduction as a
   result of the overload report timing out, the following concerns are



Korhonen, et al.         Expires April 30, 2015                [Page 22]


Internet-Draft                    DOIC                      October 2014


   RECOMMENDED to be applied.  The reacting node sending the traffic
   should be conservative and, for example, first send "probe" messages
   to learn the overload condition of the overloaded node before
   converging to any traffic amount/rate decided by the sender.  Similar
   concerns apply in all cases when the overload report times out unless
   the previous overload report stated 0 percent reduction.

   If the reacting node does not receive an OLR in messages sent to the
   formerly overloaded node then the reacting node SHOULD slowly
   increase the rate of traffic sent to the overloaded node.

   It is suggested that the reacting node decrease the amount of traffic
   given abatement treatment by 20% each second until the reduction is
   completely removed and no traffic is given abatement treatment.

      The goal of this behavior is to reduce the probability of overload
      condition thrashing where an immediate transition from 100%
      reduction to 0% reduction results in the reporting node moving
      quickly back into an overload condition.

6.  Attribute Value Pairs

   This section describes the encoding and semantics of the Diameter
   Overload Indication Attribute Value Pairs (AVPs) defined in this
   document.

   A new application specification can incorporate the overload control
   mechanism specified in this document by making it mandatory to
   implement for the application and referencing this specification
   normatively.  It is the responsibility of the Diameter application
   designers to define how overload control mechanisms works on that
   application.

6.1.  OC-Supported-Features AVP

   The OC-Supported-Features AVP (AVP code TBD1) is type of Grouped and
   serves two purposes.  First, it announces a node's support for the
   DOIC solution in general.  Second, it contains the description of the
   supported DOIC features of the sending node.  The OC-Supported-
   Features AVP MUST be included in every Diameter request message a
   DOIC supporting node sends.

      OC-Supported-Features ::= < AVP Header: TBD1 >
                                [ OC-Feature-Vector ]
                              * [ AVP ]






Korhonen, et al.         Expires April 30, 2015                [Page 23]


Internet-Draft                    DOIC                      October 2014


   The OC-Feature-Vector sub-AVP is used to announce the DOIC features
   supported by the DOIC node, in the form of a flag bits field in which
   each bit announces one feature or capability supported by the node
   (see Section 6.2).  The absence of the OC-Feature-Vector AVP
   indicates that only the default traffic abatement algorithm described
   in this specification is supported.

6.2.  OC-Feature-Vector AVP

   The OC-Feature-Vector AVP (AVP code TBD6) is type of Unsigned64 and
   contains a 64 bit flags field of announced capabilities of a DOIC
   node.  The value of zero (0) is reserved.

   The following capabilities are defined in this document:

   OLR_DEFAULT_ALGO (0x0000000000000001)

      When this flag is set by the DOIC node it means that the default
      traffic abatement (loss) algorithm is supported.

6.3.  OC-OLR AVP

   The OC-OLR AVP (AVP code TBD2) is type of Grouped and contains the
   information necessary to convey an overload report on an overload
   condition at the reporting node.  The OC-OLR AVP does not explicitly
   contain all information needed by the reacting node to decide whether
   a subsequent request must undergo a throttling process with the
   received reduction percentage.  The value of the OC-Report-Type AVP
   within the OC-OLR AVP indicates which implicit information is
   relevant for this decision (see Section 6.6).  The application the
   OC-OLR AVP applies to is the same as the Application-Id found in the
   Diameter message header.  The host or realm the OC-OLR AVP concerns
   is determined from the Origin-Host AVP and/or Origin-Realm AVP found
   in the encapsulating Diameter command.  The OC-OLR AVP is intended to
   be sent only by a reporting node.

      OC-OLR ::= < AVP Header: TBD2 >
                 < OC-Sequence-Number >
                 < OC-Report-Type >
                 [ OC-Reduction-Percentage ]
                 [ OC-Validity-Duration ]
               * [ AVP ]


   Note that if a Diameter command were to contain multiple OC-OLR AVPs
   they all MUST have different OC-Report-Type AVP value.  OC-OLR AVPs
   with unknown values SHOULD be silently discarded by reacting nodes
   and the event SHOULD be logged.



Korhonen, et al.         Expires April 30, 2015                [Page 24]


Internet-Draft                    DOIC                      October 2014


6.4.  OC-Sequence-Number AVP

   The OC-Sequence-Number AVP (AVP code TBD3) is type of Unsigned64.
   Its usage in the context of overload control is described in
   Section 4.2.

   From the functionality point of view, the OC-Sequence-Number AVP MUST
   be used as a non-volatile increasing counter for a sequence of
   overload reports between two DOIC nodes for the same overload
   occurrence.  The sequence number is only required to be unique
   between two DOIC nodes.  Sequence numbers are treated in a uni-
   directional manner, i.e. two sequence numbers on each direction
   between two DOIC nodes are not related or correlated.

6.5.  OC-Validity-Duration AVP

   The OC-Validity-Duration AVP (AVP code TBD4) is type of Unsigned32
   and indicates in milliseconds the validity time of the overload
   report.  The number of milliseconds is measured after reception of
   the first OC-OLR AVP with a given value of OC-Sequence-Number AVP.
   The default value for the OC-Validity-Duration AVP is 5000 (i.e., 5
   seconds).  When the OC-Validity-Duration AVP is not present in the
   OC-OLR AVP, the default value applies.  Validity duration with values
   above 86400 (i.e.; 24 hours) MUST NOT be used.  Invalid duration
   values are treated as if the OC-Validity-Duration AVP were not
   present and result in the default value being used.

   Editor's note: There is an open discussion on whether to have an
   upper limit on the OC-Validity-Duration value, beyond that which can
   be indicated by an Unsigned32.

   A timeout of the overload report has specific concerns that need to
   be taken into account by the DOIC node acting on the earlier received
   overload report(s).  Section 6.7 discusses the impacts of timeout in
   the scope of the traffic abatement algorithms.

6.6.  OC-Report-Type AVP

   The OC-Report-Type AVP (AVP code TBD5) is type of Enumerated.  The
   value of the AVP describes what the overload report concerns.  The
   following values are initially defined:

   0  A host report.  The overload treatment should apply to requests
      for which all of the following conditions are true:

      Either the Destination-Host AVP is present in the request and its
      value matches the value of the Origin-Host AVP of the received
      message that contained the OC-OLR AVP; or the Destination-Host is



Korhonen, et al.         Expires April 30, 2015                [Page 25]


Internet-Draft                    DOIC                      October 2014


      not present in the request but the value of the peer identity
      associated with the connection used to send the request matches
      the value of the Origin-Host AVP of the received message that
      contained the OC-OLR AVP.

      The value of the Destination-Realm AVP in the request matches the
      value of the Origin-Realm AVP of the received message that
      contained the OC-OLR AVP.

      The value of the Application-ID in the Diameter Header of the
      request matches the value of the Application-ID of the Diameter
      Header of the received message that contained the OC-OLR AVP.

   1  A realm report.  The overload treatment should apply to requests
      for which all of the following conditions are true:

      The Destination-Host AVP is absent in the requestand the value of
      the peer identity associated with the connection used to send the
      request does not match a server that could serve the request.

      The value of the Destination-Realm AVP in the request matches the
      value of the Origin-Realm AVP of the received message that
      contained the OC-OLR AVP.

      The value of the Application-ID in the Diameter Header of the
      request matches the value of the Application-ID of the Diameter
      Header of the received message that contained the OC-OLR AVP.

   The OC-Report-Type AVP is envisioned to be useful for situations
   where a reacting node needs to apply different overload treatments
   for different overload contexts.  For example, the reacting node(s)
   might need to throttle differently requests sent to a specific server
   (identified by the Destination-Host AVP in the request) and requests
   that can be handled by any server in a realm.

6.7.  OC-Reduction-Percentage AVP

   The OC-Reduction-Percentage AVP (AVP code TBD8) is type of Unsigned32
   and describes the percentage of the traffic that the sender is
   requested to reduce, compared to what it otherwise would send.  The
   OC-Reduction-Percentage AVP applies to the default (loss) algorithm
   specified in this specification.  However, the AVP can be reused for
   future abatement algorithms, if its semantics fit into the new
   algorithm.

   The value of the Reduction-Percentage AVP is between zero (0) and one
   hundred (100).  Values greater than 100 are ignored.  The value of
   100 means that all traffic is to be throttled, i.e. the reporting



Korhonen, et al.         Expires April 30, 2015                [Page 26]


Internet-Draft                    DOIC                      October 2014


   node is under a severe load and ceases to process any new messages.
   The value of 0 means that the reporting node is in a stable state and
   has no need for the reacting node to apply any traffic abatement.
   The default value of the OC-Reduction-Percentage AVP is 0.  When the
   OC-Reduction-Percentage AVP is not present in the overload report,
   the default value applies.

6.8.  Attribute Value Pair flag rules

                                                         +---------+
                                                         |AVP flag |
                                                         |rules    |
                                                         +----+----+
                              AVP   Section              |    |MUST|
       Attribute Name         Code  Defined  Value Type  |MUST| NOT|
      +--------------------------------------------------+----+----+
      |OC-Supported-Features  TBD1  x.x      Grouped     |    | V  |
      +--------------------------------------------------+----+----+
      |OC-OLR                 TBD2  x.x      Grouped     |    | V  |
      +--------------------------------------------------+----+----+
      |OC-Sequence-Number     TBD3  x.x      Unsigned64  |    | V  |
      +--------------------------------------------------+----+----+
      |OC-Validity-Duration   TBD4  x.x      Unsigned32  |    | V  |
      +--------------------------------------------------+----+----+
      |OC-Report-Type         TBD5  x.x      Enumerated  |    | V  |
      +--------------------------------------------------+----+----+
      |OC-Reduction                                      |    |    |
      |  -Percentage          TBD8  x.x      Unsigned32  |    | V  |
      +--------------------------------------------------+----+----+
      |OC-Feature-Vector      TBD6  x.x      Unsigned64  |    | V  |
      +--------------------------------------------------+----+----+


   As described in the Diameter base protocol [RFC6733], the M-bit
   setting for a given AVP is relevant to an application and each
   command within that application that includes the AVP.

   The Diameter overload control AVPs SHOULD always be sent with the
   M-bit cleared when used within existing Diameter applications to
   avoid backward compatibility issues.  Otherwise, when reused in newly
   defined Diameter applications, the DOC related AVPs SHOULD have the
   M-bit set.

7.  Error Response Codes

   When a DOIC node rejects a Diameter request due to overload, the DOIC
   node MUST select an appropriate error response code.  This




Korhonen, et al.         Expires April 30, 2015                [Page 27]


Internet-Draft                    DOIC                      October 2014


   determination is made based on the probability of the request
   succeeding if retried on a different path.

   A reporting node rejecting a Diameter request due to an overload
   condition SHOULD send a DIAMETER-TOO-BUSY error response, if it can
   assume that the same request may succeed on a different path.

   If a reporting node knows or assumes that the same request will not
   succeed on a different path, DIAMETER_UNABLE_TO_COMPLY error response
   SHOULD be used.  Retrying would consume valuable resources during an
   occurrence of overload.

      For instance, if the request arrived at the reporting node without
      a Destination-Host AVP then the reporting node might determine
      that there is an alternative Diameter node that could successfully
      process the request and that retrying the transaction would not
      negatively impact the reporting node.  DIAMETER_TOO_BUSY would be
      sent in this case.

      For instance, if the request arrived at the reporting node with a
      Destination-Host AVP populated with its own Diameter identity then
      the reporting node can assume that retrying the request would
      result in it coming to the same reporting node.
      DIAMETER_UNABLE_TO_COMPLY would be sent in this case.

      A second example is when an agent that supports the DOIC solution
      is performing the role of a reacting node for a non supporting
      client.  Requests that are rejected as a result of DOIC throttling
      by the agent in this scenario would generally be rejected with a
      DIAMETER_UNABLE_TO_COMPLY response code.

8.  IANA Considerations

8.1.  AVP codes

   New AVPs defined by this specification are listed in Section 6.  All
   AVP codes allocated from the 'Authentication, Authorization, and
   Accounting (AAA) Parameters' AVP Codes registry.

8.2.  New registries

   Two new registries are needed under the 'Authentication,
   Authorization, and Accounting (AAA) Parameters' registry.

   Section 6.2 defines a new "Overload Control Feature Vector" registry
   including the initial assignments.  New values can be added into the
   registry using the Specification Required policy [RFC5226].  See
   Section 6.2 for the initial assignment in the registry.



Korhonen, et al.         Expires April 30, 2015                [Page 28]


Internet-Draft                    DOIC                      October 2014


   Section 6.6 defines a new "Overload Report Type" registry with its
   initial assignments.  New types can be added using the Specification
   Required policy [RFC5226].

9.  Security Considerations

   This mechanism gives Diameter nodes the ability to request that
   downstream nodes send fewer Diameter requests.  Nodes do this by
   exchanging overload reports that directly affect this reduction.
   This exchange is potentially subject to multiple methods of attack,
   and has the potential to be used as a Denial-of-Service (DoS) attack
   vector.

   Overload reports may contain information about the topology and
   current status of a Diameter network.  This information is
   potentially sensitive.  Network operators may wish to control
   disclosure of overload reports to unauthorized parties to avoid its
   use for competitive intelligence or to target attacks.

   Diameter does not include features to provide end-to-end
   authentication, integrity protection, or confidentiality.  This may
   cause complications when sending overload reports between non-
   adjacent nodes.

9.1.  Potential Threat Modes

   The Diameter protocol involves transactions in the form of requests
   and answers exchanged between clients and servers.  These clients and
   servers may be peers, that is,they may share a direct transport (e.g.
   TCP or SCTP) connection, or the messages may traverse one or more
   intermediaries, known as Diameter Agents.  Diameter nodes use TLS,
   DTLS, or IPSec to authenticate peers, and to provide confidentiality
   and integrity protection of traffic between peers.  Nodes can make
   authorization decisions based on the peer identities authenticated at
   the transport layer.

   When agents are involved, this presents an effectively hop-by-hop
   trust model.  That is, a Diameter client or server can authorize an
   agent for certain actions, but it must trust that agent to make
   appropriate authorization decisions about its peers, and so on.

   Since confidentiality and integrity protection occurs at the
   transport layer.  Agents can read, and perhaps modify, any part of a
   Diameter message, including an overload report.

   There are several ways an attacker might attempt to exploit the
   overload control mechanism.  An unauthorized third party might inject
   an overload report into the network.  If this third party is upstream



Korhonen, et al.         Expires April 30, 2015                [Page 29]


Internet-Draft                    DOIC                      October 2014


   of an agent, and that agent fails to apply proper authorization
   policies, downstream nodes may mistakenly trust the report.  This
   attack is at least partially mitigated by the assumption that nodes
   include overload reports in Diameter answers but not in requests.
   This requires an attacker to have knowledge of the original request
   in order to construct a response.  Therefore, implementations SHOULD
   validate that an answer containing an overload report is a properly
   constructed response to a pending request prior to acting on the
   overload report.

   A similar attack involves an otherwise authorized Diameter node that
   sends an inappropriate overload report.  For example, a server for
   the realm "example.com" might send an overload report indicating that
   a competitor's realm "example.net" is overloaded.  If other nodes act
   on the report, they may falsely believe that "example.net" is
   overloaded, effectively reducing that realm's capacity.  Therefore,
   it's critical that nodes validate that an overload report received
   from a peer actually falls within that peer's responsibility before
   acting on the report or forwarding the report to other peers.  For
   example, an overload report from a peer that applies to a realm not
   handled by that peer is suspect.

   An attacker might use the information in an overload report to assist
   in certain attacks.  For example, an attacker could use information
   about current overload conditions to time a DoS attack for maximum
   effect, or use subsequent overload reports as a feedback mechanism to
   learn the results of a previous or ongoing attack.

9.2.  Denial of Service Attacks

   Diameter overload reports can cause a node to cease sending some or
   all Diameter requests for an extended period.  This makes them a
   tempting vector for DoS tacks.  Furthermore, since Diameter is almost
   always used in support of other protocols, a DoS attack on Diameter
   is likely to impact those protocols as well.  Therefore, Diameter
   nodes MUST NOT honor or forward overload reports from unauthorized or
   otherwise untrusted sources.

9.3.  Non-Compliant Nodes

   When a Diameter node sends an overload report, it cannot assume that
   all nodes will comply.  A non-compliant node might continue to send
   requests with no reduction in load.  Requirement 28 [RFC7068]
   indicates that the overload control solution cannot assume that all
   Diameter nodes in a network are necessarily trusted, and that
   malicious nodes not be allowed to take advantage of the overload
   control mechanism to get more than their fair share of service.




Korhonen, et al.         Expires April 30, 2015                [Page 30]


Internet-Draft                    DOIC                      October 2014


   In the absence of an overload control mechanism, Diameter nodes need
   to implement strategies to protect themselves from floods of
   requests, and to make sure that a disproportionate load from one
   source does not prevent other sources from receiving service.  For
   example, a Diameter server might reject a certain percentage of
   requests from sources that exceed certain limits.  Overload control
   can be thought of as an optimization for such strategies, where
   downstream nodes never send the excess requests in the first place.
   However, the presence of an overload control mechanism does not
   remove the need for these other protection strategies.

9.4.  End-to End-Security Issues

   The lack of end-to-end security features makes it far more difficult
   to establish trust in overload reports that originate from non-
   adjacent nodes.  Any agents in the message path may insert or modify
   overload reports.  Nodes must trust that their adjacent peers perform
   proper checks on overload reports from their peers, and so on,
   creating a transitive-trust requirement extending for potentially
   long chains of nodes.  Network operators must determine if this
   transitive trust requirement is acceptable for their deployments.
   Nodes supporting Diameter overload control MUST give operators the
   ability to select which peers are trusted to deliver overload
   reports, and whether they are trusted to forward overload reports
   from non-adjacent nodes.

   The lack of end-to-end confidentiality protection means that any
   Diameter agent in the path of an overload report can view the
   contents of that report.  In addition to the requirement to select
   which peers are trusted to send overload reports, operators MUST be
   able to select which peers are authorized to receive reports.  A node
   MUST not send an overload report to a peer not authorized to receive
   it.  Furthermore, an agent MUST remove any overload reports that
   might have been inserted by other nodes before forwarding a Diameter
   message to a peer that is not authorized to receive overload reports.

   At the time of this writing, the DIME working group is studying
   requirements for adding end-to-end security
   [I-D.ietf-dime-e2e-sec-req] features to Diameter.  These features,
   when they become available, might make it easier to establish trust
   in non-adjacent nodes for overload control purposes.  Readers should
   be reminded, however, that the overload control mechanism encourages
   Diameter agents to modify AVPs in, or insert additional AVPs into,
   existing messages that are originated by other nodes.  If end-to-end
   security is enabled, there is a risk that such modification could
   violate integrity protection.  The details of using any future
   Diameter end-to-end security mechanism with overload control will




Korhonen, et al.         Expires April 30, 2015                [Page 31]


Internet-Draft                    DOIC                      October 2014


   require careful consideration, and are beyond the scope of this
   document.

10.  Contributors

   The following people contributed substantial ideas, feedback, and
   discussion to this document:

   o  Eric McMurry

   o  Hannes Tschofenig

   o  Ulrich Wiehe

   o  Jean-Jacques Trottin

   o  Maria Cruz Bartolome

   o  Martin Dolly

   o  Nirav Salot

   o  Susan Shishufeng

11.  References

11.1.  Normative References

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [RFC5226]  Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
              IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226,
              May 2008.

   [RFC5905]  Mills, D., Martin, J., Burbank, J., and W. Kasch, "Network
              Time Protocol Version 4: Protocol and Algorithms
              Specification", RFC 5905, June 2010.

   [RFC6733]  Fajardo, V., Arkko, J., Loughney, J., and G. Zorn,
              "Diameter Base Protocol", RFC 6733, October 2012.

11.2.  Informative References

   [Cx]       3GPP, , "ETSI TS 129 229 V11.4.0", August 2013.






Korhonen, et al.         Expires April 30, 2015                [Page 32]


Internet-Draft                    DOIC                      October 2014


   [I-D.ietf-dime-e2e-sec-req]
              Tschofenig, H., Korhonen, J., Zorn, G., and K. Pillay,
              "Diameter AVP Level Security: Scenarios and Requirements",
              draft-ietf-dime-e2e-sec-req-00 (work in progress),
              September 2013.

   [PCC]      3GPP, , "ETSI TS 123 203 V11.12.0", December 2013.

   [RFC4006]  Hakala, H., Mattila, L., Koskinen, J-P., Stura, M., and J.
              Loughney, "Diameter Credit-Control Application", RFC 4006,
              August 2005.

   [RFC5729]  Korhonen, J., Jones, M., Morand, L., and T. Tsou,
              "Clarifications on the Routing of Diameter Requests Based
              on the Username and the Realm", RFC 5729, December 2009.

   [RFC7068]  McMurry, E. and B. Campbell, "Diameter Overload Control
              Requirements", RFC 7068, November 2013.

   [S13]      3GPP, , "ETSI TS 129 272 V11.9.0", December 2012.

Appendix A.  Issues left for future specifications

   The base solution for the overload control does not cover all
   possible use cases.  A number of solution aspects were intentionally
   left for future specification and protocol work.

A.1.  Additional traffic abatement algorithms

   This specification describes only means for a simple loss based
   algorithm.  Future algorithms can be added using the designed
   solution extension mechanism.  The new algorithms need to be
   registered with IANA.  See Sections 6.1 and 8 for the required IANA
   steps.

A.2.  Agent Overload

   This specification focuses on Diameter endpoint (server or client)
   overload.  A separate extension will be required to outline the
   handling of the case of agent overload.

A.3.  New Error Diagnostic AVP

   The proposal was made to add a new Error Diagnostic AVP to supplement
   the error responces to be able to indicate that overload was the
   reason for the rejection of the message.





Korhonen, et al.         Expires April 30, 2015                [Page 33]


Internet-Draft                    DOIC                      October 2014


Appendix B.  Deployment Considerations

   Non supporting agents

      Due to the way that realm-routed requests are handled in Diameter
      networks, with the server selection for the request done by an
      agent, it is recommended that deployments enable all agents that
      do server selection to support the DOIC solution prior to enabling
      the DOIC solution in the Diameter network.

   Topology hiding interactions

      There exist proxies that implement what is referred to as Topology
      Hiding.  This can include cases where the agent modifies the
      Origin-Host in answer messages.  The behavior of the DOIC solution
      is not well understood when this happens.  As such, the DOIC
      solution does not address this scenario.

Appendix C.  Requirements Conformance Analysis

   This section contains the result of an analysis of the DOIC solutions
   conformance to the requirements defined in [RFC7068].

   To be completed.

Appendix D.  Considerations for Applications Integrating the DOIC
             Solution

   This section outlines considerations to be taken into account when
   integrating the DOIC solution into Diameter applications.

D.1.  Application Classification

   The following is a classification of Diameter applications and
   request types.  This discussion is meant to document factors that
   play into decisions made by the Diameter identity responsible for
   handling overload reports.

   Section 8.1 of [RFC6733] defines two state machines that imply two
   types of applications, session-less and session-based applications.
   The primary difference between these types of applications is the
   lifetime of Session-Ids.

   For session-based applications, the Session-Id is used to tie
   multiple requests into a single session.

   The Credit-Control application defined in [RFC4006] is an example of
   a Diameter session-based application.



Korhonen, et al.         Expires April 30, 2015                [Page 34]


Internet-Draft                    DOIC                      October 2014


   In session-less applications, the lifetime of the Session-Id is a
   single Diameter transaction, i.e. the session is implicitly
   terminated after a single Diameter transaction and a new Session-Id
   is generated for each Diameter request.

   For the purposes of this discussion, session-less applications are
   further divided into two types of applications:

   Stateless applications:

      Requests within a stateless application have no relationship to
      each other.  The 3GPP defined S13 application is an example of a
      stateless application [S13], where only a Diameter command is
      defined between a client and a server and no state is maintained
      between two consecutive transactions.

   Pseudo-session applications:

      Applications that do not rely on the Session-Id AVP for
      correlation of application messages related to the same session
      but use other session-related information in the Diameter requests
      for this purpose.  The 3GPP defined Cx application [Cx] is an
      example of a pseudo-session application.

   The handling of overload reports must take the type of application
   into consideration, as discussed in Appendix D.2.

D.2.  Application Type Overload Implications

   This section discusses considerations for mitigating overload
   reported by a Diameter entity.  This discussion focuses on the type
   of application.  Appendix D.3 discusses considerations for handling
   various request types when the target server is known to be in an
   overloaded state.

   These discussions assume that the strategy for mitigating the
   reported overload is to reduce the overall workload sent to the
   overloaded entity.  The concept of applying overload treatment to
   requests targeted for an overloaded Diameter entity is inherent to
   this discussion.  The method used to reduce offered load is not
   specified here but could include routing requests to another Diameter
   entity known to be able to handle them, or it could mean rejecting
   certain requests.  For a Diameter agent, rejecting requests will
   usually mean generating appropriate Diameter error responses.  For a
   Diameter client, rejecting requests will depend upon the application.
   For example, it could mean giving an indication to the entity
   requesting the Diameter service that the network is busy and to try
   again later.



Korhonen, et al.         Expires April 30, 2015                [Page 35]


Internet-Draft                    DOIC                      October 2014


   Stateless applications:

      By definition there is no relationship between individual requests
      in a stateless application.  As a result, when a request is sent
      or relayed to an overloaded Diameter entity - either a Diameter
      Server or a Diameter Agent - the sending or relaying entity can
      choose to apply the overload treatment to any request targeted for
      the overloaded entity.

   Pseudo-session applications:

      For pseudo-session applications, there is an implied ordering of
      requests.  As a result, decisions about which requests towards an
      overloaded entity to reject could take the command code of the
      request into consideration.  This generally means that
      transactions later in the sequence of transactions should be given
      more favorable treatment than messages earlier in the sequence.
      This is because more work has already been done by the Diameter
      network for those transactions that occur later in the sequence.
      Rejecting them could result in increasing the load on the network
      as the transactions earlier in the sequence might also need to be
      repeated.

   Session-based applications:

      Overload handling for session-based applications must take into
      consideration the work load associated with setting up and
      maintaining a session.  As such, the entity sending requests
      towards an overloaded Diameter entity for a session-based
      application might tend to reject new session requests prior to
      rejecting intra-session requests.  In addition, session ending
      requests might be given a lower probability of being rejected as
      rejecting session ending requests could result in session status
      being out of sync between the Diameter clients and servers.
      Application designers that would decide to reject mid-session
      requests will need to consider whether the rejection invalidates
      the session and any resulting session clean-up procedures.

D.3.  Request Transaction Classification

   Independent Request:

      An independent request is not correlated to any other requests
      and, as such, the lifetime of the session-id is constrained to an
      individual transaction.

   Session-Initiating Request:




Korhonen, et al.         Expires April 30, 2015                [Page 36]


Internet-Draft                    DOIC                      October 2014


      A session-initiating request is the initial message that
      establishes a Diameter session.  The ACR message defined in
      [RFC6733] is an example of a session-initiating request.

   Correlated Session-Initiating Request:

      There are cases when multiple session-initiated requests must be
      correlated and managed by the same Diameter server.  It is notably
      the case in the 3GPP PCC architecture [PCC], where multiple
      apparently independent Diameter application sessions are actually
      correlated and must be handled by the same Diameter server.

   Intra-Session Request:

      An intra session request is a request that uses the same Session-
      Id than the one used in a previous request.  An intra session
      request generally needs to be delivered to the server that handled
      the session creating request for the session.  The STR message
      defined in [RFC6733] is an example of an intra-session requests.

   Pseudo-Session Requests:

      Pseudo-session requests are independent requests and do not use
      the same Session-Id but are correlated by other session-related
      information contained in the request.  There exists Diameter
      applications that define an expected ordering of transactions.
      This sequencing of independent transactions results in a pseudo
      session.  The AIR, MAR and SAR requests in the 3GPP defined Cx
      [Cx] application are examples of pseudo-session requests.

D.4.  Request Type Overload Implications

   The request classes identified in Appendix D.3 have implications on
   decisions about which requests should be throttled first.  The
   following list of request treatment regarding throttling is provided
   as guidelines for application designers when implementing the
   Diameter overload control mechanism described in this document.  The
   exact behavior regarding throttling is a matter of local policy,
   unless specifically defined for the application.

   Independent requests:

      Independent requests can generally be given equal treatment when
      making throttling decisions, unless otherwise indicated by
      application requirements or local policy.

   Session-initiating requests:




Korhonen, et al.         Expires April 30, 2015                [Page 37]


Internet-Draft                    DOIC                      October 2014


      Session-initiating requests often represent more work than
      independent or intra-session requests.  Moreover, session-
      initiating requests are typically followed by other session-
      related requests.  Since the main objective of the overload
      control is to reduce the total number of requests sent to the
      overloaded entity, throttling decisions might favor allowing
      intra-session requests over session-initiating requests.  In the
      absence of local policies or application specific requirements to
      the contrary, Individual session-initiating requests can be given
      equal treatment when making throttling decisions.

   Correlated session-initiating requests:

      A Request that results in a new binding, where the binding is used
      for routing of subsequent session-initiating requests to the same
      server, represents more work load than other requests.  As such,
      these requests might be throttled more frequently than other
      request types.

   Pseudo-session requests:

      Throttling decisions for pseudo-session requests can take into
      consideration where individual requests fit into the overall
      sequence of requests within the pseudo session.  Requests that are
      earlier in the sequence might be throttled more aggressively than
      requests that occur later in the sequence.

   Intra-session requests:

      There are two types of intra-sessions requests, requests that
      terminate a session and the remainder of intra-session requests.
      Implementors and operators may choose to throttle session-
      terminating requests less aggressively in order to gracefully
      terminate sessions, allow clean-up of the related resources (e.g.
      session state) and avoid the need for additional intra-session
      requests.  Favoring session-termination requests may reduce the
      session management impact on the overloaded entity.  The default
      handling of other intra-session requests might be to treat them
      equally when making throttling decisions.  There might also be
      application level considerations whether some request types are
      favored over others.

Authors' Addresses








Korhonen, et al.         Expires April 30, 2015                [Page 38]


Internet-Draft                    DOIC                      October 2014


   Jouni Korhonen (editor)
   Broadcom
   Porkkalankatu 24
   Helsinki  FIN-00180
   Finland

   Email: jouni.nospam@gmail.com


   Steve Donovan (editor)
   Oracle
   7460 Warren Parkway
   Frisco, Texas  75034
   United States

   Email: srdonovan@usdonovans.com


   Ben Campbell
   Oracle
   7460 Warren Parkway
   Frisco, Texas  75034
   United States

   Email: ben@nostrum.com


   Lionel Morand
   Orange Labs
   38/40 rue du General Leclerc
   Issy-Les-Moulineaux Cedex 9  92794
   France

   Phone: +33145296257
   Email: lionel.morand@orange.com
















Korhonen, et al.         Expires April 30, 2015                [Page 39]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129c, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/