draft-ietf-dime-drmp-06.txt   draft-ietf-dime-drmp-07.txt 
Diameter Maintenance and Extensions (DIME) S. Donovan Diameter Maintenance and Extensions (DIME) S. Donovan
Internet-Draft Oracle Internet-Draft Oracle
Intended status: Standards Track May 18, 2016 Intended status: Standards Track June 3, 2016
Expires: November 19, 2016 Expires: December 5, 2016
Diameter Routing Message Priority Diameter Routing Message Priority
draft-ietf-dime-drmp-06.txt draft-ietf-dime-drmp-07.txt
Abstract Abstract
When making routing and resource allocation decisions, Diameter nodes When making routing and resource allocation decisions, Diameter nodes
currently have no generic mechanism to determine the relative currently have no generic mechanism to determine the relative
priority of Diameter messages. This document addresses this by priority of Diameter messages. This document addresses this by
defining a mechanism to allow Diameter endpoints to indicate the defining a mechanism to allow Diameter endpoints to indicate the
relative priority of Diameter transactions. With this information relative priority of Diameter transactions. With this information
Diameter nodes can factor that priority into routing, resource Diameter nodes can factor that priority into routing, resource
allocation and overload abatement decisions. allocation and overload abatement decisions.
skipping to change at page 1, line 36 skipping to change at page 1, line 36
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on November 19, 2016. This Internet-Draft will expire on December 5, 2016.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
skipping to change at page 2, line 26 skipping to change at page 2, line 26
5.2. Emergency Call Related Signaling . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5.2. Emergency Call Related Signaling . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5.3. Differentiated Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5.3. Differentiated Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5.4. Application Specific Priorities . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5.4. Application Specific Priorities . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6. Theory of Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 6. Theory of Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7. Extensibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 7. Extensibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
8. Normative Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 8. Normative Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
9. Attribute Value Pairs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 9. Attribute Value Pairs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
9.1. DRMP AVP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 9.1. DRMP AVP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
9.2. Attribute Value Pair flag rules . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 9.2. Attribute Value Pair flag rules . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
10. Considerations When Defining Application Priorities . . . . . 13 10. Considerations When Defining Application Priorities . . . . . 13
11. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 11. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
11.1. AVP codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 11.1. AVP codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
11.2. New registries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 11.2. New registries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
12. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 12. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
12.1. Potential Threat Modes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 12.1. Potential Threat Modes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
12.2. Denial of Service Attacks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 12.2. Denial of Service Attacks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
12.3. End-to End-Security Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 12.3. End-to End-Security Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
13. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 13. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
14. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 14. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
14.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 14.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
14.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 14.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
skipping to change at page 3, line 28 skipping to change at page 3, line 28
1.1. Applicability 1.1. Applicability
There are two primary considerations that must be addressed for the There are two primary considerations that must be addressed for the
mechanism described in this document to work effectively. The first mechanism described in this document to work effectively. The first
takes into consideration that the Diameter base protocol defined in takes into consideration that the Diameter base protocol defined in
[RFC6733] is designed to transport multiple Diameter applications [RFC6733] is designed to transport multiple Diameter applications
and that Diameter nodes can be implemented that support multiple and that Diameter nodes can be implemented that support multiple
applications. In order for the DRMP mechanism to work, the applications. In order for the DRMP mechanism to work, the
priorities defined for all messages across all applications used in a priorities defined for all messages across all applications used in a
Diameter administrative domain must be defined in a consistent and Diameter administrative domain must be defined in a consistent and
coordinated fashion. See Section 10 for a discussion of some of the coordinated fashion, taking the default priority into account. See
considerations that need to be factored into the setting of DRMP Section 10 for a discussion of some of the considerations that need
priorities used by Diameter applications. to be factored into the setting of DRMP priorities used by Diameter
applications.
Note that this consideration does not apply to Diameter networks Note that this consideration does not apply to Diameter networks
where all Diameter nodes only support a single application. where all Diameter nodes only support a single application.
Without this cross application priority design taken into Without this cross application priority design taken into
consideration it is possible for messages for one application to gain consideration it is possible for messages for one application to gain
unwarranted preferential treatment over messages for other unwarranted preferential treatment over messages for other
applications. applications.
This mechanism also depends on all of the messages that carry the This mechanism also depends on all of the messages that carry the
skipping to change at page 11, line 29 skipping to change at page 11, line 29
Note: One method to determine what priority to apply to an answer Note: One method to determine what priority to apply to an answer
when there is no DRMP AVP in the answer message is to save the when there is no DRMP AVP in the answer message is to save the
priority included in the request message in state associated with priority included in the request message in state associated with
the Diameter transaction. Another is to use the Proxy-Info the Diameter transaction. Another is to use the Proxy-Info
mechanism defined in [RFC6733]. mechanism defined in [RFC6733].
Diameter nodes MUST have a default priority to apply to transactions Diameter nodes MUST have a default priority to apply to transactions
that do not have an explicit priority set in the DRMP AVP. that do not have an explicit priority set in the DRMP AVP.
Diameter nodes SHOULD use the PRIORITY_10 priority as this default In order to guaranty consistent handling of messages from nonupgraded
value. Diameter clients, Diameter nodes SHOULD use the PRIORITY_10 priority
as this default priority value.
PRIORITY_10 is a mid range priority that corresponds to "normal"
traffic and thus would be a suitable default for most deployments,
while still allowing different Diameter applications to designate
other priorities for lower and higher priority traffic.
Note: This does not imply that a DRMP AVP is added to the message. Note: This does not imply that a DRMP AVP is added to the message.
Rather, the message is treated the same as a message that has a Rather, the message is treated the same as a message that has a
DRMP AVP with priority value of PRIORITY_10. DRMP AVP with priority value of PRIORITY_10.
Diameter nodes MUST support the ability for the default priority to Diameter nodes MUST support the ability for the default priority to
be modified through local configuration interfaces. be modified through local configuration interfaces.
Note: There are scenarios where operators might want to specify a Note: There are scenarios where operators might want to specify a
different default value for transactions that do not have an different default value for transactions that do not have an
 End of changes. 6 change blocks. 
11 lines changed or deleted 18 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.45. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/