Internet DRAFT - draft-bertz-dime-predictunits
draft-bertz-dime-predictunits
Diameter Maintenance and Extensions L. Bertz
Internet-Draft Sprint
Intended status: Standards Track June 18, 2018
Expires: December 20, 2018
Diameter Predicted Units
draft-bertz-dime-predictunits-04
Abstract
This document specifies the conveyance of predicted usage information
for proper dimensioning of network services that use Diameter based
authorization.
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 https://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 December 20, 2018.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2018 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
(https://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.
Bertz Expires December 20, 2018 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Diameter Predicted Units June 2018
This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF
Contributions published or made publicly available before November
10, 2008. The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this
material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow
modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process.
Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling
the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified
outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may
not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format
it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other
than English.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Predicted Service AVPs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.1. Predicted-Service-Units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.2. Predicted-Service-Units-Series . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Usage Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1. Introduction
When a User is authorized to use a service via Diameter applications
such as [RFC4006] or [RFC7155], the Client is not aware of the
average load placed upon it by the User. This can lead to overload
situations or Diameter Clients being too conservative and denying
services to valid Users even whose presence would not overload the
service.
Given virtualization and the use of many software based services the
service capacity varies on a service instance, i.e. Diameter Client,
basis. Even though the Diameter Client is the same softawre it will
vary in terms of the load it can accept. Thus, a Diameter Server
cannot depend upon consistent capacities of a Diameter Client.
This specification introduces the Predicted-Service-Units Attribute
Value Pair (AVP). This information conveys the predicted usage
introduced on the service by the authorized User. Such information
can be used by the Diameter Client to estimate future load and
proactively manage its resources.
Bertz Expires December 20, 2018 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Diameter Predicted Units June 2018
Although this informaiton is conveyed from the Diameter Server to the
Client several system aspects are out of the scope of this document:
o How the Diameter Server acquired the information contained in the
Predicted-Service-Units AVP.
o How the values in the Predicted-Service-Units AVP were determined.
o The accuracy or validity of the values in the Predicted-Service-
Units AVP.
o Specific actions the Diameter Client should take when its service
functions are overloaded or are predicted to be overloaded based
upon the information provided by Predicted-Service-Units.
o Specific actions the Diameter Client takes to bring itself in/out
of service for new or existing Users.
When the value(s) or multiple types of Costs are provided they are
represented by the Time-Of-Day-Condition AVP defined in [RFC5777] and
contained in a Predicted-Service-Units-Series AVP. This AVP contains
one or more Predicted-Service-Units. Multiple Cost types, e.g. CC-
Total-Octets and CC-Time, may be represented in the same Predicted-
Service-Units entry and in the same Predicted-Service-Units-Series so
long as no overlapping times exist for the same Cost Type.
2. Terminology
In this document, the key words "MAY", "MUST", "MUST NOT",
"OPTIONAL", "RECOMMENDED", "SHOULD", and "SHOULD NOT", are to be
interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
3. Predicted Service AVPs
3.1. Predicted-Service-Units
The Predicted-Service-Units AVP (AVP Code TBD1) is of type Grouped
and contains the amount of units that the Diameter Client can expect
to provide to the end user until the service must be released or the
new service authorizatoin request, e.g. Credit-Control-Request, must
be sent if a Granted-Service-Unit AVP [RFC4006] has been applied to
the user's service. A client is not required to implement all of the
unit types, and it MUST ignore unknown or unsupported unit types.
The Predicted-Service-Units AVP is defined as follows (per the
grouped- avp-def of [RFC6733]):
Bertz Expires December 20, 2018 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Diameter Predicted Units June 2018
Predicted-Service-Units ::= < AVP Header: TBD1 >
[ CC-Time ]
[ CC-Money ]
[ CC-Total-Octets ]
[ CC-Input-Octets ]
[ CC-Output-Octets ]
[ CC-Service-Specific-Units ]
[ Time-Of-Day-Condition ]
*[ AVP ]
The Time-Of-Day-Condition AVP is defined in [RFC5777], all other AVPs
are defined in [RFC4006].
The presence of this information is provided as anticipated load
information to the Diameter Client and is not intended to be
prescriptive in any manner regarding the user's service.
When the Time-Of-Day-Condition AVP is not present, the value(s) are
assumed to apply for the duration of the authorized session until
this value is updated as part of the Diameter application, e.g. a
Diameter Re-Auth-Request/Answer (RAR/RAA) message [RFC6733].
3.2. Predicted-Service-Units-Series
The Predicted-Service-Units-Series AVP (AVP Code TBD2) is of type
Grouped, and contains one or more Predicted-Service-Units with non-
overlapping times for each specific Cost type.
A client is not required to implement all of the unit types, and it
MUST ingore unknown or unsupported unit types.
It is defined as follows (per the grouped-avp-def of [RFC6733]):
Predicted-Service-Units-Series ::= < AVP Header: TBD2 >
1*{ Predicted-Service-Units }
For each specific type of Cost, e.g. CC-Time, any two Predicted-
Service-Units values in the series MUST NOT contain overlapping time
windows specified in their Time-Of-Day-Condition values. When an
entry has no Time-Of-Day-Condition present it is assumed to apply at
all times.
Bertz Expires December 20, 2018 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Diameter Predicted Units June 2018
4. Usage Examples
When Predicted-Service-Units are returned as part of an authorization
per [RFC7155] or [RFC4006], the client MAY use this information as
guidance on projected load the new user will generate on the service.
If the client supports/understnds the information provided in the
Predicted-Service-Units AVP, it can update its projected load. Based
upon this information it MAY take one or more of the following
actions (this is not exhaustive):
o Redirect any new service requests at the service / protocol level.
o Begin enforcing mechanisms to reduce the amount of service load on
a subset of services already established.
o Remove itself from any system that directs new service requests to
it.
o Initiate administrative functions to increase its capacity or
start the process of creating new intances to service future
requests.
5. IANA Considerations
IANA allocated AVP codes in the IANA-controlled namespace registry
specified in Section 11.1.1 of [RFC6733] for the following AVPs that
are defined in this document.
+--------------------------------+-------+---------------+----------+
| AVP | AVP | Section | Data |
| | Code | Defined | Type |
+--------------------------------+-------+---------------+----------+
| Predicted-Service-Units | TBD1 | Section 3.1 | GROUPED |
| Predicted-Service-Units-Series | TBD2 | Section 3.2 | GROUPED |
+--------------------------------+-------+---------------+----------+
6. Security Considerations
The Diameter base protocol [RFC6733] requires that each Diameter
implementation use underlying security; i.e., TLS/TCP, DTLS/SCTP or
IPsec. These mechanisms are believed to provide sufficient
protection under the normal Internet threat model; that is, assuming
that the authorized nodes engaging in the protocol have not been
compromised, but that the attacker has complete control over the
communication channels between them. This includes eavesdropping,
message modification, insertion, and man-in-the-middle and replay
attacks. Note also that this application includes a mechanism for
Bertz Expires December 20, 2018 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Diameter Predicted Units June 2018
application layer replay protection by means of the Session-Id from
[RFC6733]. In these environments, the use of TLS/TCP, DTLS/SCTP or
IPsec is sufficient. The details of TLS/TCP, DTLS/SCTP or IPsec
related security considerations are discussed in the [RFC6733].
Because this application conveys past usage information (directly or
indirectly), it increases the interest for various security attacks.
Therefore, all parties communicating with each other MUST be
authenticated, including, for instance, TLS client-side
authentication. In addition, authorization of the client SHOULD be
emphasized; e.g., that the client is allowed to perform credit-
control for a certain user. The specific means of authorization are
outside of the scope of this specification but can be, for instance,
manual configuration.
The attributes provided by this solution MUST be assumed to be
privacy sensitive by both the client and server.
7. References
7.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC4006] Hakala, H., Mattila, L., Koskinen, J-P., Stura, M., and J.
Loughney, "Diameter Credit-Control Application", RFC 4006,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4006, August 2005,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4006>.
[RFC5777] Korhonen, J., Tschofenig, H., Arumaithurai, M., Jones, M.,
Ed., and A. Lior, "Traffic Classification and Quality of
Service (QoS) Attributes for Diameter", RFC 5777,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5777, February 2010,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5777>.
[RFC6733] Fajardo, V., Ed., Arkko, J., Loughney, J., and G. Zorn,
Ed., "Diameter Base Protocol", RFC 6733,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6733, October 2012,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6733>.
7.2. Informative References
[RFC7155] Zorn, G., Ed., "Diameter Network Access Server
Application", RFC 7155, DOI 10.17487/RFC7155, April 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7155>.
Bertz Expires December 20, 2018 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Diameter Predicted Units June 2018
Author's Address
Lyle Bertz
Sprint
6220 Sprint Parkway
Overland Park, KS 66251
United States
Email: lylebe551144@gmail.com
Bertz Expires December 20, 2018 [Page 7]
