Internet DRAFT - draft-donovan-dime-doc-rate-control
draft-donovan-dime-doc-rate-control
Diameter Maintenance and Extensions (DIME) S. Donovan
Internet-Draft Oracle
Intended status: Standards Track E. Noel
Expires: May 11, 2015 AT&T Labs
November 7, 2014
Diameter Overload Rate Control
draft-donovan-dime-doc-rate-control-02.txt
Abstract
This specification documents an extension to the Diameter Overload
Indication Conveyance (DOIC) base solution. This extension adds a
new overload control abatement algorithm. This abatement algorithm
allows for a DOIC reporting node to specify a maximum rate at which a
DOIC reacting node sends Diameter requests sent to the DOIC reporting
node.
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 May 11, 2015.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
Donovan & Noel Expires May 11, 2015 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Diameter Overload Rate Control November 2014
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Terminology and Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Interaction with DOIC report types . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Capability Announcement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. Overload Report Handling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5.1. Reporting Node Overload Control State . . . . . . . . . . 6
5.2. Reacting Node Overload Control State . . . . . . . . . . 7
5.3. Reporting Node Maintenance of Overload Control State . . 7
5.4. Reacting Node Maintenance of Overload Control State . . . 7
5.5. Reporting Node Behavior for Rate Abatement Algorithm . . 8
5.6. Reacting Node Behavior for Rate Abatement Algorithm . . . 8
6. Rate Abatement Algorithm AVPs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6.1. OC-Supported-Features AVP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6.1.1. OC-Feature-Vector AVP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6.2. OC-OLR AVP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6.2.1. OC-Rate AVP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6.3. Attribute Value Pair flag rules . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7. Rate Based Abatement Algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7.1. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7.2. Reporting Node Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
7.3. Reacting Node Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7.3.1. Default algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7.3.2. Priority treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
7.3.3. Optional enhancement: avoidance of resonance . . . . 16
8. IANA Consideration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
10. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Donovan & Noel Expires May 11, 2015 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Diameter Overload Rate Control November 2014
1. Introduction
This document defines a new Diameter overload control algorithm.
The base Diameter overload specification [I-D.ietf-dime-ovli] defines
the loss algorithm as the default Diameter overload abatement
algorithm. The loss algorithm allows a reporting node to instruct a
reacting node to reduce the amount of traffic sent to the reporting
node by throttling a percentage of requests sent to the server.
While this can effectively decrease the load handled by the server,
it does not directly address cases where the rate of arrival of
service requests increase quickly. If the service requests that
result in Diameter transactions increases quickly then the loss
algorithm can be slow to protect the stability of reporting nodes.
Consider the case where a reacting node is handling 100 service
requests per second, where each of these service requests results in
one Diameter transaction being sent to a reacting node. If the
reacting node is approaching an overload state, or is already in an
overload state, it will send a Diameter overload report requesting a
percentage reduction in traffic sent. Assume for this discussion
that the reporting node requests a 10% reduction. The reacting node
will then throttle ten Diameter transactions a second, sending the
remaining 90 transactions per second to the reacting node.
Now assume that the reacting node's service requests spikes to 1000
requests per second. The reacting node will continue to honor the
reporting nodes request to throttle 10% of the traffic. This
results, in this example, in the reacting node sending 900 Diameter
transactions per second, throttling the remaining 100 transactions
per second. This spike in traffic is significantly higher than the
reporting node is expecting to handle and can result in negative
impacts to the stability of the reporting node.
The reporting node can, and likely would, send another overload
report requesting that the reacting node throttle 91% of requests to
get back to the desired 90 transactions per second. However, once
the spike has abated and the reacting node handled service requests
returns to 100 per second, this will result in just 9 transactions
per second being sent to the reporting node, requiring a new overload
report setting the reduction percentage back to 10%.
One of the benefits of a rate based algorithm is that it better
handles spikes in traffic. Instead of sending a request to throttle
a percentage of the traffic, the rate approach allows the reporting
node to specify the maximum number of Diameter requests per second
that can be sent to the reporting node. For instance, in this
example, the reporting node could send a rate based request
Donovan & Noel Expires May 11, 2015 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Diameter Overload Rate Control November 2014
specifying the maximum transactions per second to be 90. The
reacting noce will send the 90 regardless of whether it is receiving
100 or 1000 service requests per second.
This document extends the base DOIC solution [I-D.ietf-dime-ovli] to
add support for the rate based overload abatement algorithm.
This document draws heavily on work in the RIA SIP Overload Control
working group. The definitions of the rate abatement algorithmm is
copied almost verbatim from the SOC document
[I-D.SOC-overload-rate-control], with changes focused on making the
wording consistent with the DOIC solution and the Diameter protocol.
Editor's Note: Need to verify that the latest text from the SOC
document is currently being used.
2. Terminology and Abbreviations
Diameter Node
A RFC6733 Diameter Client, an RFC6733 Diameter Server, and RFC6733
Diameter Agent.
Diameter Endpoint
An RFC6733 Diameter Client and RFC6733 Diameter Server.
DOIC Node
A Diameter Node that supports the DOIC solution defined in
[I-D.ietf-dime-ovli].
Reporting Node
A DOIC Node that sends a DOIC overload report.
Reacting Node
A DOIC Node that receives and acts on a DOIC overload report.
3. Interaction with DOIC report types
As of the publication of this specification there are two DOIC report
types defined with the specification of a third in progress:
1. Host - Overload of a specific Diameter Application at a specific
Diameter Node as defined in [I-D.ietf-dime-ovli].
Donovan & Noel Expires May 11, 2015 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Diameter Overload Rate Control November 2014
2. Realm - Overlaod of a specific Diameter Application at a specific
Diameter Realm as defined in [I-D.ietf-dime-ovli].
3. Peer - Overload of a specific Diameter peer as defined in
[I-D.donovan-agent-overload].
The rate algorithm MAY be selected by reporting nodes for any of
these report types.
It is expected that all report types defined in the future will
indicate whether or not the rate algorithm can be used with that
report type.
4. Capability Announcement
Editors Note: This section depends upon the completion of the base
Diameter Overload specification. As such, it cannot be complete
until the data model and extension mechanism are finalized in the
base DOC specification. Details for any new AVPs or modifications to
existing AVPs will be finalized in a future version of the draft
after the base DOC specification has stabilized.
This extension defines the rate abatement algorithm (referred to as
rate in this document) feature. Support for the rate feature will be
reflected by use of a new value, as defined in Section 6.1.1, in the
OC-Feature-Vector AVP per the rules defined in [I-D.ietf-dime-ovli].
Note that Diameter nodes that support the rate feature will, by
definition, support both the loss and rate based abatement
algorithms. DOIC reacting nodes SHOULD indicate support for both the
loss and rate algorithms in the OC-Feature-Vector AVP.
There may be local policy reasons that cause a DOIC node that
supports the rate to not include it in the OC-Feature-Vector. All
reacting nodes, however, must continue to include loss in the OC-
Feature-Vector in order to remain compliant with
[I-D.ietf-dime-ovli].
A reporting nodes MUST select either the rate or the loss algorithm
when receiving a request that contains an OC-Supported-Features AVP.
A reporting node MAY select one abatement algorithm to apply to host
and realm reports and a different algorithm to apply to peer reports.
For host or realm reports the selected algorithm MUST be reflected in
the OC-Feature-Vector AVP sent as part of the OC-Selected-Features
AVP included in answer messages for transaction where the request
Donovan & Noel Expires May 11, 2015 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Diameter Overload Rate Control November 2014
contained an OC-Supported-Features AVP. This is per the precedures
defined in [I-D.ietf-dime-ovli].
For peer reports the selected algorithm MUST be reflected in the OC-
Peer-Abatement-Algorithm AVP sent as part of the OC-Supported-
Features AVP included answer messages for transaction where the
request contained an OC-Supported-Features AVP. This is per the
procedures defined in [I-D.donovan-agent-overload].
Editor's Node: The peer report specification is still under
development and, as such, the above paragraph is subject to
change.
5. Overload Report Handling
This section describes any changes to the behavior defined in
[I-D.ietf-dime-ovli] for handling of overload reports when the rate
overload abatement algorithm is used.
5.1. Reporting Node Overload Control State
A reporting node that uses the rate abatement algorithm SHOULD
maintain reporting node OCS for each reacting node to which it sends
a rate OLR.
This is different from the behavior defines in [DOIC] where there
is a single loss percentage sent to all reacting nodes.
A reporting node SHOULD maintain OCS entries when using the rate
abatement algorithm per supported Diameter application, per targeted
reacting node and per report-type.
A rate OCS entry is identified by the tuple of Application-Id,
report-type and peer-id of the target of the rate OLR.
A reporting node that supports the rate abatement algorithm MUST be
able to include rate as the selected abatement algorithm in the
reporting node OCS.
A reporting node that supports the rate abatement algorithm MUST be
able to include the specified rate in the abatement algoritm specific
portion of the reporting node OCS.
All other elements for the OCS defined in [I-D.ietf-dime-ovli] and
[I-D.donovan-agent-overload] also apply to the reporting nodes OCS
when using the rate abatement algorithm.
Donovan & Noel Expires May 11, 2015 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Diameter Overload Rate Control November 2014
5.2. Reacting Node Overload Control State
A reacting node that supports the rate abatement algorithm MUST be
able to include rate as the selected abatement algorithm in the
reacting node OCS.
A reacting node that supports the rate abatement algorithm MUST be
able to include the rate specified in the OC-Rate AVP included in the
OC-OLR AVP as an element of the abatement algoritm specific portion
of reacting node OCS entries.
All other elements for the OCS defined in [I-D.ietf-dime-ovli] and
[I-D.donovan-agent-overload] also apply to the reporting nodes OCS
when using the rate abatement algorithm.
5.3. Reporting Node Maintenance of Overload Control State
A reporting node that has selected the rate overload abatement
algorithm and enters an overload condition MUST indicate rate as the
abatement algorithm in the resulting reporting node OCS entries.
A reporting node that has selected the rate abatement algorithm and
enters an overload condition MUST indicate the selected rate in the
resulting reporting node OCS entries.
When responding to a request that contained an OC-Supporting-Features
AVP with an OC-Feature-Vector AVP indicating support for the rate
feature, a reporting node MUST ensure that a reporting node OCS entry
exists for the target of the overload report. The target is defined
as follows:
o For Host reports the target is the DiameterID contained in the
Origin-Host AVP received in the request.
o For Realm reports the target is the DiameterID contained in the
Origin-Realm AVP received in the request.
o For Peer reports the target is the Diameter ID of the Diameter
Peer from which the request was received.
5.4. Reacting Node Maintenance of Overload Control State
A reacting node receiving an overload report for the rate abatement
algorithm MUST save the rate received in the OC-Rate AVP contained in
the OC-OLR AVP in the reacting node OCS entry.
Donovan & Noel Expires May 11, 2015 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Diameter Overload Rate Control November 2014
5.5. Reporting Node Behavior for Rate Abatement Algorithm
When in an overload condition with rate selected as the overload
abatement algorithm and when handling a request that contained an OC-
Supported-Features AVP that indicated support for the rate featre, a
reporting node SHOULD include an OC-OLR AVP for the rate algorithm
using the parameters stored in the reporting node OCS for the target
of the overload report.
Editor's Note: The above is a pretty complicated way of saying
that the reporting node should include an OC-OLR in the
appropriate answer messages. The basic requirement isn't rate
feature specific but rather that in all cases the reporting node
generates an OC-OLR according to the parameters of the appropriate
OCS entry. This wording probably can be improved based on the
generic behavior definition.
When sending an overload report for the Rate algorithm, the OC-Rate
AVP is included and the OC-Reduction-Percentage AVP is not included.
5.6. Reacting Node Behavior for Rate Abatement Algorithm
When determining if abatement treatment should be applied to a
request being sent to a reporting node that has selected the rate
overload abatement algorithm, the reacting node MUST use the the
algorithm detailed in Section 6 to make the determination.
Once a determination is made by the reacting node that an individual
Diameter request is to be subjected to abatement treatment then the
procedures for throttling and diversion defined in
[I-D.ietf-dime-ovli] and [I-D.donovan-agent-overload] apply.
6. Rate Abatement Algorithm AVPs
Editors Note: This section depends upon the completion of the base
DOIC specification. As such, it cannot be complete until the data
model and extension mechanism are finalized. Details for any new
AVPs or modifications to existing AVPs will be finalized in a future
version of the draft after the base DOC specification has stabilized.
6.1. OC-Supported-Features AVP
The rate algorithm does not add any AVPs to the OC-Supported-Features
AVP.
The rate algorithm does add a new feature bit to be carried in the
OC-Feature-Vector AVP.
Donovan & Noel Expires May 11, 2015 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Diameter Overload Rate Control November 2014
6.1.1. OC-Feature-Vector AVP
This extension adds the following capabilities to the OC-Feature-
Vector AVP.
OLR_RATE_ALGORITHM (0x0000000000000004)
When this flag is set by the overload control endpoint it
indicates that the DOIC Node supports the rate overload control
algorithm.
6.2. OC-OLR AVP
This extension defines the OC-Rate AVP to be an optional part of the
OC-OLR AVP.
OC-OLR ::= < AVP Header: TBD2 >
< OC-Sequence-Number >
< OC-Report-Type >
[ OC-Reduction-Percentage ]
[ OC-Validity-Duration ]
[ OC-Source-ID ]
[ OC-Abatement-Algorithm ]
[ OC-Rate ]
* [ AVP ]
This extension makes no changes to the other AVPs that are part of
the OC-OLR AVP.
This extension does not define new overload report types. The
existing report types of host and realm defined in
[I-D.ietf-dime-ovli] apply to the rate control algorithm. The peer
report time defined in [I-D.donovan-agent-overload] also applies to
the rate control algorithm.
6.2.1. OC-Rate AVP
The OC-Rate AVP (AVP code TBD8) is type of Unsigned32 and describes
the maximum rate that that the sender is requested to send traffic.
This is specified in terms of requests per second.
Editor's note: Do we need to specify a maximum value?
A value of zero indicates that no traffic is to be sent.
Donovan & Noel Expires May 11, 2015 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Diameter Overload Rate Control November 2014
6.3. Attribute Value Pair flag rules
+---------+
|AVP flag |
|rules |
+----+----+
AVP Section | |MUST|
Attribute Name Code Defined Value Type |MUST| NOT|
+--------------------------------------------------------+----+----+
|OC-Rate TBD1 x.x Unsigned64 | | V |
+--------------------------------------------------------+----+----+
7. Rate Based Abatement Algorithm
Editor's Note: Need to scrub this section to use the reporting node
and reacting node terminology and remove the server and client terms
use for the SOC description.
This section is pulled from [I-D.SOC-overload-rate-control], with
minor changes needed to make it apply to the Diameter protocol.
7.1. Overview
The server is the one protected by the overload control algorithm
defined here. This is also referred to as the reporting node. The
client is the one that throttles traffic towards the server. This is
also referred to as the reacting node.
Following the procedures defined in [draft-ietf-dime-doic], the
server and clients signal one another support for rate-based overload
control.
Editor's Note: Need to scrub this section to use the reporting node
and reacting node terminology and remove the server and client terms.
Then periodically, the server relies on internal measurements (e.g.
CPU utilization, queueing delay...) to evaluate its overload state
and estimate a target Diameter request rate in number of requests per
second (as opposed to target percent reduction in the case of loss-
based abatement).
When in an overloaded state, the reporting node uses the OC-OLR AVP
to inform reacting nodes of its overload state and of the target
Diameter request rate.
Donovan & Noel Expires May 11, 2015 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Diameter Overload Rate Control November 2014
Upon receiving the overload report with a target Diameter request
rate, each reacting node throttles new Diameter requests towards the
reporting node.
7.2. Reporting Node Behavior
The actual algorithm used by the reporting node to determine its
overload state and estimate a target Diameter request rate is beyond
the scope of this document.
However, the reporting node MUST periodically evaluate its overload
state and estimate a target Diameter request rate beyond which it
would become overloaded. The server must allocate a portion of the
target Diameter request rate to each of its reacting nodes. The
server may set the same rate for every reacting node, or may set
different rates for different reacting node.
The max rate determined by the reporting node for a reacting node
applies to the entire stream of Diameter requests, even though
throttling may only affect a particular subset of the requests, since
the reacting node might can apply priority as part of its decision of
which requests to throttle.
When setting the maximum rate for a particular reacting node, the
reporting node may need take into account the workload (e.g. cpu load
per request) of the distribution of message types from that reacting
node. Furthermore, because the reacting node may prioritize the
specific types of messages it sends while under overload restriction,
this distribution of message types may be different from the message
distribution for that reacting node under non-overload conditions
(e.g., either higher or lower cpu load).
Note that the AVP for the rate algorithm is an upper bound (in
request messages per second) on the traffic sent by the reacting node
to the reporting node. The reacting node may send traffic at a rate
significantly lower than the upper bound, for a variety of reasons.
In other words, when multiple reacting nodes are being controlled by
an overloaded reporting node, at any given time some reacting nodes
may receive requests at a rate below its target Diameter request rate
while others above that target rate. But the resulting request rate
presented to the overloaded reporting node will converge towards the
target Diameter request rate.
Upon detection of overload, and the determination to invoke overload
controls, the reporting node MUST follow the specifications in
[draft-ietf-dime-ovli] to notify its clients of the allocated target
Diameter request rate.
Donovan & Noel Expires May 11, 2015 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Diameter Overload Rate Control November 2014
The reporting node MUST use the OC-Maximum-Rate AVP defined in this
specification to communicate a target Diameter request rate to each
of its clients.
7.3. Reacting Node Behavior
7.3.1. Default algorithm
In determining whether or not to transmit a specific message, the
reacting node may use any algorithm that limits the message rate to
1/T messages per second. It may be strictly deterministic, or it may
be probabilistic. It may, or may not, have a tolerance factor, to
allow for short bursts, as long as the long term rate remains below
1/T. The algorithm may have provisions for prioritizing traffic.
If the algorithm requires other parameters (in addition to "T", which
is 1/OC-Maximum-Rate), they may be set autonomously by the client, or
they may be negotiated independently between client and server.
In either case, the coordination is out of scope for this document.
The default algorithms presented here (one without provisions for
prioritizing traffic, one with) are only examples. Other algorithms
that forward messages in conformance with the upper bound of 1/T
messages per second may be used.
To throttle new Diameter requests at the rate specified in the OC-
Maximum-Rate AVP value sent by the reporting node to its reacting
nodes, the reacting node MAY use the proposed default algorithm for
rate-based control or any other equivalent algorithm.
The default Leaky Bucket algorithm presented here is based on [ITU-T
Rec. I.371] Appendix A.2. The algorithm makes it possible for
clients to deliver Diameter requests at a rate specified in the OC-
Maximum-Rate value with tolerance parameter TAU (preferably
configurable).
Conceptually, the Leaky Bucket algorithm can be viewed as a finite
capacity bucket whose real-valued content drains out at a continuous
rate of 1 unit of content per time unit and whose content increases
by the increment T for each forwarded Diameter request. T is
computed as the inverse of the rate specified in the OC-Maximum-Rate
AVP value, namely T = 1 / OC-Maximum-Rate.
Note that when the OC-Maximum-Rate value is 0 with a non-zero OC-
Validity-Duration, then the reacting node should reject 100% of
Diameter requests destined to the overloaded reporting node.
However, when the OC-Validity-Duration value is 0, the client should
stop throttling.
Donovan & Noel Expires May 11, 2015 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Diameter Overload Rate Control November 2014
If, at a new Diameter request arrival, the content of the bucket is
less than or equal to the limit value TAU, then the Diameter request
is forwarded to the server; otherwise, the Diameter request is
rejected.
Note that the capacity of the bucket (the upper bound of the counter)
is (T + TAU).
The tolerance parameter TAU determines how close the long-term
admitted rate is to an ideal control that would admit all Diameter
requests for arrival rates less than 1/T and then admit Diameter
requests precisely at the rate of 1/T for arrival rates above 1/T.
In particular at mean arrival rates close to 1/T, it determines the
tolerance to deviation of the inter-arrival time from T (the larger
TAU the more tolerance to deviations from the inter-departure
interval T).
This deviation from the inter-departure interval influences the
admitted rate burstyness, or the number of consecutive Diameter
requests forwarded to the reporting node (burst size proportional to
TAU over the difference between 1/T and the arrival rate).
Reporting nodes with a very large number of clients, each with a
relatively small arrival rate, will generally benefit from a smaller
value for TAU in order to limit queuing (and hence response times) at
the reporting node when subjected to a sudden surge of traffic from
all reacting nodes. Conversely, a reporting node with a relatively
small number of reacting nodes, each with proportionally larger
arrival rate, will benefit from a larger value of TAU.
Once the control has been activated, at the arrival time of the k-th
new Diameter request, ta(k), the content of the bucket is
provisionally updated to the value
X' = X - (ta(k) - LCT)
where X is the value of the leaky bucket counter after arrival of the
last forwarded Diameter request, and LCT is the time at which the
last Diameter request was forwarded.
If X' is less than or equal to the limit value TAU, then the new
Diameter request is forwarded and the leaky bucket counter X is set
to X' (or to 0 if X' is negative) plus the increment T, and LCT is
set to the current time ta(k). If X' is greater than the limit value
TAU, then the new Diameter request is rejected and the values of X
and LCT are unchanged.
Donovan & Noel Expires May 11, 2015 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Diameter Overload Rate Control November 2014
When the first response from the reporting node has been received
indicating control activation (OC-Validity-Duration>0), LCT is set to
the time of activation, and the leaky bucket counter is initialized
to the parameter TAU0 (preferably configurable) which is 0 or larger
but less than or equal to TAU.
TAU can assume any positive real number value and is not necessarily
bounded by T.
TAU=4*T is a reasonable compromise between burst size and throttled
rate adaptation at low offered rate.
Note that specification of a value for TAU, and any communication or
coordination between servers, is beyond the scope of this document.
A reference algorithm is shown below.
No priority case:
// T: inter-transmission interval, set to 1 / OC-Maximum-Rate
// TAU: tolerance parameter
// ta: arrival time of the most recent arrival
// LCT: arrival time of last SIP request that was sent to the server
// (initialized to the first arrival time)
// X: current value of the leaky bucket counter (initialized to
// TAU0)
// After most recent arrival, calculate auxiliary variable Xp
Xp = X - (ta - LCT);
if (Xp <= TAU) {
// Transmit SIP request
// Update X and LCT
X = max (0, Xp) + T;
LCT = ta;
} else {
// Reject SIP request
// Do not update X and LCT
}
7.3.2. Priority treatment
The reacting node is responsible for applying message priority and
for maintaining two categories of requests: Request candidates for
reduction, requests not subject to reduction (except under
extenuating circumstances when there aren't any messages in the first
category that can be reduced).
Donovan & Noel Expires May 11, 2015 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Diameter Overload Rate Control November 2014
Accordingly, the proposed Leaky bucket implementation is modified to
support priority using two thresholds for Diameter requests in the
set of request candidates for reduction. With two priorities, the
proposed Leaky bucket requires two thresholds TAU1 < TAU2:
o All new requests would be admitted when the leaky bucket counter
is at or below TAU1,
o Only higher priority requests would be admitted when the leaky
bucket counter is between TAU1 and TAU2,
o All requests would be rejected when the bucket counter is above
TAU2.
This can be generalized to n priorities using n thresholds for n>2 in
the obvious way.
With a priority scheme that relies on two tolerance parameters (TAU2
influences the priority traffic, TAU1 influences the non-priority
traffic), always set TAU1 <= TAU2 (TAU is replaced by TAU1 and TAU2).
Setting both tolerance parameters to the same value is equivalent to
having no priority. TAU1 influences the admitted rate the same way
as TAU does when no priority is set. And the larger the difference
between TAU1 and TAU2, the closer the control is to strict priority
queueing.
TAU1 and TAU2 can assume any positive real number value and is not
necessarily bounded by T.
Reasonable values for TAU0, TAU1 & TAU2 are: TAU0 = 0, TAU1 = 1/2 *
TAU2 and TAU2 = 10 * T.
Note that specification of a value for TAU1 and TAU2, and any
communication or coordination between servers, is beyond the scope of
this document.
A reference algorithm is shown below.
Priority case:
Donovan & Noel Expires May 11, 2015 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Diameter Overload Rate Control November 2014
// T: inter-transmission interval, set to 1 / OC-Maximum-Rate
// TAU1: tolerance parameter of no priority SIP requests
// TAU2: tolerance parameter of priority SIP requests
// ta: arrival time of the most recent arrival
// LCT: arrival time of last SIP request that was sent to the server
// (initialized to the first arrival time)
// X: current value of the leaky bucket counter (initialized to
// TAU0)
// After most recent arrival, calculate auxiliary variable Xp
Xp = X - (ta - LCT);
if (AnyRequestReceived && Xp <= TAU1) || (PriorityRequestReceived &&
Xp <= TAU2 && Xp > TAU1) {
// Transmit SIP request
// Update X and LCT
X = max (0, Xp) + T;
LCT = ta;
} else {
// Reject SIP request
// Do not update X and LCT
}
7.3.3. Optional enhancement: avoidance of resonance
As the number of reacting node sources of traffic increases and the
throughput of the reporting node decreases, the maximum rate admitted
by each reacting node needs to decrease, and therefore the value of T
becomes larger. Under some circumstances, e.g. if the traffic arises
very quickly simultaneously at many sources, the occupancies of each
bucket can become synchronized, resulting in the admissions from each
source being close in time and batched or very 'peaky' arrivals at
the reporting node, which not only gives rise to control instability,
but also very poor delays and even lost messages. An appropriate
term for this is 'resonance' [Erramilli].
If the network topology is such that this can occur, then a simple
way to avoid this is to randomize the bucket occupancy at two
appropriate points: At the activation of control, and whenever the
bucket empties, as follows.
After updating the value of the leaky bucket to X', generate a value
u as follows:
if X' > 0, then u=0
else if X' <= 0 then uniformly distributed between -1/2 and +1/2
Donovan & Noel Expires May 11, 2015 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft Diameter Overload Rate Control November 2014
Then (only) if the arrival is admitted, increase the bucket by an
amount T + uT, which will therefore be just T if the bucket hadn't
emptied, or lie between T/2 and 3T/2 if it had.
This randomization should also be done when control is activated,
i.e. instead of simply initializing the leaky bucket counter to TAU0,
initialize it to TAU0 + uT, where u is uniformly distributed as
above. Since activation would have been a result of response to a
request sent by the reacting node, the second term in this expression
can be interpreted as being the bucket increment following that
admission.
This method has the following characteristics:
o If TAU0 is chosen to be equal to TAU and all sources were to
activate control at the same time due to an extremely high request
rate, then the time until the first request admitted by each
client would be uniformly distributed over [0,T];
o The maximum occupancy is TAU + (3/2)T, rather than TAU + T without
randomization;
o For the special case of 'classic gapping' where TAU=0, then the
minimum time between admissions is uniformly distributed over
[T/2, 3T/2], and the mean time between admissions is the same,
i.e. T+1/R where R is the request arrival rate;
o At high load randomization rarely occurs, so there is no loss of
precision of the admitted rate, even though the randomized
'phasing' of the buckets remains.
8. IANA Consideration
TBD
9. Security Considerations
Agent overload is an extension to the based Diameter overload
mechanism. As such, all of the security considerations outlined in
[I-D.ietf-dime-ovli] apply to the agent overload scenarios.
10. Acknowledgements
11. References
Donovan & Noel Expires May 11, 2015 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft Diameter Overload Rate Control November 2014
11.1. Normative References
[I-D.SOC-overload-rate-control]
Noel, E., "SIP Overload Rate Control", February 2014.
[I-D.ietf-dime-ovli]
Korhonen, J., "Diameter Overload Indication Conveyance",
October 2013.
[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.
[RFC6733] Fajardo, V., Arkko, J., Loughney, J., and G. Zorn,
"Diameter Base Protocol", RFC 6733, October 2012.
11.2. Informative References
[I-D.donovan-agent-overload]
Donovan, S., "Diameter Agent Overload", February 2014.
Authors' Addresses
Steve Donovan
Oracle
17210 Campbell Road
Dallas, Texas 75254
United States
Email: srdonovan@usdonovans.com
Eric Noel
AT&T Labs
200s Laurel Avenue
Middletown, NJ 07747
United States
Donovan & Noel Expires May 11, 2015 [Page 18]
