rfc8581
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) S. Donovan
Request for Comments: 8581 Oracle
Updates: 7683 August 2019
Category: Standards Track
ISSN: 2070-1721
Diameter Agent Overload and the Peer Overload Report
Abstract
This specification documents an extension to the Diameter Overload
Indication Conveyance (DOIC), a base solution for Diameter overload
defined in RFC 7683. The extension defines the Peer Overload report
type. The initial use case for the peer report is the handling of
occurrences of overload of a Diameter Agent.
Status of This Memo
This is an Internet Standards Track document.
This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
(IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
received public review and has been approved for publication by the
Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on
Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 7841.
Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8581.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2019 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.
Donovan Standards Track [Page 1]
RFC 8581 Diameter Agent Overload and Peer Report August 2019
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Terminology and Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Peer-Report Use Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.1. Diameter Agent Overload Use Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.1.1. Single Agent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.1.2. Redundant Agents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.1.3. Agent Chains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.2. Diameter Endpoint Use Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.2.1. Hop-by-Hop Abatement Algorithms . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5. Interaction Between Host/Realm and Peer Overload Reports . . 9
6. Peer-Report Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6.1. Capability Announcement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6.1.1. Reacting-Node Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6.1.2. Reporting-Node Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6.2. Peer Overload Report Handling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6.2.1. Overload Control State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6.2.2. Reporting-Node Maintenance of Peer-Report OCS . . . . 11
6.2.3. Reacting-Node Maintenance of Peer-Report OCS . . . . 12
6.2.4. Peer-Report Reporting-Node Behavior . . . . . . . . . 13
6.2.5. Peer-Report Reacting-Node Behavior . . . . . . . . . 13
7. Peer-Report AVPs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
7.1. OC-Supported-Features AVP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
7.1.1. OC-Feature-Vector AVP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
7.1.2. OC-Peer-Algo AVP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
7.2. OC-OLR AVP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
7.2.1. OC-Report-Type AVP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
7.3. SourceID AVP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
7.4. Attribute-Value Pair Flag Rules . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Donovan Standards Track [Page 2]
RFC 8581 Diameter Agent Overload and Peer Report August 2019
1. Introduction
This specification documents an extension to the Diameter Overload
Indication Conveyance (DOIC), a base solution for Diameter overload
[RFC7683]. The extension defines the Peer Overload report type. The
initial use case for the peer report is the handling of occurrences
of overload of a Diameter Agent.
This document defines the behavior of Diameter nodes when Diameter
Agents enter an overload condition and send an Overload report
requesting a reduction of traffic. It also defines a new Overload
report type, the Peer Overload report type, which is used for
handling agent overload conditions. The Peer Overload report type is
defined in a generic fashion so that it can also be used for other
Diameter overload scenarios.
The base Diameter overload specification [RFC7683] addresses the
handling of overload when a Diameter endpoint (a Diameter Client or
Diameter Server as defined in [RFC6733]) becomes overloaded.
In the base specification, the goal is to handle abatement of the
overload occurrence as close to the source of the Diameter traffic as
feasible. When possible, this is done at the originator of the
traffic, generally referred to as a Diameter Client. A Diameter
Agent might also handle the overload mitigation. For instance, a
Diameter Agent might handle Diameter overload mitigation when it
knows that a Diameter Client does not support the DOIC extension.
This document extends the base Diameter endpoint overload
specification to address the case when Diameter Agents become
overloaded. Just as is the case with other Diameter nodes, i.e.,
Diameter Clients and Diameter Servers, surges in Diameter traffic can
cause a Diameter Agent to be asked to handle more Diameter traffic
than it was configured to handle. For a more detailed discussion of
what can cause the overload of Diameter nodes, refer to the Diameter
overload requirements [RFC7068].
This document defines a new Overload report type to communicate
occurrences of agent overload. This report type works for the
Diameter overload loss abatement algorithm defined in [RFC7683] and
is expected to work for other overload abatement algorithms defined
in extensions to the DOIC solution.
Donovan Standards Track [Page 3]
RFC 8581 Diameter Agent Overload and Peer Report August 2019
2. Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
3. Terminology and Abbreviations
AVP
Attribute-Value Pair
Diameter Node
A Diameter Client, Diameter Server, or Diameter Agent [RFC6733]
Diameter Endpoint
A Diameter Client or Diameter Server [RFC6733]
Diameter Agent
A Diameter node that provides relay, proxy, redirect, or
translation services [RFC6733]
Reporting Node
A DOIC node that sends an Overload report in a Diameter answer
message
Reacting Node
A DOIC node that receives and acts on a DOIC Overload report
DOIC Node
A Diameter node that supports the DOIC solution defined in
[RFC7683]
Donovan Standards Track [Page 4]
RFC 8581 Diameter Agent Overload and Peer Report August 2019
4. Peer-Report Use Cases
This section outlines representative use cases for the peer report
used to communicate agent overload.
There are two primary classes of use cases currently identified:
those involving the overload of agents, and those involving the
overload of Diameter endpoints. In both cases, the goal is to use an
overload algorithm that controls traffic sent towards peers.
4.1. Diameter Agent Overload Use Cases
The peer report needs to support the use cases described below.
In the figures in this section, elements labeled "c" are Diameter
Clients, elements labeled "a" are Diameter Agents, and elements
labeled "s" are Diameter Servers.
4.1.1. Single Agent
This use case is illustrated in Figure 1. In this case, the client
sends all traffic through the single agent. If there is a failure in
the agent, then the client is unable to send Diameter traffic toward
the server.
+-+ +-+ +-+
|c|----|a|----|s|
+-+ +-+ +-+
Figure 1
A more likely case for the use of agents is illustrated in Figure 2.
In this case, there are multiple servers behind the single agent.
The client sends all traffic through the agent, and the agent
determines how to distribute the traffic to the servers based on
local routing and load distribution policy.
+-+
--|s|
+-+ +-+ / +-+
|c|----|a|- ...
+-+ +-+ \ +-+
--|s|
+-+
Figure 2
Donovan Standards Track [Page 5]
RFC 8581 Diameter Agent Overload and Peer Report August 2019
In both of these cases, the occurrence of overload in the single
agent must by handled by the client similarly to as if the client
were handling the overload of a directly connected server. When the
agent becomes overloaded, it will insert an Overload report in answer
messages flowing to the client. This Overload report will contain a
requested reduction in the amount of traffic sent to the agent. The
client will apply overload abatement behavior as defined in the base
Diameter overload specification [RFC7683] or in the extension
document that defines the indicated overload abatement algorithm.
This will result in the throttling of the abated traffic that would
have been sent to the agent, as there is no alternative route. The
client sends an appropriate error response to the originator of the
request.
4.1.2. Redundant Agents
Figure 3 and Figure 4 illustrate a second, and more likely, type of
deployment scenario involving agents. In both of these cases, the
client has Diameter connections to two agents.
Figure 3 illustrates a client that has a primary connection to one of
the agents (agent a1) and a secondary connection to the other agent
(agent a2). In this scenario, under normal circumstances, the client
will use the primary connection for all traffic. The secondary
connection is used when there is a failure scenario of some sort.
+--+ +-+
--|a1|---|s|
+-+ / +--+\ /+-+
|c|- x
+-+ . +--+/ \+-+
..|a2|---|s|
+--+ +-+
Figure 3
Donovan Standards Track [Page 6]
RFC 8581 Diameter Agent Overload and Peer Report August 2019
The second case, in Figure 4, illustrates the case where the
connections to the agents are both actively used. In this case, the
client will have local distribution policy to determine the traffic
sent through each client.
+--+ +-+
--|a1|---|s|
+-+ / +--+\ /+-+
|c|- x
+-+ \ +--+/ \+-+
--|a2|---|s|
+--+ +-+
Figure 4
In the case where one of the agents in the above scenarios become
overloaded, the client should reduce the amount of traffic sent to
the overloaded agent by the amount requested. This traffic should
instead be routed through the non-overloaded agent. For example,
assume that the overloaded agent requests a reduction of 10 percent.
The client should send 10 percent of the traffic that would have been
routed to the overloaded agent through the non-overloaded agent.
When the client has both an active and a standby connection to the
two agents, then an alternative strategy for responding to an
Overload report from an agent is to change the standby connection to
active. This will result in all traffic being routed through the new
active connection.
In the case where both agents are reporting overload, the client may
need to start decreasing the total traffic sent to the agents. This
would be done in a similar fashion as that discussed in
Section 4.1.1. The amount of traffic depends on the combined
reduction requested by the two agents.
4.1.3. Agent Chains
There are also deployment scenarios where there can be multiple
Diameter Agents between Diameter Clients and Diameter Servers. An
example of this type of deployment is when there are Diameter Agents
between administrative domains.
Donovan Standards Track [Page 7]
RFC 8581 Diameter Agent Overload and Peer Report August 2019
Figure 5 illustrates one such network deployment case. Note that
while this figure shows a maximum of two agents being involved in a
Diameter transaction, it is possible for more than two agents to be
in the path of a transaction.
+---+ +---+ +-+
--|a11|-----|a21|---|s|
+-+ / +---+ \ / +---+\ /+-+
|c|- x x
+-+ \ +---+ / \ +---+/ \+-+
--|a12|-----|a22|---|s|
+---+ +---+ +-+
Figure 5
The handling of overload for one or both agents, a11 or a12 in this
case, is equivalent to that discussed in Section 4.1.2.
The overload of agents a21 and a22 must be handled by the previous-
hop agents. As such, agents a11 and a12 must handle the overload
mitigation logic when receiving an Agent Overload report from agents
a21 and a22.
The handling of Peer Overload reports is similar to that discussed in
Section 4.1.2. If the overload can be addressed using diversion,
then this approach should be taken.
If both of the agents have requested a reduction in traffic, then the
previous-hop agent must start throttling the appropriate number of
transactions. When throttling requests, an agent uses the same error
responses as defined in the base DOIC specification [RFC7683].
4.2. Diameter Endpoint Use Cases
This section outlines use cases for the Peer Overload report
involving Diameter Clients and Diameter Servers.
4.2.1. Hop-by-Hop Abatement Algorithms
It is envisioned that abatement algorithms will be defined that will
support the option for Diameter endpoints to send peer reports. For
instance, it is envisioned that one usage scenario for the rate
algorithm [RFC8582] will involve abatement being done on a hop-by-hop
basis.
This rate-deployment scenario would involve Diameter endpoints
generating peer reports and selecting the rate algorithm for
abatement of overload conditions.
Donovan Standards Track [Page 8]
RFC 8581 Diameter Agent Overload and Peer Report August 2019
5. Interaction Between Host/Realm and Peer Overload Reports
It is possible for both an agent and an endpoint in the path of a
transaction to be overloaded at the same time. When this occurs,
Diameter entities need to handle multiple Overload reports. In this
scenario, the reacting node should first handle the throttling of the
overloaded Host or Realm. Any messages that survive throttling due
to Host or Realm reports should then go through abatement for the
Peer Overload report. In this scenario, when doing abatement on the
peer report, the reacting node SHOULD take into consideration the
number of messages already throttled by the handling of the host/
realm report abatement.
Note: The goal is to avoid traffic oscillations that might result
from throttling of messages for both the host/realm Overload
reports and the PEER Overload reports. This is especially a
concern if both reports indicate the loss abatement algorithm.
6. Peer-Report Behavior
This section defines the normative behavior associated with the Peer-
Report extension to the DOIC solution.
6.1. Capability Announcement
6.1.1. Reacting-Node Behavior
When sending a Diameter request, a DOIC node that supports the
OC_PEER_REPORT feature (as defined in Section 7.1.1) MUST include in
the OC-Supported-Features AVP an OC-Feature-Vector AVP with the
OC_PEER_REPORT bit set.
When sending a request, a DOIC node that supports the OC_PEER_REPORT
feature MUST include a SourceID AVP in the OC-Supported-Features AVP
with its own DiameterIdentity.
When a Diameter Agent relays a request that includes a SourceID AVP
in the OC-Supported-Features AVP, if the Diameter Agent supports the
OC_PEER_REPORT feature, then it MUST remove the received SourceID AVP
and replace it with a SourceID AVP containing its own
DiameterIdentity.
6.1.2. Reporting-Node Behavior
When receiving a request, a DOIC node that supports the
OC_PEER_REPORT feature MUST update transaction state with an
indication of whether or not the peer from which the request was
received supports the OC_PEER_REPORT feature.
Donovan Standards Track [Page 9]
RFC 8581 Diameter Agent Overload and Peer Report August 2019
Note: The transaction state is used when the DOIC node is acting
as a peer-report reporting node and needs to send OC-OLR AVP
reports of type "PEER-REPORT" in answer messages. The Peer
Overload reports are only included in answer messages being sent
to peers that support the OC_PEER_REPORT feature.
The peer supports the OC_PEER_REPORT feature if the received request
contains an OC-Supported-Features AVP with the OC-Feature-Vector with
the OC_PEER_REPORT feature bit set and with a SourceID AVP with a
value that matches the DiameterIdentity of the peer from which the
request was received.
When an agent relays an answer message, a reporting node that
supports the OC_PEER_REPORT feature MUST strip any SourceID AVP from
the OC-Supported-Features AVP.
When sending an answer message, a reporting node that supports the
OC_PEER_REPORT feature MUST determine if the peer to which the answer
is to be sent supports the OC_PEER_REPORT feature.
If the peer supports the OC_PEER_REPORT feature, then the reporting
node MUST indicate support for the feature in the OC-Supported-
Features AVP.
If the peer supports the OC_PEER_REPORT feature, then the reporting
node MUST insert the SourceID AVP in the OC-Supported-Features AVP in
the answer message.
If the peer supports the OC_PEER_REPORT feature, then the reporting
node MUST insert the OC-Peer-Algo AVP in the OC-Supported-Features
AVP. The OC-Peer-Algo AVP MUST indicate the overload abatement
algorithm that the reporting node wants the reacting nodes to use
should the reporting node send a Peer Overload report as a result of
becoming overloaded.
6.2. Peer Overload Report Handling
This section defines the behavior for the handling of Overload
reports of type "PEER-REPORT".
6.2.1. Overload Control State
This section describes the Overload Control State (OCS) that might be
maintained by both the peer-report reporting node and the peer-report
reacting node.
This is an extension of the OCS handling defined in [RFC7683].
Donovan Standards Track [Page 10]
RFC 8581 Diameter Agent Overload and Peer Report August 2019
6.2.1.1. Reporting-Node Peer-Report OCS
A DOIC node that supports the OC_PEER_REPORT feature SHOULD maintain
Reporting-Node OCS, as defined in [RFC7683] and extended here.
If different abatement-specific contents are sent to each peer, then
the reporting node MUST maintain a separate reporting-node peer-
report OCS entry per peer, to which a Peer Overload report is sent.
Note: The rate-overload abatement algorithm allows for different
rates to be sent to each peer.
6.2.1.2. Reacting-Node Peer-Report OCS
In addition to OCS maintained as defined in [RFC7683], a reacting
node that supports the OC_PEER_REPORT feature maintains the following
OCS per supported Diameter application:
A peer-report OCS entry for each peer to which it sends requests
A peer-report OCS entry is identified by both the Application-ID and
the peer's DiameterIdentity.
The peer-report OCS entry includes the following information (the
actual information stored is an implementation decision):
Sequence number (as received in the OC-OLR AVP)
Time of expiry (derived from the OC-Validity-Duration AVP received
in the OC-OLR AVP and time of reception of the message carrying
the OC-OLR AVP)
Selected abatement algorithm (as received in the OC-Supported-
Features AVP)
Input data that is specific to the abatement algorithm (as
received in the OC-OLR AVP, e.g., OC-Reduction-Percentage for the
loss abatement algorithm)
6.2.2. Reporting-Node Maintenance of Peer-Report OCS
All rules for managing the reporting-node OCS entries defined in
[RFC7683] apply to the peer report.
Donovan Standards Track [Page 11]
RFC 8581 Diameter Agent Overload and Peer Report August 2019
6.2.3. Reacting-Node Maintenance of Peer-Report OCS
When a reacting node receives an OC-OLR AVP with a report type of
"PEER-REPORT", it MUST determine if the report was generated by the
Diameter peer from which the report was received.
If a reacting node receives an OC-OLR AVP of type "PEER-REPORT" and
the SourceID matches the DiameterIdentity of the Diameter peer from
which the response message was received, then the report was
generated by a Diameter peer.
If a reacting node receives an OC-OLR AVP of type "PEER-REPORT" and
the SourceID does not match the DiameterIdentity of the Diameter peer
from which the response message was received, then the reacting node
MUST ignore the Overload report.
Note: Under normal circumstances, a Diameter node will not add a
peer report when sending to a peer that does not support this
extension. This requirement is to handle the case where peer
reports are erroneously or maliciously inserted into response
messages.
If the peer report was received from a Diameter peer, then the
reacting node MUST determine if it is for an existing or new overload
condition.
The peer report is for an existing overload condition if the reacting
node has an OCS that matches the received peer report. For a peer
report, this means it matches the Application-ID and the peer's
DiameterIdentity in an existing OCS entry.
If the peer report is for an existing overload condition, then it
MUST determine if the peer report is a retransmission or an update to
the existing OLR.
If the sequence number for the received peer report is greater than
the sequence number stored in the matching OCS entry, then the
reacting node MUST update the matching OCS entry.
If the sequence number for the received peer report is less than or
equal to the sequence number in the matching OCS entry, then the
reacting node MUST silently ignore the received peer report. The
matching OCS MUST NOT be updated in this case.
If the received peer report is for a new overload condition, then the
reacting node MUST generate a new OCS entry for the overload
condition.
Donovan Standards Track [Page 12]
RFC 8581 Diameter Agent Overload and Peer Report August 2019
For a peer report, this means it creates an OCS entry with a
DiameterIdentity from the SourceID AVP in the received OC-OLR AVP.
If the received peer report contains a validity duration of zero
("0"), then the reacting node MUST update the OCS entry as being
expired.
The reacting node does not delete an OCS when receiving an answer
message that does not contain an OC-OLR AVP (i.e., the absence of OLR
means "no change").
The reacting node sets the abatement algorithm based on the OC-Peer-
Algo AVP in the received OC-Supported-Features AVP.
6.2.4. Peer-Report Reporting-Node Behavior
When there is an existing reporting-node peer-report OCS entry, the
reporting node MUST include an OC-OLR AVP with a report type of
"PEER-REPORT" using the contents of the reporting-node peer-report
OCS entry in all answer messages sent by the reporting node to peers
that support the OC_PEER_REPORT feature.
Note: The reporting node determines if a peer supports the
OC_PEER_REPORT feature based on the indication recorded in the
reporting node's transaction state.
The reporting node MUST include its DiameterIdentity in the SourceID
AVP in the OC-OLR AVP. This is used by DOIC nodes that support the
OC_PEER_REPORT feature to determine if the report was received from a
Diameter peer.
The reporting agent must follow all other overload reporting-node
behaviors outlined in the DOIC specification.
6.2.5. Peer-Report Reacting-Node Behavior
A reacting node supporting this extension MUST support the receipt of
multiple Overload reports in a single message. The message might
include a Host Overload report, a Realm Overload report, and/or a
Peer Overload report.
When a reacting node sends a request, it MUST determine if that
request matches an active OCS.
In all cases, if the reacting node is an agent, then it MUST strip
the Peer-Report OC-OLR AVP from the message.
Donovan Standards Track [Page 13]
RFC 8581 Diameter Agent Overload and Peer Report August 2019
If the request matches an active OCS, then the reacting node MUST
apply abatement treatment to the request. The abatement treatment
applied depends on the abatement algorithm indicated in the OCS.
For Peer Overload Reports, the preferred abatement treatment is
diversion. As such, the reacting node SHOULD attempt to divert
requests identified as needing abatement to other peers.
If there is not sufficient capacity to divert abated traffic, then
the reacting node MUST throttle the necessary requests to fit within
the available capacity of the peers able to handle the requests.
If the abatement treatment results in throttling of the request and
if the reacting node is an agent, then the agent MUST send an
appropriate error response as defined in [RFC7683].
In the case that the OCS entry validity duration expires or has a
validity duration of zero ("0"), meaning that if the reporting node
has explicitly signaled the end of the overload condition, then
abatement associated with the OCS entry MUST be ended in a controlled
fashion.
7. Peer-Report AVPs
7.1. OC-Supported-Features AVP
This extension adds a new feature to the OC-Feature-Vector AVP. This
feature indication shows support for handling of Peer Overload
reports. Peer Overload reports are used by agents to indicate the
need for overload abatement handling by the agent's peer.
A supporting node must also include the SourceID AVP in the
OC-Supported-Features capability AVP.
This AVP contains the DiameterIdentity of the node that supports the
OC_PEER_REPORT feature. This AVP is used to determine if support for
the Peer Overload report is in an adjacent node. The value of this
AVP should be the same Diameter identity used as part of the Diameter
Capabilities Exchange procedure defined in [RFC7683].
This extension also adds the OC-Peer-Algo AVP to the OC-Supported-
Features AVP. This AVP is used by a reporting node to indicate the
abatement algorithm it will use for Peer Overload reports.
Donovan Standards Track [Page 14]
RFC 8581 Diameter Agent Overload and Peer Report August 2019
OC-Supported-Features ::= < AVP Header: 621 >
[ OC-Feature-Vector ]
[ SourceID ]
[ OC-Peer-Algo]
* [ AVP ]
7.1.1. OC-Feature-Vector AVP
The Peer-Report feature defines a new feature bit for the OC-Feature-
Vector AVP.
OC_PEER_REPORT (0x0000000000000010)
When this flag is set by a DOIC node, it indicates that the DOIC
node supports the Peer Overload report type.
7.1.2. OC-Peer-Algo AVP
The OC-Peer-Algo AVP (AVP code 648) is of type Unsigned64 and
contains a 64-bit flags field of announced capabilities for a DOIC
node. The value of zero ("0") is reserved.
Feature bits defined for the OC-Feature-Vector AVP and associated
with overload abatement algorithms are reused for this AVP.
7.2. OC-OLR AVP
This extension makes no changes to the OC_Sequence_Number or
OC_Validity_Duration AVPs in the OC-OLR AVP. These AVPs can also be
used in Peer Overload reports.
The OC_PEER_REPORT feature extends the base Diameter overload
specification by defining a new Overload report type of "PEER-
REPORT". See Section 7.6 of [RFC7683] for a description of the
OC-Report-Type AVP.
The peer report MUST also include the Diameter identity of the agent
that generated the report. This is necessary to handle the case
where there is a non-supporting agent between the reporting node and
the reacting node. Without the indication of the agent that
generated the peer report, the reacting node could erroneously assume
that the report applied to the non-supporting node. This could, in
turn, result in unnecessary traffic being either diverted or
throttled.
The SourceID AVP is used in the OC-OLR AVP to carry this
DiameterIdentity.
Donovan Standards Track [Page 15]
RFC 8581 Diameter Agent Overload and Peer Report August 2019
OC-OLR ::= < AVP Header: 623 >
< OC-Sequence-Number >
< OC-Report-Type >
[ OC-Reduction-Percentage ]
[ OC-Validity-Duration ]
[ SourceID ]
* [ AVP ]
7.2.1. OC-Report-Type AVP
The following new report type is defined for the OC-Report-Type AVP.
PEER_REPORT 2: The overload treatment should apply to all requests
bound for the peer identified in the Overload report. If the peer
identified in the peer report is not a peer to the reacting
endpoint, then the peer report should be stripped and not acted
upon.
7.3. SourceID AVP
The SourceID AVP (AVP code 649) is of type DiameterIdentity and is
inserted by a Diameter node to indicate the source of the AVP in
which it is a part.
In the case of peer reports, the SourceID AVP indicates the node that
supports this feature (in the OC-Supported-Features AVP) or the node
that generates an overload report with a report type of "PEER-REPORT"
(in the OC-OLR AVP).
It contains the DiameterIdentity of the inserting node. This is used
by other Diameter nodes to determine the node that inserted the
enclosing AVP that contains the SourceID AVP.
7.4. Attribute-Value Pair Flag Rules
+---------+
|AVP flag |
|rules |
+----+----+
AVP Section | |MUST|
Attribute Name Code Defined Value Type |MUST| NOT|
+--------------------------------------------------------+----+----+
|OC-Peer-Algo 648 7.1.2 Unsigned64 | | V |
|SourceID 649 7.3 DiameterIdentity | | V |
+--------------------------------------------------------+----+----+
Donovan Standards Track [Page 16]
RFC 8581 Diameter Agent Overload and Peer Report August 2019
8. IANA Considerations
IANA has registered the following values in the "Authentication,
Authorization, and Accounting (AAA) Parameters" registry:
Two new AVP codes are defined in Section 7.4.
Note that the values used for the OC-Peer-Algo AVP are a subset of
the "OC-Feature-Vector AVP Values (code 622)" registry. Only the
values in that registry that apply to overload abatement
algorithms apply to the OC-Peer-Algo AVP.
A new OC-Feature-Vector AVP value is defined in Section 7.1.1.
A new OC-Report-Type AVP value is defined in Section 7.2.1.
9. Security Considerations
Agent overload is an extension to the base Diameter Overload
mechanism. As such, all of the security considerations outlined in
[RFC7683] apply to the agent overload scenarios.
It is possible that the malicious insertion of an peer report could
have a bigger impact on a Diameter network as agents can be
concentration points in a Diameter network. Where an endpoint report
would impact the traffic sent to a single Diameter Server, for
example, a peer report could throttle all traffic to the Diameter
network.
This impact is amplified in a Diameter agent that sits at the edge of
a Diameter network that serves as the entry point from all other
Diameter networks.
The impacts of this attack, as well as the mitigation strategies, are
the same as those outlined in [RFC7683].
Donovan Standards Track [Page 17]
RFC 8581 Diameter Agent Overload and Peer Report August 2019
10. References
10.1. Normative References
[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>.
[RFC7683] Korhonen, J., Ed., Donovan, S., Ed., Campbell, B., and L.
Morand, "Diameter Overload Indication Conveyance",
RFC 7683, DOI 10.17487/RFC7683, October 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7683>.
[RFC8582] Donovan, S., Ed. and E. Noel, "Diameter Overload Rate
Control", RFC 8582, DOI 10.17487/RFC8582, August 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8582>.
10.2. Informative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC7068] McMurry, E. and B. Campbell, "Diameter Overload Control
Requirements", RFC 7068, DOI 10.17487/RFC7068, November
2013, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7068>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
Acknowledgements
The author would like to thank Adam Roach and Eric McMurry for the
work done in defining a comprehensive Diameter overload solution in
draft-roach-dime-overload-ctrl-03.txt.
The author would also like to thank Ben Campbell for his insights and
review of early versions of this document.
Donovan Standards Track [Page 18]
RFC 8581 Diameter Agent Overload and Peer Report August 2019
Author's Address
Steve Donovan
Oracle
7460 Warren Parkway, Suite 300
Frisco, Texas 75034
United States of America
Email: srdonovan@usdonovans.com
Donovan Standards Track [Page 19]
ERRATA
