Diameter Overload Control Requirements
draft-ietf-dime-overload-reqs-12

The information below is for an old version of the document
Document Type Active Internet-Draft (dime WG)
Last updated 2013-09-26 (latest revision 2013-09-10)
Replaces draft-mcmurry-dime-overload-reqs
Stream IETF
Intended RFC status Informational
Formats plain text pdf html bibtex
Additional URLs
- Mailing list discussion
Stream WG state Submitted to IESG for Publication
Document shepherd Jouni Korhonen
Shepherd write-up Show (last changed 2013-06-07)
IESG IESG state Approved-announcement to be sent::Revised I-D Needed
Consensus Boilerplate Yes
Telechat date
Responsible AD BenoƮt Claise
IESG note Jouni Korhonen (jouni.nospam@gmail.com) is the document shepherd.
Send notices to dime-chairs@tools.ietf.org, draft-ietf-dime-overload-reqs@tools.ietf.org
IANA IANA review state IANA OK - No Actions Needed
IANA action state None
Network Working Group                                         E. McMurry
Internet-Draft                                               B. Campbell
Intended status: Informational                                   Tekelec
Expires: March 14, 2014                               September 10, 2013

                 Diameter Overload Control Requirements
                    draft-ietf-dime-overload-reqs-12

Abstract

   When a Diameter server or agent becomes overloaded, it needs to be
   able to gracefully reduce its load, typically by informing clients to
   reduce sending traffic for some period of time.  Otherwise, it must
   continue to expend resources parsing and responding to Diameter
   messages, possibly resulting in congestion collapse.  The existing
   Diameter mechanisms are not sufficient for this purpose.  This
   document describes the limitations of the existing mechanisms.
   Requirements for new overload management mechanisms are also
   provided.

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 March 14, 2014.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2013 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
   (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

McMurry & Campbell       Expires March 14, 2014                 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft   Diameter Overload Control Requirements   September 2013

   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
     1.1.  Documentation Conventions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
     1.2.  Causes of Overload . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     1.3.  Effects of Overload  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     1.4.  Overload vs. Network Congestion  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     1.5.  Diameter Applications in a Broader Network . . . . . . . .  6
   2.  Overload Control Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     2.1.  Peer to Peer Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     2.2.  Agent Scenarios  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
     2.3.  Interconnect Scenario  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
   3.  Diameter Overload Case Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
     3.1.  Overload in Mobile Data Networks . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
     3.2.  3GPP Study on Core Network Overload  . . . . . . . . . . . 15
   4.  Existing Mechanisms  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
   5.  Issues with the Current Mechanisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
     5.1.  Problems with Implicit Mechanism . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
     5.2.  Problems with Explicit Mechanisms  . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
   6.  Extensibility and Application Independence . . . . . . . . . . 18
   7.  Solution Requirements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
     7.1.  General  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
     7.2.  Performance  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
     7.3.  Heterogeneous Support for Solution . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
     7.4.  Granular Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
     7.5.  Priority and Policy  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
     7.6.  Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
     7.7.  Flexibility and Extensibility  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
   8.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
   9.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
     9.1.  Access Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
     9.2.  Denial-of-Service Attacks  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
     9.3.  Replay Attacks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
     9.4.  Man-in-the-Middle Attacks  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
     9.5.  Compromised Hosts  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
   10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Show full document text