Diameter Routing Message Priority
RFC 7944

Document Type RFC - Proposed Standard (August 2016; No errata)
Last updated 2016-08-04
Replaces draft-donovan-dime-drmp
Stream IETF
Formats plain text pdf html bibtex
Reviews
Stream WG state Submitted to IESG for Publication (wg milestone: Mar 2016 - Submit I-D 'Diameter... )
Document shepherd Lionel Morand
Shepherd write-up Show (last changed 2016-02-25)
IESG IESG state RFC 7944 (Proposed Standard)
Consensus Boilerplate Yes
Telechat date
Responsible AD Stephen Farrell
Send notices to "Lionel Morand" <lionel.morand@orange.com>
IANA IANA review state Version Changed - Review Needed
IANA action state RFC-Ed-Ack
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)                        S. Donovan
Request for Comments: 7944                                        Oracle
Category: Standards Track                                    August 2016
ISSN: 2070-1721

                   Diameter Routing Message Priority

Abstract

   When making routing and resource allocation decisions, Diameter nodes
   currently have no generic mechanism to determine the relative
   priority of Diameter messages.  This document addresses this by
   defining a mechanism to allow Diameter endpoints to indicate the
   relative priority of Diameter transactions.  With this information,
   Diameter nodes can factor that priority into routing, resource
   allocation, and overload abatement decisions.

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
   http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7944.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2016 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
   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 7944                          DOIC                       August 2016

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
     1.1.  Applicability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   2.  Terminology and Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   3.  Conventions Used in This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   4.  Problem Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   5.  Use Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     5.1.  First-Responder-Related Signaling . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     5.2.  Emergency-Call-Related Signaling  . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     5.3.  Differentiated Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     5.4.  Application-Specific Priorities . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   6.  Theory of Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   7.  Extensibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   8.  Normative Behavior  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   9.  Attribute Value Pairs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     9.1.  DRMP AVP  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     9.2.  Attribute Value Pair Flag Rules . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   10. Considerations When Defining Application Priorities . . . . .  14
   11. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
     11.1.  AVP Codes  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
   12. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
     12.1.  Potential Threat Modes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
     12.2.  Denial-of-Service Attacks  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
     12.3.  End-to-End Security Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
   13. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
     13.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
     13.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
   Contributors  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
   Author's Address  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18

1.  Introduction

   The Diameter Overload Indication Conveyance (DOIC) solution [RFC7683]
   for Diameter overload control introduces scenarios where Diameter
   routing decisions made by Diameter nodes can be influenced by the
   overload state of other Diameter nodes.  This includes the scenarios
   where Diameter endpoints and Diameter Agents can throttle requests as
   a result of the target for the request being overloaded.

   With currently available mechanisms, these Diameter nodes do not have
   a mechanism to differentiate request message priorities when making
Show full document text