Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) S. Donovan, Ed.
Request for Comments: 8582 Oracle
Category: Standards Track E. Noel
ISSN: 2070-1721 AT&T Labs
August 2019
Diameter Overload Rate Control
Abstract
This specification documents an extension to the Diameter Overload
Indication Conveyance (DOIC) base solution, which is defined in RFC
7683. 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 to the DOIC reporting node.
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/rfc8582.
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 & Noel Standards Track [Page 1]
RFC 8582 Diameter Overload Rate Control August 2019
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Interaction with DOIC Report Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. Capability Announcement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6. Overload-Report Handling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6.1. Reporting-Node OCS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6.2. Reacting-Node OCS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6.3. Reporting-Node Maintenance of OCS . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6.4. Reacting-Node Maintenance of OCS . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6.5. Reporting-Node Behavior for Rate Abatement Algorithm . . 9
6.6. Reacting-Node Behavior for Rate Abatement Algorithm . . . 9
7. Rate Abatement Algorithm AVPs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7.1. OC-Supported-Features AVP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7.1.1. OC-Feature-Vector AVP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7.2. OC-OLR AVP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7.2.1. OC-Maximum-Rate AVP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7.3. Attribute-Value Pair Flag Rules . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
8. Rate Abatement Algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
8.1. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
8.2. Reporting-Node Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
8.3. Reacting-Node Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
8.3.1. Default Algorithm for Rate-Based Control . . . . . . 13
8.3.2. Priority Treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
8.3.3. Optional Enhancement: Avoidance of Resonance . . . . 17
9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
9.1. OC-Supported-Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
10. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Donovan & Noel Standards Track [Page 2]
RFC 8582 Diameter Overload Rate Control August 2019
1. Introduction
This document defines a new Diameter overload-control abatement
algorithm, the "rate" algorithm.
The base Diameter overload specification [RFC7683] defines the "loss
algorithm" as the default Diameter overload loss abatement algorithm.
The loss algorithm allows a reporting node (see Section 3) to
instruct a reacting node (see Section 3) to reduce the amount of
traffic sent to the reporting node by abating (diverting or
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
changes quickly. For instance, if the service requests that result
in Diameter transactions increase quickly, then the loss algorithm
cannot guarantee the load presented to the server remains below a
specific rate level. The loss algorithm can be slow to ensure the
stability of reporting nodes when subjected to rapidly-changing
loads. The "loss" algorithm errs both in throttling too much when
there is a dip in offered load, and throttling not enough when there
is a spike in offered load.
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 reporting node. If the
reporting 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 when the loss algorithm is used
as a Diameter overload abatement algorithm. Assume for this
discussion that the reporting node requests a 10% reduction. The
reacting node will then abate (diverting or throttling) ten Diameter
transactions a second, sending the remaining 90 transactions per
second to the reporting node.
Now assume that the reacting node's service requests spike to 1000
requests per second. The reacting node will continue to honor the
reporting node's request for a 10% reduction in traffic. This
results, in this example, in the reacting node sending 900 Diameter
transactions per second, abating 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 abate 91% of requests to get
back to the desired 90 transactions per second. However, once the
spike has abated and the rate at which the reacting node handles
requests has returned to 100 per second, this will result in just 9
Donovan & Noel Standards Track [Page 3]
RFC 8582 Diameter Overload Rate Control August 2019
transactions per second being sent to the reporting node, requiring a
new Overload report setting the reduction percentage back to 10%.
This control feedback loop has the potential to make the situation
worse by causing wide fluctuations in traffic on multiple nodes in
the Diameter network.
One of the benefits of a rate-based algorithm over the loss algorithm
is that it better handles spikes in traffic. Instead of sending a
request to reduce traffic by a percentage, 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
specifying the maximum transactions per second to be 90. The
reacting node will send the 90 regardless of whether it is receiving
100 or 1000 service requests per second.
It should be noted that one of the implications of the rate-based
algorithm is that the reporting node needs to determine how it wants
to distribute its load over the set of reacting nodes from which it
is receiving traffic. For instance, if the reporting node is
receiving Diameter traffic from 10 reacting nodes and has a capacity
of 100 transactions per second, then the reporting node could choose
to set the rate for each of the reacting nodes to 10 transactions per
second. This, of course, is assuming that each of the reacting nodes
has equal performance characteristics. The reporting node could also
choose to have a high-capacity reacting node send 55 transactions per
second and the remaining 9 low-capacity reacting nodes send 5
transactions per second. The ability of the reporting node to
specify the amount of traffic on a per-reacting-node basis implies
that the reporting node must maintain state for each of the reacting
nodes. This state includes the current allocation of Diameter
traffic to that reacting node. If the number of reacting nodes
changes, either because new nodes are added, nodes are removed from
service, or nodes fail, then the reporting node will need to
redistribute the maximum Diameter transactions over the new set of
reacting nodes.
This document extends the base Diameter Overload Indication
Conveyance (DOIC) solution [RFC7683] to add support for the rate
abatement algorithm.
This document draws heavily on work in the SIP Overload Control
Working Group. The definition of the rate abatement algorithm is
copied almost verbatim from the SIP Overload Control (SOC) document
[RFC7415], with changes focused on making the wording consistent with
the DOIC solution and the Diameter protocol.
Donovan & Noel Standards Track [Page 4]
RFC 8582 Diameter Overload Rate Control August 2019
2. Requirements
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
Diameter Node
A Diameter Client, Diameter Server, or Diameter Agent [RFC6733]
Diameter Endpoint
A Diameter Client or Diameter Server [RFC6733]
DOIC Node
A Diameter node that supports the DOIC solution defined in
[RFC7683]
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
4. Interaction with DOIC Report Types
As of the publication of this specification, there are three DOIC
report types:
HOST_REPORT 0:
Overload of a specific Diameter application at a specific Diameter
node as defined in [RFC7683]
REALM_REPORT 1:
Overload of a specific Diameter application at a specific Diameter
realm as defined in [RFC7683]
PEER_REPORT 2:
Overload of a specific Diameter peer as defined in [RFC8581]
Donovan & Noel Standards Track [Page 5]
RFC 8582 Diameter Overload Rate Control August 2019
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.
5. Capability Announcement
This document defines the rate abatement algorithm (referred to as
"rate" in this document) feature. Support for the rate feature by a
DOIC node will be indicated by a new value of the OC-Feature-Vector
attribute-value pair (AVP), as described in Section 7.1.1, per the
rules defined in [RFC7683].
Since all nodes that support DOIC are required to support the loss
algorithm, DOIC nodes supporting the rate feature will support both
the loss and rate abatement algorithms.
DOIC reacting nodes supporting the rate feature MUST indicate support
for both the loss and rate algorithms in the OC-Feature-Vector AVP
and MAY indicate support for other algorithms.
As defined in [RFC7683], a DOIC reporting node supporting the rate
feature selects a single abatement algorithm in the OC-Feature-Vector
AVP and OC-Peer-Algo AVP in the answer message sent to the DOIC
reacting nodes.
A reporting node can 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 is reflected in the
OC-Feature-Vector AVP sent as part of the OC-Supported-Features AVP
included in answer messages for transactions where the request
contained an OC-Supported-Features AVP. This is per the procedures
defined in [RFC7683].
For Peer reports, the selected algorithm is reflected in the OC-Peer-
Algo AVP sent as part of the OC-Supported-Features AVP included in
answer messages for transactions where the request contained an
OC-Supported-Features AVP. This is per the procedures defined in
[RFC8581].
Donovan & Noel Standards Track [Page 6]
RFC 8582 Diameter Overload Rate Control August 2019
6. Overload-Report Handling
This section describes any changes to the behavior defined in
[RFC7683] for the handling of Overload reports when the rate
abatement algorithm is used.
6.1. Reporting-Node OCS
A reporting node that uses the rate abatement algorithm SHOULD
maintain reporting-node Overload Control State (OCS) for each
reacting node to which it sends a rate Overload Report (OLR).
Note: This is different from the behavior defined in [RFC7683]
where a reporting node sends a single loss percentage 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 DiameterIdentity of the target of the rate OLR.
The rate OCS entry SHOULD include the rate allocated to the reacting
node.
A reporting node that has selected the rate abatement algorithm MUST
indicate the rate requested to be applied by DOIC reacting nodes in
the OC-Maximum-Rate AVP included in the OC-OLR AVP.
All other elements for the OCS defined in [RFC7683] and [RFC8581]
also apply to the reporting node's OCS when using the rate abatement
algorithm.
6.2. Reacting-Node OCS
A reacting node that supports the rate abatement algorithm MUST
indicate rate as the selected abatement algorithm in the reacting-
node OCS based on the OC-Feature-Vector AVP or the OC-Peer-Algo AVP
in the received OC-Supported-Features AVP.
A reacting node that supports the rate abatement algorithm MUST
include the rate specified in the OC-Maximum-Rate AVP included in the
OC-OLR AVP as an element of the abatement-algorithm-specific portion
of reacting-node OCS entries.
Donovan & Noel Standards Track [Page 7]
RFC 8582 Diameter Overload Rate Control August 2019
All other elements for the OCS defined in [RFC7683] and [RFC8581]
also apply to the reporting nodes OCS when using the rate abatement
algorithm.
6.3. Reporting-Node Maintenance of OCS
A reporting node that has selected the rate abatement algorithm and
enters an overload condition MUST indicate rate as the abatement
algorithm and MUST indicate the selected rate in the resulting
reporting-node OCS entries.
When selecting the rate algorithm in the response 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 DiameterIdentity contained in
the Origin-Host AVP received in the request.
o For Realm reports, the target is the DiameterIdentity contained in
the Origin-Realm AVP received in the request.
o For Peer reports, the target is the DiameterIdentity of the
Diameter peer from which the request was received.
A reporting node that receives a capability announcement from a new
reacting node, meaning a reacting node for which it does not have an
OCS entry, and the reporting node that chooses the rate algorithm for
that reacting node may need to recalculate the rate to be allocated
to all reacting nodes. Any changed rate values will be communicated
in the next OLR sent to each reacting node.
6.4. Reacting-Node Maintenance of OCS
When receiving an answer message indicating that the reporting node
has selected the rate algorithm, a reacting node MUST indicate the
rate abatement algorithm in the reacting-node OCS entry for the
reporting node.
A reacting node receiving an Overload report for the rate abatement
algorithm MUST save the rate received in the OC-Maximum-Rate AVP
contained in the OC-OLR AVP in the reacting-node OCS entry.
Donovan & Noel Standards Track [Page 8]
RFC 8582 Diameter Overload Rate Control August 2019
6.5. 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
abatement algorithm, 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.
Note: It is also possible for the reporting node to send Overload
reports with the rate algorithm indicated even when the reporting
node is not in an overloaded state. This could be a strategy to
proactively avoid entering into an overloaded state. Whether or
not to do so is up to local policy.
When sending an Overload report for the rate algorithm, the
OC-Maximum-Rate AVP MUST be included in the OC-OLR AVP and the
OC-Reduction-Percentage AVP MUST NOT be included.
6.6. 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
abatement algorithm, the reacting node can choose to use the
algorithm detailed in Section 8.
Other algorithms for controlling the rate MAY be implemented by the
reacting node. Any algorithm implemented MUST correctly limit the
maximum rate of traffic being sent to the reporting node.
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 [RFC7683] and
[RFC8581] apply.
7. Rate Abatement Algorithm AVPs
7.1. OC-Supported-Features AVP
The rate algorithm does not add any new 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 Standards Track [Page 9]
RFC 8582 Diameter Overload Rate Control August 2019
7.1.1. OC-Feature-Vector AVP
This extension adds the following capability to the OC-Feature-Vector
AVP.
OLR_RATE_ALGORITHM (0x0000000000000004)
This bit is assigned to the rate abatement algorithm. When this
flag is set by the overload-control endpoint, it indicates that
the DOIC node supports the rate abatement algorithm.
7.2. OC-OLR AVP
This extension defines the OC-Maximum-Rate AVP to be an optional part
of the OC-OLR AVP.
OC-OLR ::= < AVP Header: 623 >
< OC-Sequence-Number >
< OC-Report-Type >
[ OC-Reduction-Percentage ]
[ OC-Validity-Duration ]
[ SourceID ]
[ OC-Maximum-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_REPORT and REALM_REPORT defined in
[RFC7683] apply to the rate control algorithm. The report type of
PEER_REPORT defined in [RFC8581] also applies to the rate control
algorithm.
7.2.1. OC-Maximum-Rate AVP
The OC-Maximum-Rate AVP (AVP code 670) is of type Unsigned32 and
describes the maximum rate that the sender is requested to send
traffic. This is specified in terms of requests per second.
A value of zero indicates that no traffic is to be sent.
Donovan & Noel Standards Track [Page 10]
RFC 8582 Diameter Overload Rate Control August 2019
7.3. Attribute-Value Pair Flag Rules
+---------+
|AVP flag |
|rules |
+----+----+
AVP Section | |MUST|
Attribute Name Code Defined Value Type |MUST| NOT|
+---------------------------------------------------------+----+----+
|OC-Maximum-Rate 670 7.2.1 Unsigned32 | | V |
+---------------------------------------------------------+----+----+
8. Rate Abatement Algorithm
This section is pulled from [RFC7415] with minor changes needed to
make it apply to the Diameter protocol.
8.1. Overview
The reporting node is the one protected by the overload control
algorithm defined here. The reacting node is the one that abates
traffic towards the server.
Following the procedures defined in [RFC7683], the reacting node and
reporting node signal their support for rate-based overload control.
Then, periodically, the reporting node relies on internal
measurements (e.g., CPU utilization or queuing delay) to evaluate its
overload state and estimate a target maximum 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.
Upon receiving the Overload report with a target maximum Diameter
request rate, each reacting node applies overload abatement for new
Diameter requests towards the reporting node.
8.2. Reporting-Node Behavior
The actual algorithm used by the reporting node to determine its
overload state and estimate a target maximum Diameter request rate is
beyond the scope of this document.
Donovan & Noel Standards Track [Page 11]
RFC 8582 Diameter Overload Rate Control August 2019
However, the reporting node MUST periodically evaluate its overload
state and estimate a target Diameter request rate beyond which it
would become overloaded. The reporting node must allocate a portion
of the target Diameter request rate to each of its reacting nodes.
The reporting node may set the same rate for every reacting node, or
may set different rates for different reacting nodes.
The maximum rate determined by the reporting node for a reacting node
applies to the entire stream of Diameter requests, even though
abatement may only affect a particular subset of the requests, since
the reacting node might apply priority as part of its decision of
which requests to abate.
When setting the maximum rate for a particular reacting node, the
reporting node may need to 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 value of OC-Maximum-Rate AVP (in request messages per
second) for the rate algorithm provides a loose upper bound on the
traffic sent by the reacting node to the reporting node.
In other words, when multiple reacting nodes are being controlled by
an overloaded reporting node, at any given time, some reporting nodes
may receive requests at a rate below its target maximum Diameter
request rate while receiving others above that target rate. But, the
resulting request rate presented to the overloaded reporting node
will converge towards the target Diameter request rate or a lower
rate.
Upon detection of overload, and the determination to invoke overload
controls, the reporting node follows the specifications in [RFC7683]
to notify its reacting nodes of the allocated target maximum Diameter
request rate, and to notify them that the rate abatement is in
effect.
The reporting node uses the OC-Maximum-Rate AVP defined in this
specification to communicate a target maximum Diameter request rate
to each of its clients.
Donovan & Noel Standards Track [Page 12]
RFC 8582 Diameter Overload Rate Control August 2019
8.3. Reacting-Node Behavior
8.3.1. Default Algorithm for Rate-Based Control
A reference algorithm is shown below.
Note that use of "//" below indicates a comment.
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 Diameter 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 Diameter request
// Update X and LCT
X = max (0, Xp) + T;
LCT = ta;
} else {
// Reject Diameter request
// Do not update X and LCT
}
In determining whether or not to transmit a specific message, the
reacting node can use any algorithm that limits the message rate to
the OC-Maximum-Rate AVP value in units of messages per second. For
ease of discussion, we define T = 1/[OC-Maximum-Rate] as the target
inter-Diameter request interval. 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 reacting
node, or they may be negotiated independently between the reacting
node and the reporting node.
Donovan & Noel Standards Track [Page 13]
RFC 8582 Diameter Overload Rate Control August 2019
In either case, the coordination is out of the scope of this
document. The default algorithms presented here (one with and one
without provisions for prioritizing traffic) are only examples.
To apply abatement treatment to 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
that forward messages in conformance with the upper bound of 1/T
messages per second.
The default leaky bucket algorithm presented here is based on
Appendix A.2 of [ITU-T-I.371]. The algorithm makes it possible for
reacting nodes 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 apply abatement
treatment to 100% of Diameter requests destined to the overloaded
reporting node. However, when the OC-Validity-Duration value is 0,
the reacting node should stop applying abatement treatment.
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 abatement treatment is
applied to the Diameter request.
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.)
Donovan & Noel Standards Track [Page 14]
RFC 8582 Diameter Overload Rate Control August 2019
This deviation from the inter-departure interval influences the
admitted rate burstiness 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).
In situations where reacting nodes are configured with some knowledge
about the reporting node and other traffic sources (e.g., operator
pre-provisioning), it can be beneficial to choose a value of TAU
based on how many reacting nodes will be sending requests to the
reporting node.
Reporting nodes with a very large number of reacting nodes, 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 a 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 abatement treatment is applied to the new Diameter
request, and the values of X and LCT are unchanged.
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 abatement
rate adaptation at low offered rate.
Donovan & Noel Standards Track [Page 15]
RFC 8582 Diameter Overload Rate Control August 2019
Note that specification of a value for TAU, and any communication or
coordination between servers, is beyond the scope of this document.
8.3.2. Priority Treatment
A reference algorithm is shown below.
Priority case:
// T: inter-transmission interval, set to 1 / OC-Maximum-Rate
// TAU1: tolerance parameter of no priority Diameter requests
// TAU2: tolerance parameter of priority Diameter requests
// ta: arrival time of the most recent arrival
// LCT: arrival time of last Diameter 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 Diameter request
// Update X and LCT
X = max (0, Xp) + T;
LCT = ta;
} else {
// Apply abatement treatment to Diameter request
// Do not update X and LCT
}
The reacting node is responsible for applying message priority and
for maintaining two categories of requests: request candidates for
reduction, and requests not subject to reduction (except under
extenuating circumstances when there aren't any messages in the first
category that can be reduced).
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.
Donovan & Noel Standards Track [Page 16]
RFC 8582 Diameter Overload Rate Control August 2019
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.
With a priority scheme that relies on two tolerance parameters (TAU2
influences the priority traffic, and 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
queuing.
TAU1 and TAU2 can assume any positive real number value and is not
necessarily bounded by T.
Reasonable values for TAU0, TAU1, and TAU2 are:
o TAU0 = 0,
o TAU1 = 1/2 * TAU2, and
o 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.
8.3.3. 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 both the
admissions from each source being close in time and batched, or very
"peaky" arrivals at the reporting node. This gives rise not only to
control instability, but also very poor delays and even lost
messages. An appropriate term for this is "resonance" [Erramilli].
Donovan & Noel Standards Track [Page 17]
RFC 8582 Diameter Overload Rate Control August 2019
If the network topology is such that resonance can occur, then a
simple way to avoid resonance is to randomize the bucket occupancy at
two appropriate points: at the activation of control, and whenever
the bucket empties, as described below:
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 let u be set to a random value uniformly
distributed between -1/2 and +1/2
Then, (only) if the arrival is admitted, increase the bucket content
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 the 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 activate
control at the same time due to an extremely high request rate,
then the time until the first request admitted by each reacting
node 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. Therefore, there is no
loss of precision of the admitted rate, even though the randomized
"phasing" of the buckets remains.
Donovan & Noel Standards Track [Page 18]
RFC 8582 Diameter Overload Rate Control August 2019
9. IANA Considerations
IANA has registered the following values in the "Authentication,
Authorization, and Accounting (AAA) Parameters" registry:
One new AVP code is defined in Section 7.2.1.
One new OC-Feature-Vector AVP value is defined in Section 7.1.1.
9.1. OC-Supported-Features
As indicated in Section 7.1.1, a new allocation has been made for the
OC-Feature-Vector AVP.
10. Security Considerations
The rate abatement mechanism is an extension to the base Diameter
Overload mechanism. As such, all of the security considerations
outlined in [RFC7683] apply to the rate abatement mechanism.
In addition, the rate algorithm could be used to handle denial-of-
service (DoS) attacks more effectively than the loss algorithm.
11. References
11.1. 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>.
[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>.
[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>.
Donovan & Noel Standards Track [Page 19]
RFC 8582 Diameter Overload Rate Control August 2019
[RFC8581] Donovan, S., "Diameter Agent Overload and the Peer
Overload Report", RFC 8581, DOI 10.17487/RFC8581, August
2019, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8581>.
11.2. Informative References
[Erramilli]
Erramilli, A. and L. Forys, "Traffic Synchronization
Effects In Teletraffic Systems", 1991.
[ITU-T-I.371]
ITU-T, "Traffic control and congestion control in B-ISDN",
ITU-T Recommendation I.371, March 2004.
[RFC7415] Noel, E. and P. Williams, "Session Initiation Protocol
(SIP) Rate Control", RFC 7415, DOI 10.17487/RFC7415,
February 2015, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7415>.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Lionel Morand for his contributions
to this document.
Authors' Addresses
Steve Donovan (editor)
Oracle
7460 Warren Parkway, Suite 300
Frisco, Texas 75034
United States of America
Email: srdonovan@usdonovans.com
Eric Noel
AT&T Labs
200s Laurel Avenue
Middletown, NJ 07747
United States of America
Email: ecnoel@research.att.com
Donovan & Noel Standards Track [Page 20]