Internet DRAFT - draft-hilt-sipping-overload
draft-hilt-sipping-overload
SIPPING Working Group V. Hilt
Internet-Draft Bell Labs/Alcatel-Lucent
Intended status: Standards Track H. Schulzrinne
Expires: October 28, 2010 Columbia University
April 26, 2010
Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Overload Control
draft-hilt-sipping-overload-08
Abstract
Overload occurs in Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) networks when
SIP servers have insufficient resources to handle all SIP messages
they receive. Even though the SIP protocol provides a limited
overload control mechanism through its 503 (Service Unavailable)
response code, SIP servers are still vulnerable to overload. This
document defines an overload control mechanism for SIP.
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 October 28, 2010.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2010 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
Hilt & Schulzrinne Expires October 28, 2010 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Overload Control April 2010
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Via Header Parameters for Overload Control . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1. The 'oc_accept' Parameter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.2. Creating the 'oc' Parameter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.3. Determining the 'oc' Parameter Value . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.4. Processing the 'oc' Parameter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.5. Using the 'oc' Parameter Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.6. Self-Limiting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4. Responding to an Overload Indication . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.1. Message Prioritization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.2. Rejecting Requests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5. Syntax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6. Design Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6.1. SIP Mechanism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6.1.1. SIP Response Header . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6.1.2. SIP Event Package . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6.2. Backwards Compatibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Appendix A. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Hilt & Schulzrinne Expires October 28, 2010 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Overload Control April 2010
1. Introduction
As with any network element, a Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)
[RFC3261] server can suffer from overload when the number of SIP
messages it receives exceeds the number of messages it can process.
Overload can pose a serious problem for a network of SIP servers.
During periods of overload, the throughput of a network of SIP
servers can be significantly degraded. In fact, overload may lead to
a situation in which the throughput drops down to a small fraction of
the original processing capacity. This is often called congestion
collapse.
Overload is said to occur if a SIP server does not have sufficient
resources to process all incoming SIP messages. These resources may
include CPU processing capacity, memory, network bandwidth, input/
output, or disk resources.
For overload control, we only consider failure cases where SIP
servers are unable to process all SIP requests due to resource
constraints. There are other cases where a SIP server can
successfully process incoming requests but has to reject them due to
other failure conditions. For example, a PSTN gateway that runs out
of trunk lines but still has plenty of capacity to process SIP
messages should reject incoming INVITEs using a 488 (Not Acceptable
Here) response [RFC4412]. Similarly, a SIP registrar that has lost
connectivity to its registration database but is still capable of
processing SIP messages should reject REGISTER requests with a 500
(Server Error) response [RFC3261]. Overload control does not apply
to these cases and SIP provides appropriate response codes for them.
The SIP protocol provides a limited mechanism for overload control
through its 503 (Service Unavailable) response code. However, this
mechanism cannot prevent overload of a SIP server and it cannot
prevent congestion collapse. In fact, the use of the 503 (Service
Unavailable) response code may cause traffic to oscillate and to
shift between SIP servers and thereby worsen an overload condition.
A detailed discussion of the SIP overload problem, the problems with
the 503 (Service Unavailable) response code and the requirements for
a SIP overload control mechanism can be found in [RFC5390].
2. Terminology
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].
Hilt & Schulzrinne Expires October 28, 2010 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Overload Control April 2010
3. Via Header Parameters for Overload Control
This document defines new parameters for the SIP Via header for
overload control. These parameters provide a SIP mechanism for
conveying overload control information between SIP entities.
3.1. The 'oc_accept' Parameter
A SIP server that supports this specification MUST add an "oc_accept"
parameter to the Via headers it inserts into SIP requests. This
provides an indication to downstream neighbors that this server
supports overload control.
A SIP server MUST remove the 'oc_accept' parameter from the topmost
Via header in a response before forwarding the response. The topmost
Via header is determined after the SIP server has removed its own Via
header. I.e., it is the Via header that was generated by the next
upstream neighbor.
3.2. Creating the 'oc' Parameter
A SIP server can provide overload control feedback to its upstream
neighbors by adding the 'oc' parameter to the topmost Via header
field of a SIP response. The 'oc' parameter is a new Via header
parameter defined in this specification. When an 'oc' parameter is
added to a response, it MUST be inserted into the topmost Via header.
It MUST NOT be added to any other Via header in the response. The
topmost Via header is determined after the SIP server has removed its
own Via header. I.e., it is the Via header that was generated by the
next upstream neighbor.
Since the topmost Via header of a response will be removed by an
upstream neighbor after processing it, overload control feedback
contained in the 'oc' parameter will not travel beyond the next SIP
server. A Via header parameter therefore provides hop-by-hop
semantics for overload control feedback (see
[I-D.ietf-sipping-overload-design]) even if the next hop neighbor
does not support this specification.
The 'oc' parameter can be used in all response types, including
provisional, success and failure responses. A SIP server MAY add the
'oc' parameter to all responses it is sending. A SIP server SHOULD
add an 'oc' parameter to responses, that contain an 'oc_accept'
parameter in the topmost Via header. A SIP server MUST add an 'oc'
parameter to responses when the transmission of overload control
feedback is required by the overload control algorithm to limit the
traffic received by the server. I.e., a SIP server MUST insert the
'oc' parameter when the overload control algorithm sets the 'oc'
Hilt & Schulzrinne Expires October 28, 2010 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Overload Control April 2010
parameter to a value different than the default value.
A SIP server that has added an 'oc' parameter to Via header SHOULD
also add a 'oc_validity' parameter to the same Via header. The
'oc_validity' parameter defines the time in milliseconds during which
the content (i.e., the overload control feedback) of the 'oc'
parameter is valid. The default value of the 'oc_validity' parameter
is 500. A SIP server SHOULD use a shorter 'oc_validity' time if its
overload status varies quickly and MAY use a longer 'oc_validity'
time if this status is more stable. If the 'oc_validity' parameter
is not present, its default value is used. The 'oc_validity'
parameter MUST NOT be used in a Via header without an 'oc' parameter
and MUST be ignored if it appears in a Via header without 'oc'
parameter.
A SIP server MAY forward the content of an 'oc' parameter it has
received from a downstream neighbor on to its upstream neighbor.
However, forwarding the content of the 'oc' parameter is generally
NOT RECOMMENDED and should only be performed if permitted by the
configuration of SIP servers. For example, a SIP server that only
relays messages between exactly two SIP servers may forward an 'oc'
parameter. The 'oc' parameter is forwarded by copying it from the
Via in which it was received into the next Via header (i.e., the Via
header that will be on top after processing the response). If an
'oc_validity' parameter is present, MUST be copied along with the
'oc' parameter.
The 'oc' and 'oc_validity' Via header parameters are only defined in
SIP responses and MUST NOT be used in SIP requests. These parameters
are only useful to the upstream neighbor of a SIP server (i.e., the
entity that is sending requests to the SIP server) since this is the
entity that can offload traffic by redirecting/rejecting new
requests. If requests are forwarded in both directions between two
SIP servers (i.e., the roles of upstream/downstream neighbors
change), there are also responses flowing in both directions. Thus,
both two SIP servers can exchange overload information. While adding
'oc' and 'oc_validity' parameters to requests may increase the
frequency with which overload information is exchanged in these
scenarios, this increase will rarely provide benefits and does not
justify the added overhead and complexity needed.
A SIP server MAY decide to add 'oc' and 'oc_validity' parameters only
to responses that are sent via a secured transport channel such as
TLS. The SIP server can use transport level authentication to
identify the SIP servers, to which responses with these parameters
are sent. This enables a SIP server to protect overload control
information and ensure that it is only visible to trusted parties.
Since overload control protects a SIP server from overload, it is
Hilt & Schulzrinne Expires October 28, 2010 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Overload Control April 2010
RECOMMENDED that a SIP server generally inserts 'oc' and
'oc_validity' parameters into responses to all SIP servers.
3.3. Determining the 'oc' Parameter Value
The value of the 'oc' parameter is determined by an overload control
algorithm (see [I-D.ietf-sipping-overload-design]). This
specification does not mandate the use of a specific overload control
algorithm. However, the output of an overload control algorithm MUST
be compliant to the semantics of this Via header parameter.
The 'oc' parameter value specifies the percentage by which the load
forwarded to this SIP server should be reduced. Possible values
range from 0 (the traffic forwarded is reduced by 0%, i.e., all
traffic is forwarded) to 100 (the traffic forwarded is reduced by
100%, i.e., no traffic forwarded). The default value of this
parameter is 0.
OPEN ISSUE: the 'oc' parameter value specified in this document is
defined to contain a loss rate. However, other types of overload
control feedback exist, for example, a target rate for rate-based
overload control or message confirmations and window-size for
window-based overload control.
While it would in theory be possible to allow multiple types of
overload control feedback to co-exist (e.g., by using different
parameters for the different feedback types) it is very
problematic for interoperability purposes and would require SIP
servers to implement multiple overload control mechanisms.
3.4. Processing the 'oc' Parameter
A SIP entity compliant to this specification SHOULD remove 'oc' and
'oc_validity' parameters from all Via headers of a response received,
except for the topmost Via header. This prevents 'oc'/'oc_validity'
parameters that were accidentally or maliciously inserted into Via
headers by a downstream SIP server from traveling upstream.
A SIP server maintains the 'oc' parameter values received along with
the address of the SIP servers from which they were received for the
duration specified in the 'oc_validity' parameter or the default
duration. Each time a SIP server receives a response with an 'oc'
parameter from a SIP server, it overwrites the 'oc' value it has
currently stored for this server with the new value received. The
SIP server restarts the validity period of an 'oc' parameter each
time a response with an 'oc' parameter is received from this server.
A stored 'oc' parameter value MUST be discarded once it has reached
the end of its validity.
Hilt & Schulzrinne Expires October 28, 2010 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Overload Control April 2010
3.5. Using the 'oc' Parameter Value
A SIP server compliant to this specification MUST honor 'oc'
parameter values it receives from downstream neighbors. The SIP
server MUST NOT forward more messages to a SIP server than allowed by
the current 'oc' parameter value from this server.
When forwarding a SIP request, a SIP entity uses the SIP procedures
to determine the next hop SIP server as, e.g., described in [RFC3261]
and [RFC3263]. After selecting the next hop server, the SIP server
MUST determine if it has an 'oc' parameter value for this server. If
it has a non-expired 'oc' parameter value, the SIP server MUST
determine if it can or cannot forward the current request within the
current conditions.
The SIP server SHOULD use the following algorithm to determine if it
can forward the request. The SIP server draws a random number
between 1 and 100 for the current request. If the random number is
less than or equal to the 'oc' parameter value, the request is not
forwarded. Otherwise, the request is forwarded. An alternative
algorithm for SIP entities that processes a large number of requests
is to reject/redirect the first X of every 100 requests processed.
Other algorithms that lead to the same result can be used as well.
3.6. Self-Limiting
In some cases, a SIP server may not receive a response from a
downstream neighbor when sending a request. RFC3261 [RFC3261]
defines that when a timeout error is received from the transaction
layer, it MUST be treated as if a 408 (Request Timeout) status code
has been received. If a fatal transport error is reported by the
transport layer, it MUST be treated as a 503 (Service Unavailable)
status code.
In these cases, a SIP server MUST stop sending requests to this
server. The SIP server SHOULD occasionally forward a single request
to probe if the downstream neighbor is alive. Once a SIP server has
successfully transmitted a request to the downstream neighbor, it can
resume normal transmission of requests. It should, of course, honor
an 'oc' parameters it may receive. This avoids that a SIP server,
which is unable to respond to incoming requests, is overloaded with
additional requests.
4. Responding to an Overload Indication
An element can receive overload control feedback indicating that it
needs to reduce the traffic it sends to its downstream neighbor. An
Hilt & Schulzrinne Expires October 28, 2010 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Overload Control April 2010
element can accomplish this task by sending some of the requests that
would have gone to the overloaded element to a different destination.
It needs to ensure, however, that this destination is not in overload
and capable of processing the extra load. An element can also buffer
requests in the hope that the overload condition will resolve quickly
and the requests still can be forwarded in time. In many cases,
however, it will need to reject these requests.
4.1. Message Prioritization
During an overload condition, a SIP server needs to prioritize
messages and select messages that need to be rejected or redirected.
The selection is largely a matter of local policy.
A SIP server SHOULD honor the Resource-Priority header field as
defined in RFC4412 [RFC4412] if it is present in a SIP request. The
Resource-Priority header field enables a proxy to identify high-
priority requests, such as emergency service requests, and preserve
them as much as possible during times of overload.
4.2. Rejecting Requests
A SIP server that rejects a request because of overload MUST reject
this request with a 503 (Service Unavailable) response code. This
response code indicates that the request did not succeed because the
SIP servers processing the request are under overload.
A SIP server that is under overload and has started to throttle
incoming traffic SHOULD use 503 responses without Retry-After header
to reject a fraction of requests from upstream neighbors that do not
include the 'oc_accept' parameter in their Via headers. These
neighbors do not support this specification and will not respond to
overload control feedback in the 'oc' parameter. The fraction of
requests rejected SHOULD be equivalent to the fraction of requests
the upstream server would reject/redirect if it did support this
specification. This is to ensure that SIP servers, which do not
support this specification, don't receive an unfair advantage over
those that do.
A SIP server that has reached overload (i.e., a load close to 100)
SHOULD start using 503 responses in addition to using the 'oc'
parameter for all upstream neighbors. If the proxy has reached a
load close to 100, it needs to protect itself against overload.
Also, it is likely that upstream proxies have ignored overload
feedback and do not support this specification.
Hilt & Schulzrinne Expires October 28, 2010 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Overload Control April 2010
5. Syntax
This section defines the syntax of three new Via header parameters:
'oc', 'oc_validity' and 'oc_accept'. These Via header parameters are
used to implement an overload control feedback loop between
neighboring SIP servers.
The 'oc' and 'oc_validity' parameters are only defined in the topmost
Via header of a response. They MUST NOT be used in the Via headers
of requests and MUST NOT be used in other Via headers of a response.
The 'oc' and 'oc_validity' parameters MUST be ignored if received
outside of the topmost Via header of a response. The 'oc_accept'
parameter MAY appear in all Via headers.
The 'oc' Via header parameter contains a number between 0 and 100.
It describes the percentage by which the traffic to the SIP server
from which the response has been received should be reduced. The
default value for this parameter is 0.
The 'oc_validity' Via header parameter contains the time during which
the corresponding 'oc' Via header parameter is valid. The
'oc_validity' parameter can only be present in a Via header in
conjunction with an 'oc' parameter.
The 'oc_accept' Via header parameter indicates that the SIP server,
which has created this Via header, supports overload control.
oc = "oc" [EQUAL 0-100]
oc-validity = "oc_validity" [EQUAL delta-ms]
oc-accept = "oc_accept"
This extends the existing definition of the Via header field
parameters, so that its BNF now looks like:
via-params = via-ttl / via-maddr
/ via-received / via-branch
/ oc / oc-validity
/ oc-accept / via-extension
Example:
Via: SIP/2.0/TCP ss1.atlanta.example.com:5060
;branch=z9hG4bK2d4790.1
;received=192.0.2.111
;oc=20;oc_validity=500
Hilt & Schulzrinne Expires October 28, 2010 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Overload Control April 2010
6. Design Considerations
This section discusses specific design considerations for the
mechanism described in this document. General design considerations
for SIP overload control can be found in
[I-D.ietf-sipping-overload-design].
6.1. SIP Mechanism
A SIP mechanism is needed to convey overload feedback from the
receiving to the sending SIP entity. A number of different
alternatives exist to implement such a mechanism.
6.1.1. SIP Response Header
Overload control information can be transmitted using a new Via
header field parameter for overload control. A SIP server can add
this header parameter to the responses it is sending upstream to
provide overload control feedback to its upstream neighbors. This
approach has the following characteristics:
o A Via header parameter is light-weight and creates very little
overhead. It does not require the transmission of additional
messages for overload control and does not increase traffic or
processing burdens in an overload situation.
o Overload control status can frequently be reported to upstream
neighbors since it is a part of a SIP response. This enables the
use of this mechanism in scenarios where the overload status needs
to be adjusted frequently. It also enables the use of overload
control mechanisms that use regular feedback such as window-based
overload control.
o With a Via header parameter, overload control status is inherent
in SIP signaling and is automatically conveyed to all relevant
upstream neighbors, i.e., neighbors that are currently
contributing traffic. There is no need for a SIP server to
specifically track and manage the set of current upstream or
downstream neighbors with which it should exchange overload
feedback.
o Overload status is not conveyed to inactive senders. This avoids
the transmission of overload feedback to inactive senders, which
do not contribute traffic. If an inactive sender starts to
transmit while the receiver is in overload it will receive
overload feedback in the first response and can adjust the amount
of traffic forwarded accordingly.
o A SIP server can limit the distribution of overload control
information by only inserting it into responses to known upstream
neighbors. A SIP server can use transport level authentication
(e.g., via TLS) with its upstream neighbors.
Hilt & Schulzrinne Expires October 28, 2010 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Overload Control April 2010
6.1.2. SIP Event Package
Overload control information can also be conveyed from a receiver to
a sender using a new event package. Such an event package enables a
sending entity to subscribe to the overload status of its downstream
neighbors and receive notifications of overload control status
changes in NOTIFY requests. This approach has the following
characteristics:
o Overload control information is conveyed decoupled from SIP
signaling. It enables an overload control manager, which is a
separate entity, to monitor the load on other servers and provide
overload control feedback to all SIP servers that have set up
subscriptions with the controller.
o With an event package, a receiver can send updates to senders that
are currently inactive. Inactive senders will receive a
notification about the overload and can refrain from sending
traffic to this neighbor until the overload condition is resolved.
The receiver can also notify all potential senders once they are
permitted to send traffic again. However, these notifications do
generate additional traffic, which adds to the overall load.
o A SIP entity needs to set up and maintain overload control
subscriptions with all upstream and downstream neighbors. A new
subscription needs to be set up before/while a request is
transmitted to a new downstream neighbor. Servers can be
configured to subscribe at boot time. However, this would require
additional protection to avoid the avalanche restart problem for
overload control. Subscriptions need to be terminated when they
are not needed any more, which can be done, for example, using a
timeout mechanism.
o A receiver needs to send NOTIFY messages to all subscribed
upstream neighbors in a timely manner when the control algorithm
requires a change in the control variable (e.g., when a SIP server
is in an overload condition). This includes active as well as
inactive neighbors. These NOTIFYs add to the amount of traffic
that needs to be processed. To ensure that these requests will
not be dropped due to overload, a priority mechanism needs to be
implemented in all servers these request will pass through.
o As overload feedback is sent to all senders in separate messages,
this mechanism is not suitable when frequent overload control
feedback is needed.
o A SIP server can limit the set of senders that can receive
overload control information by authenticating subscriptions to
this event package.
o This approach requires each proxy to implement user agent
functionality (UAS and UAC) to manage the subscriptions.
This document defines a new Via header field parameter for overload
Hilt & Schulzrinne Expires October 28, 2010 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Overload Control April 2010
control.
6.2. Backwards Compatibility
An new overload control mechanism needs to be backwards compatible so
that it can be gradually introduced into a network and functions
properly if only a fraction of the servers support it.
Hop-by-hop overload control (see [I-D.ietf-sipping-overload-design])
has the advantage that it does not require that all SIP entities in a
network support it. It can be used effectively between two adjacent
SIP servers if both servers support overload control and does not
depend on the support from any other server or user agent. The more
SIP servers in a network support hop-by-hop overload control, the
better protected the network is against occurrences of overload.
A SIP server may have multiple upstream neighbors from which only
some may support overload control. If a server would simply use this
overload control mechanism, only those that support it would reduce
traffic. Others would keep sending at the full rate and benefit from
the throttling by the servers that support overload control. In
other words, upstream neighbors that do not support overload control
would be better off than those that do.
A SIP server should therefore use 5xx responses towards upstream
neighbors that do not support overload control. The server should
reject the same amount of requests with 5xx responses that would be
otherwise be rejected/redirected by the upstream neighbor if it would
support overload control. If the load condition on the server does
not permit the creation of 5xx responses, the server should drop all
requests from servers that do not support overload control.
7. Security Considerations
Overload control mechanisms can be used by an attacker to conduct a
denial-of-service attack on a SIP entity if the attacker can pretend
that the SIP entity is overloaded. When such a forged overload
indication is received by an upstream SIP entity, it will stop
sending traffic to the victim. Thus, the victim is subject to a
denial-of-service attack.
An attacker can create forged overload feedback by inserting itself
into the communication between the victim and its upstream neighbors.
The attacker would need to add overload feedback indicating a high
load to the responses passed from the victim to its upstream
neighbor. Proxies can prevent this attack by communicating via TLS.
Since overload feedback has no meaning beyond the next hop, there is
Hilt & Schulzrinne Expires October 28, 2010 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Overload Control April 2010
no need to secure the communication over multiple hops.
Another way to conduct an attack is to send a message containing a
high overload feedback value through a proxy that does not support
this extension. If this feedback is added to the second Via headers
(or all Via headers), it will reach the next upstream proxy. If the
attacker can make the recipient believe that the overload status was
created by its direct downstream neighbor (and not by the attacker
further downstream) the recipient stops sending traffic to the
victim. A precondition for this attack is that the victim proxy does
not support this extension since it would not pass through overload
control feedback otherwise.
A malicious SIP entity could gain an advantage by pretending to
support this specification but never reducing the amount of traffic
it forwards to the downstream neighbor. If its downstream neighbor
receives traffic from multiple sources which correctly implement
overload control, the malicious SIP entity would benefit since all
other sources to its downstream neighbor would reduce load.
OPEN ISSUE: the solution to this problem depends on the overload
control method. For rate-based and window-based overload control,
it is very easy for a downstream entity to monitor if the upstream
neighbor throttles traffic forwarded as directed. For percentage
throttling this is not always obvious since the load forwarded
depends on the load received by the upstream neighbor.
8. IANA Considerations
[TBD.]
9. References
9.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC3261] Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., Camarillo, G., Johnston,
A., Peterson, J., Sparks, R., Handley, M., and E.
Schooler, "SIP: Session Initiation Protocol", RFC 3261,
June 2002.
[RFC3263] Rosenberg, J. and H. Schulzrinne, "Session Initiation
Protocol (SIP): Locating SIP Servers", RFC 3263,
June 2002.
Hilt & Schulzrinne Expires October 28, 2010 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Overload Control April 2010
[RFC4412] Schulzrinne, H. and J. Polk, "Communications Resource
Priority for the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)",
RFC 4412, February 2006.
9.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-sipping-overload-design]
Hilt, V., Noel, E., Shen, C., and A. Abdelal, "Design
Considerations for Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)
Overload Control", draft-ietf-sipping-overload-design-02
(work in progress), July 2009.
[RFC5390] Rosenberg, J., "Requirements for Management of Overload in
the Session Initiation Protocol", RFC 5390, December 2008.
Appendix A. Acknowledgements
Many thanks to Rich Terpstra, Daryl Malas, Jonathan Rosenberg and
Charles Shen for their contributions to this specification.
Authors' Addresses
Volker Hilt
Bell Labs/Alcatel-Lucent
791 Holmdel-Keyport Rd
Holmdel, NJ 07733
USA
Email: volkerh@bell-labs.com
Henning Schulzrinne
Columbia University/Department of Computer Science
450 Computer Science Building
New York, NY 10027
USA
Phone: +1 212 939 7004
Email: hgs@cs.columbia.edu
URI: http://www.cs.columbia.edu
Hilt & Schulzrinne Expires October 28, 2010 [Page 14]
