One document matched: draft-ietf-soc-overload-control-00.txt
SOC Working Group V. Gurbani, Ed.
Internet-Draft Bell Laboratories, Alcatel-Lucent
Intended status: Standards Track V. Hilt
Expires: May 23, 2011 Bell Labs/Alcatel-Lucent
H. Schulzrinne
Columbia University
November 19, 2010
Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Overload Control
draft-ietf-soc-overload-control-00
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 to IETF in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts.
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."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on May 23, 2011.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2010 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
Gurbani, et al. Expires May 23, 2011 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Overload Control November 2010
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 BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Overview of operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Via Header Parameters for Overload Control . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.1. The 'oc' Parameter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.2. Creating the Overload Control Parameters . . . . . . . . . 5
4.3. Determining the 'oc' Parameter Value . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.4. Processing the Overload Control Parameters . . . . . . . . 8
4.5. Using the Overload Control Parameter Values . . . . . . . 8
4.6. Forwarding the overload control parameters . . . . . . . . 9
4.7. Self-Limiting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5. Responding to an Overload Indication . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.1. Message prioritization at the hop before the
overloaded server . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.2. Rejecting requests at an overloaded server . . . . . . . . 11
6. Syntax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
7. Design Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7.1. SIP Mechanism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7.1.1. SIP Response Header . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7.1.2. SIP Event Package . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
7.2. Backwards Compatibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Appendix A. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Gurbani, et al. Expires May 23, 2011 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Overload Control November 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
failure conditions unrelated to the SIP server being overloaded. 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 requests
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].
Gurbani, et al. Expires May 23, 2011 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Overload Control November 2010
3. Overview of operations
We now explain the overview of how the overload control mechanism
operates by introducing the overload control parameters. Section 4
provides more details and normative behavior on the parameters listed
below.
Because overload control is best performed hop-by-hop, the Via
parameter is attractive since it allows two adjacent SIP entities to
indicate support for, and exchange information associated with
overload control. Additional advantages of this choice are discussed
in Section 7.1.1. An alternative mechanism using SIP event packages
was also considered, and the characteristics of that choice are
further outlined in Section 7.1.2.
This document defines three new parameters for the SIP Via header for
overload control. These parameters provide a SIP mechanism for
conveying overload control information between adjacent SIP
entities.) These parameters are:
1. oc: This parameter serves a dual purpose; when inserted by a SIP
entity in a request going downstream, the parameter indicates
that the SIP entity supports overload control. When the
downstream SIP server sends a response, the downstream SIP server
will add a value to the parameter that indicates a loss rate (in
percentage) by which the requests arriving at the downstream SIP
server should be reduced. (c.f. Section 4.2, Section 4.3,
Section 4.4 and Section 4.5.)
2. oc-validity: Inserted by the SIP entity sending a response
upstream. This parameter contains a value that indicates the
time (in ms) that the load reduction specified by the "oc"
parameter should be in effect (c.f. Section 4.2.)
3. oc-seq: Inserted by the SIP entity sending a response upstream.
This parameter contains a value that indicates the sequence
number associated with the "oc" parameter defined above (c.f.
Section Section 4.2).
Consider a SIP entity, P1, which is sending requests to another
downstream SIP server, P2. The following snippets of SIP messages
demonstrate how the overload control parameters work.
Gurbani, et al. Expires May 23, 2011 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Overload Control November 2010
INVITE sips:user@example.com SIP/2.0
Via: SIP/2.0/TLS p1.example.net;
branch=z9hG4bK2d4790.1;received=192.0.2.111;oc
...
SIP/2.0 100 Trying
Via: SIP/2.0/TLS p1.example.net;
branch=z9hG4bK2d4790.1;received=192.0.2.111;
oc=20;oc-validity=500;oc-seq=1282321615.781
...
In the messages above, the first line is sent by P1 to P2. This line
is a SIP request; because P1 supports overload control, it inserts
the "oc" parameter in the topmost Via header that it created.
The second line --- a SIP response --- shows the topmost Via header
amended by P2 according to this specification and sent to P1.
Because P2 also supports overload control, it sends back further
overload control parameters towards P1 requesting that P1 reduce the
incoming traffic by 20% for 500ms. P2 updates the "oc" parameter to
add a value and inserts the remaining two parameters, "oc-validity"
and "oc-seq".
4. Via Header Parameters for Overload Control
4.1. The 'oc' Parameter
A SIP entity that supports this specification MUST add an "oc"
parameter to the Via headers it inserts into SIP requests. This
provides an indication to downstream neighbors that this server
supports overload control. When inserted into a request by a SIP
entity to indicate support for overload control, there MUST NOT be a
value associated with the parameter.
4.2. Creating the Overload Control Parameters
A SIP server can provide overload control feedback to its upstream
neighbors by providing a value for the "oc" parameter to the topmost
Via header field of a SIP 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 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 upstream
SIP entity. A Via header parameter therefore provides hop-by-hop
semantics for overload control feedback (see
Gurbani, et al. Expires May 23, 2011 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Overload Control November 2010
[I-D.ietf-soc-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 update
the "oc" parameter to all responses it is sending. A SIP server MUST
update the "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 update the "oc" parameter when the overload control
algorithm sets the value of an "oc" parameter to a value different
than the default value.
A SIP server that has updated the "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 (millisecond). 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 that did
not originally contain an "oc" parameter when received. Furthermore,
when a SIP server receives a request with the topmost Via header
containing only an "oc-validity" parameter without the accompanying
"oc" parameter. it MUST ignore the "oc-validity" parameter.
When a SIP server retransmits a response, it SHOULD use the "oc"
parameter value and "oc-validity" parameter value consistent with the
overload state at the time the retransmitted response is sent. This
implies that the values in the "oc" and "oc-validity" parameters may
be different then the ones used in previous retransmissions of the
response. Due to the fact that responses sent over UDP may be
subject to delays in the network and arrive out of order, the "oc-
seq" parameter aids in detecting a stale "oc" parameter value.
Implementations that are capable of updating the "oc" and "oc-
validity" parameter values for retransmissions MUST insert the "oc-
seq" parameter. The value of this parameter MUST be a set of numbers
drawn from an increasing sequence.
Implementations that are not capable of updating the "oc" and "oc-
validity" parameter values for retransmissions --- or implementations
that do not want to do so because they will have to regenerate the
message to be retransmitted --- MUST still insert a "oc-seq"
parameter in the first response associated with a transaction;
however, they do not have to update the value in subsequent
Gurbani, et al. Expires May 23, 2011 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Overload Control November 2010
retransmissions.
The "oc_validity" and "oc-seq" 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 SIP servers can exchange overload information.
Since overload control protects a SIP server from overload, it is
RECOMMENDED that a SIP server use the mechanisms described in this
specification. However, if a SIP server wanted to limit its overload
control capability for privacy reasons, it MAY decide to perform
overload control only for requests that are received on a secure
transport channel, such as TLS. This enables a SIP server to protect
overload control information and ensure that it is only visible to
trusted parties.
4.3. Determining the 'oc' Parameter Value
The value of the "oc" parameter is determined by an overload control
algorithm (see [I-D.ietf-soc-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 1: 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.
Gurbani, et al. Expires May 23, 2011 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Overload Control November 2010
4.4. Processing the Overload Control Parameters
A SIP entity compliant to this specification SHOULD remove "oc",
"oc_validity" and "oc-seq" parameters from all Via headers of a
response received, except for the topmost Via header. This prevents
overload control parameters that were accidentally or maliciously
inserted into Via headers by a downstream SIP server from traveling
upstream.
A SIP entity maintains the "oc" parameter values received along with
the address and port number 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 entity receives a response
with an "oc" parameter from a downstream SIP server, it overwrites
the "oc" value it has currently stored for this server with the new
value received. The SIP entity 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.
4.5. Using the Overload Control Parameter Values
A SIP entity compliant to this specification MUST honor overload
control values it receives from downstream neighbors. The SIP entity
MUST NOT forward more requests to a SIP server than allowed by the
current "oc" parameter value from a particular downstream server.
When forwarding a SIP request, a SIP entity uses the SIP procedures
of [RFC3263] to determine the next hop SIP server. The procedures of
[RFC3263] take as input a SIP URI, extract the domain portion of that
URI for use as a lookup key, and query the Domain Name Service (DNS)
to obtain an ordered set of one or more IP addresses with a port
number and transport corresponding to each IP address in this set
(the "Expected Output").
After selecting a specific SIP server from the Expected Output, the
SIP entity MUST determine if it already has overload control
parameter values for the server chosen from the Expected Output. If
the SIP entity has a non-expired "oc" parameter value for the server
chosen from the Expected Output, and this chosen server is operating
in overload control mode. Thus, the SIP entity MUST determine if it
can or cannot forward the current request to the SIP server depending
on the nature of the request and the prevailing overload conditions.
The particular algorithm used to determine whether or not to forward
a particular SIP request is a matter of local policy, and may take
into account a variety of prioritization factors. However, this
local policy SHOULD generate the same number and rate of SIP requests
Gurbani, et al. Expires May 23, 2011 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Overload Control November 2010
as the default algorithm (to be determined), which treats all
requests as equal.
In the absence of a different local policy, the SIP entity SHOULD use
the following default algorithm to determine if it can forward the
request downstream (TODO: Need to devise an algorithm. The original
simple algorithm based on random number generation does not suffice
for all cases.)
4.6. Forwarding the overload control parameters
A SIP entity 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.
4.7. Self-Limiting
In some cases, a SIP entity may not receive a response from a
downstream server after 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 the event of repeated timeouts or fatal transport errors, the SIP
entity MUST stop sending requests to this server. The SIP entity
SHOULD occasionally forward a single request to probe if the
downstream server is alive. Once a SIP entity has successfully
transmitted a request to the downstream server, the SIP entity can
resume normal traffic rates. It should, of course, honor any "oc"
parameters it may receive subsequent to resuming normal traffic
rates.
OPEN ISSUE 2: If a downstream neighbor does not respond to a
request at all, the upstream SIP entity will stop sending requests
to the downstream neighbor. The upstream SIP entity will
periodically forward a single request to probe the health of its
downstream neighbor. It has been suggested --- see http://
www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sip-overload/current/msg00229.html
--- that we have a notification mechanism in place for the
Gurbani, et al. Expires May 23, 2011 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Overload Control November 2010
downstream neighbor to signal to the upstream SIP entity that it
is ready to receive requests. This notification scheme has
advantages, but comes with obvious disadvantages as well. Need
some more discussion around this.
5. Responding to an Overload Indication
A SIP entity can receive overload control feedback indicating that it
needs to reduce the traffic it sends to its downstream server. The
entity 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 entity 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.
5.1. Message prioritization at the hop before the overloaded server
During an overload condition, a SIP entity needs to prioritize
requests and select those requests that need to be rejected or
redirected. While this selection is largely a matter of local
policy, certain heuristics can be suggested. One, during overload
control, the SIP entity should preserve existing dialogs as much as
possible. This suggests that mid-dialog requests MAY be given
preferential treatment. Similarly, requests that result in releasing
resources (such as a BYE) MAY also be given preferential treatment.
A SIP entity SHOULD honor the local policy for prioritizing SIP
requests such as policies based on the content of the Resource-
Priority header (RPH, RFC4412 [RFC4412]). Specific (namespace.value)
RPH contents may indicate high priority requests that should be
preserved as much as possible during overload. The RPH contents can
also indicate a low-priority request that is eligible to be dropped
during times of overload. Other indicators, such as the SOS URN
[RFC5031] indicating an emergency request, may also be used for
prioritization.
Local policy could also include giving precedence to mid- dialog SIP
requests (re-INVITEs, UPDATEs, BYEs etc.) in times of overload. A
local policy can be expected to combine both the SIP request type and
the prioritization markings, and SHOULD be honored when overload
conditions prevail.
Gurbani, et al. Expires May 23, 2011 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Overload Control November 2010
5.2. Rejecting requests at an overloaded server
If the upstream SIP entity to the overloaded server does not support
overload control, it will continue to direct requests to the
overloaded server. Thus, the overloaded server must bear the cost of
rejecting some session requests as well as the cost of processing
other requests to completion. It would be fair to devote the same
amount of processing at the overloaded server to the combination of
rejection and processing as the overloaded server would devote to
processing requests from an upstream SIP entity that supported
overload control. This is to ensure that SIP servers that do not
support this specification don't receive an unfair advantage over
those that do.
A SIP server that is under overload and has started to throttle
incoming traffic MUST reject this request with a "503 (Service
Unavailable)" response without Retry-After header to reject a
fraction of requests from upstream neighbors that do not support
overload control.
6. Syntax
This section defines the syntax of new Via header parameters: "oc",
"oc_validity", and "oc-seq".
The "oc" Via header parameter, when it has a value, MUST restrain
that value to a number between 0 and 100. This value describes the
percentage by which the traffic (SIP requests) 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-seq" Via header parameter contains a sequence number. Those
implementations that are capable of providing finer-grained overload
control information may do so, however, each response that contains
the updated overload control information MUST have an increasing
value in this parameter. This is to allow the upstream server to
properly order out-of-order responses that contain overload control
information.
This specification extends the existing definition of the Via header
field parameters of [RFC3261] as follows:
Gurbani, et al. Expires May 23, 2011 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Overload Control November 2010
via-params = via-ttl / via-maddr
/ via-received / via-branch
/ oc / oc-validity
/ oc-seq / via-extension
oc = "oc" [EQUAL 0-100]
oc-validity = "oc_validity" [EQUAL delta-ms]
oc-seq = (1*12DIGIT "." 1*5DIGIT)
Example:
Via: SIP/2.0/TCP ss1.atlanta.example.com:5060
;branch=z9hG4bK2d4790.1
;received=192.0.2.111
;oc=20;oc_validity=500;oc-seq=1282321615.641
7. 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-soc-overload-design].
7.1. 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.
7.1.1. 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
Gurbani, et al. Expires May 23, 2011 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Overload Control November 2010
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.
7.1.2. 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
Gurbani, et al. Expires May 23, 2011 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Overload Control November 2010
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.
7.2. 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-soc-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.
Gurbani, et al. Expires May 23, 2011 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Overload Control November 2010
8. 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
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.
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.
9. IANA Considerations
[TBD.]
Gurbani, et al. Expires May 23, 2011 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Overload Control November 2010
10. References
10.1. 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.
[RFC4412] Schulzrinne, H. and J. Polk, "Communications Resource
Priority for the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)",
RFC 4412, February 2006.
10.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-soc-overload-design]
Hilt, V., Noel, E., Shen, C., and A. Abdelal, "Design
Considerations for Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)
Overload Control", draft-ietf-soc-overload-design-01 (work
in progress), August 2010.
[RFC5031] Schulzrinne, H., "A Uniform Resource Name (URN) for
Emergency and Other Well-Known Services", RFC 5031,
January 2008.
[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,
Charles Shen, Padma Valluri, Janet Gunn, Shaun Bharrat, and Paul
Kyzivat for their contributions to this specification.
Gurbani, et al. Expires May 23, 2011 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft Overload Control November 2010
Authors' Addresses
Vijay K. Gurbani (editor)
Bell Laboratories, Alcatel-Lucent
1960 Lucent Lane, Rm 9C-533
Naperville, IL 60563
USA
Email: vkg@bell-labs.com
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
Gurbani, et al. Expires May 23, 2011 [Page 17]
| PAFTECH AB 2003-2026 | 2026-04-24 08:27:14 |