diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'doc/rfc/rfc7200.txt')
| -rw-r--r-- | doc/rfc/rfc7200.txt | 2467 |
1 files changed, 2467 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/doc/rfc/rfc7200.txt b/doc/rfc/rfc7200.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..d84f84f --- /dev/null +++ b/doc/rfc/rfc7200.txt @@ -0,0 +1,2467 @@ + + + + + + +Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) C. Shen +Request for Comments: 7200 H. Schulzrinne +Category: Standards Track Columbia U. +ISSN: 2070-1721 A. Koike + NTT + April 2014 + + + A Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Load-Control Event Package + +Abstract + + This specification defines a load-control event package for the + Session Initiation Protocol (SIP). It allows SIP entities to + distribute load-filtering policies to other SIP entities in the + network. The load-filtering policies contain rules to throttle calls + from a specific user or based on their source or destination domain, + telephone number prefix. The mechanism helps to prevent signaling + overload and complements feedback-based SIP overload control efforts. + +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 5741. + + Information about the current status of this document, any errata, + and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at + http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7200. + +Copyright Notice + + Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the + document authors. All rights reserved. + + This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal + Provisions Relating to IETF Documents + (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of + publication of this document. Please review these documents + carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect + to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must + include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of + the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as + described in the Simplified BSD License. + + + +Shen, et al. Standards Track [Page 1] + +RFC 7200 SIP Load-Control Event Package April 2014 + + +Table of Contents + + 1. Introduction ....................................................3 + 2. Conventions .....................................................3 + 3. SIP Load-Filtering Overview .....................................4 + 3.1. Load-Filtering Policy Format ...............................4 + 3.2. Load-Filtering Policy Computation ..........................4 + 3.3. Load-Filtering Policy Distribution .........................4 + 3.4. Applicable Network Domains .................................8 + 4. Load-Control Event Package ......................................9 + 4.1. Event Package Name .........................................9 + 4.2. Event Package Parameters ...................................9 + 4.3. SUBSCRIBE Bodies ...........................................9 + 4.4. SUBSCRIBE Duration .........................................9 + 4.5. NOTIFY Bodies .............................................10 + 4.6. Notifier Processing of SUBSCRIBE Requests .................10 + 4.7. Notifier Generation of NOTIFY Requests ....................10 + 4.8. Subscriber Processing of NOTIFY Requests ..................10 + 4.9. Handling of Forked Requests ...............................12 + 4.10. Rate of Notifications ....................................12 + 4.11. State Delta ..............................................12 + 5. Load-Control Document ..........................................13 + 5.1. Format ....................................................13 + 5.2. Namespace .................................................13 + 5.3. Conditions ................................................14 + 5.3.1. Call Identity ......................................14 + 5.3.2. Method .............................................16 + 5.3.3. Target SIP Entity ..................................17 + 5.3.4. Validity ...........................................18 + 5.4. Actions ...................................................18 + 6. XML Schema Definition for Load Control .........................20 + 7. Security Considerations ........................................23 + 8. IANA Considerations ............................................24 + 8.1. Load-Control Event Package Registration ...................24 + 8.2. application/load-control+xml Media Type Registration ......24 + 8.3. URN Sub-Namespace Registration ............................25 + 8.4. Load-Control Schema Registration ..........................26 + 9. Acknowledgements ...............................................27 + 10. References ....................................................27 + 10.1. Normative References .....................................27 + 10.2. Informative References ...................................28 + Appendix A. Definitions ...........................................30 + Appendix B. Design Requirements ...................................30 + Appendix C. Discussion of How This Specification Meets the + Requirements of RFC 5390 ..............................31 + Appendix D. Complete Examples .....................................36 + D.1. Load-Control Document Examples ............................36 + D.2. Message Flow Examples .....................................40 + + + +Shen, et al. Standards Track [Page 2] + +RFC 7200 SIP Load-Control Event Package April 2014 + + + Appendix E. Related Work .........................................41 + E.1. Relationship to Load Filtering in PSTN ....................41 + E.2. Relationship with Other IETF SIP Overload Control Efforts .42 + +1. Introduction + + SIP load-control mechanisms are needed to prevent congestion collapse + [RFC6357] in cases of SIP server overload [RFC5390]. There are two + types of load-control approaches. In the first approach, feedback + control, SIP servers provide load limits to upstream servers, to + reduce the incoming rate of all SIP requests [SIP-OVERLOAD]. These + upstream servers then drop or delay incoming SIP requests. Feedback + control is reactive and affects signaling messages that have already + been issued by user agent clients. This approach works well when SIP + proxy servers in the core networks (core proxy servers) or + destination-specific SIP proxy servers in the edge networks (edge + proxy servers) are overloaded. By their nature, they need to + distribute rate, drop, or window information to all upstream SIP + proxy servers and normally affect all calls equally, regardless of + destination. + + This specification proposes an additional, complementary load-control + mechanism, called "load filtering". It is most applicable for + situations where a traffic surge and its source/destination + distribution can be predicted in advance. In those cases, network + operators create load-filtering policies that indicate calls to + specific destinations or from specific sources should be rate-limited + or randomly dropped. These load-filtering policies are then + distributed to SIP servers and possibly SIP user agents that are + likely to generate calls to the affected destinations or from the + affected sources. Load filtering works best if it prevents calls as + close to the originating user agent clients as possible. The + applicability of SIP load filtering can also be extended beyond + overload control, e.g., to implement service level agreement + commitments. + +2. Conventions + + 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 [RFC2119]. + + + + + + + + + + +Shen, et al. Standards Track [Page 3] + +RFC 7200 SIP Load-Control Event Package April 2014 + + +3. SIP Load-Filtering Overview + +3.1. Load-Filtering Policy Format + + Load-filtering policies are specified by sets of rules. Each rule + contains both load-filtering conditions and actions. The load- + filtering conditions define identities of the targets to be filtered + (Section 5.3.1). For example, there are two typical resource limits + in a possible overload situation, i.e., human destination limits + (number of call takers) and node capacity limits. The load-filtering + targets in these two cases can be the specific callee numbers or the + destination domain corresponding to the overload. Load-filtering + conditions also indicate the specific message type to be matched + (Section 5.3.2), with which target SIP entity the filtering policy is + associated (Section 5.3.3), and the period of time when the filtering + policy should be activated and deactivated (Section 5.3.4). Load- + filtering actions describe the desired control functions such as + keeping the request rate below a specified level (Section 5.4). + +3.2. Load-Filtering Policy Computation + + When computing the load-filtering policies, one needs to take into + consideration information such as overload time, scope and network + topology, as well as service policies. It is also important to make + sure that there is no resource allocation loop and that server + capacity is allocated in a way that both prevents overload and + maximizes effective throughput (commonly called goodput). In some + cases, in order to better utilize system resources, it may be + preferable to employ an algorithm that dynamically computes the load- + filtering policies based on currently observed server load status, + rather than using a purely static filtering policy assignment. The + computation algorithm for load-filtering policies is beyond the scope + of this specification. + +3.3. Load-Filtering Policy Distribution + + For distributing load-filtering policies, this specification defines + the SIP event package for load control, which is an "instantiation" + of the generic SIP event notification framework [RFC6665]. This + specification also defines the XML schema of a load-control document + (Section 5), which is used to encode load-filtering policies. + + In order for load-filtering policies to be properly distributed, each + capable SIP entity in the network subscribes to the SIP load-control + event package of each SIP entity to which it sends signaling + requests. A SIP entity that accepts subscription requests is called + a "notifier" (Section 4.6). Subscription is initiated and maintained + during normal server operation. The subscription of neighboring SIP + + + +Shen, et al. Standards Track [Page 4] + +RFC 7200 SIP Load-Control Event Package April 2014 + + + entities needs to be persistent, as described in Sections 4.1 and 4.2 + of [RFC6665]. The refresh procedure is described in Section 4.7 + below. Subscribers may terminate the subscription if they have not + received notifications for an extended time period, and can + resubscribe if they determine that signaling with the notifier + becomes active again. + + An example architecture is shown in Figure 1 to illustrate SIP load- + filtering policy distribution. This scenario consists of two + networks belonging to Service Provider A and Service Provider B, + respectively. Each provider's network is made up of two SIP core + proxy servers and four SIP edge proxy servers. The core proxy + servers and edge proxy servers of Service Provider A are denoted as + CPa1 to CPa2 and EPa1 to EPa4; the core proxy servers and edge proxy + servers of Service Provider B are denoted as CPb1 to CPb2 and EPb1 to + EPb4. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Shen, et al. Standards Track [Page 5] + +RFC 7200 SIP Load-Control Event Package April 2014 + + + +-----------+ +-----------+ +-----------+ +-----------+ + | | | | | | | | + | EPa1 | | EPa2 | | EPa3 | | EPa4 | + | | | | | | | | + +-----------+ +-----------+ +-----------+ +-----------+ + \ / \ / + \ / \ / + \ / \ / + +-----------+ +-----------+ + | | | | + | CPa1 |------------------| CPa2 | + | | | | + +-----------+ +-----------+ + | | + Service | | + Provider A | | + | | + ================================================================= + | | + Service | | + Provider B | | + | | + +-----------+ +-----------+ + | | | | + | CPb1 |------------------| CPb2 | + | | | | + +-----------+ +-----------+ + / \ / \ + / \ / \ + / \ / \ + +-----------+ +-----------+ +-----------+ +-----------+ + | | | | | | | | + | EPb1 | | EPb2 | | EPb3 | | EPb4 | + | | | | | | | | + +-----------+ +-----------+ +-----------+ +-----------+ + + Figure 1: Example Network Scenario Using SIP Load-Control Event + Package Mechanism + + During the initialization stage, the proxy servers first identify all + their outgoing signaling neighbors and subscribe to them. Service + providers can provision neighbors, or the proxy servers can + incrementally learn who their neighbors are by inspecting signaling + messages that they send and receive. Assuming all signaling + relationships in Figure 1 are bidirectional, after this + initialization stage, each proxy server will be subscribed to all its + neighbors. + + + + +Shen, et al. Standards Track [Page 6] + +RFC 7200 SIP Load-Control Event Package April 2014 + + + Case I: EPa1 serves a TV program hotline and decides to limit the + total number of incoming calls to the hotline to prevent an overload. + To do so, EPa1 sends a notification to CPa1 with the specific hotline + number, time of activation, and total acceptable call rate. + Depending on the load-filtering policy computation algorithm, CPa1 + may allocate the received total acceptable call rate among its + neighbors, namely, EPa2, CPa2, and CPb1, and notify them about the + resulting allocation along with the hotline number and the activation + time. CPa2 and CPb1 may perform further allocation among their own + neighbors and notify the corresponding proxy servers. This process + continues until all edge proxy servers in the network have been + informed about the event and have proper load-filtering policies + configured. + + In the above case, the network entity where load-filtering policy is + first introduced is the SIP server providing access to the resource + that creates the overload situation. In other cases, the network + entry point of introducing load-filtering policy could also be an + entity that hosts this resource. For example, an operator may host + an application server that performs toll-free-number ("800 number") + translation services. The application server itself may be a SIP + proxy server or a SIP Back-to-Back User Agent (B2BUA). If one of the + toll-free numbers hosted at the application server creates the + overload condition, the load-filtering policies can be introduced + from the application server and then propagated to other SIP proxy + servers in the network. + + Case II: A hurricane affects the region covered by CPb2, EPb3, and + EPb4. All three of these SIP proxy servers are overloaded. The + rescue team determines that outbound calls are more valuable than + inbound calls in this specific situation. Therefore, EPb3 and EPb4 + are configured with load-filtering policies to accept more outbound + calls than inbound calls. CPb2 may be configured the same way or + receive dynamically computed load-filtering policies from EPb3 and + EPb4. Depending on the load-filtering policy computation algorithm, + CPb2 may also send out notifications to its outside neighbors, namely + CPb1 and CPa2, specifying a limit on the acceptable rate of inbound + calls to CPb2's responsible domain. CPb1 and CPa2 may subsequently + notify their neighbors about limiting the calls to CPb2's area. The + same process could continue until all edge proxy servers are notified + and have load-filtering policies configured. + + Note that this specification does not define the provisioning + interface between the party who determines the load-filtering policy + and the network entry point where the policy is introduced. One of + the options for the provisioning interface is the Extensible Markup + Language (XML) Configuration Access Protocol (XCAP) [RFC4825]. + + + + +Shen, et al. Standards Track [Page 7] + +RFC 7200 SIP Load-Control Event Package April 2014 + + +3.4. Applicable Network Domains + + This specification MUST be applied inside a "Trust Domain". The + concept of a Trust Domain is similar to that defined in [RFC3324] and + [RFC3325]. A Trust Domain, for the purpose of SIP load filtering, is + a set of SIP entities such as SIP proxy servers that are trusted to + exchange load-filtering policies defined in this specification. In + the simplest case, a Trust Domain is a network of SIP entities + belonging to a single service provider who deploys it and accurately + knows the behavior of those SIP entities. Such simple Trust Domains + may be joined to form larger Trust Domains by bilateral agreements + between the service providers of the SIP entities. + + The key requirement of a Trust Domain for the purpose of SIP load + filtering is that the behavior of all SIP entities within a given + Trust Domain is known to comply to the following set of + specifications. + + o SIP entities in the Trust Domain agree on the mechanisms used to + secure the communication among SIP entities within the Trust + Domain. + + o SIP entities in the Trust Domain agree on the manner used to + determine which SIP entities are part of the Trust Domain. + + o SIP entities in the Trust Domain are compliant to SIP [RFC3261]. + + o SIP entities in the Trust Domain are compliant to SIP-Specific + Event Notification[RFC6665]. + + o SIP entities in the Trust Domain are compliant to this + specification. + + o SIP entities in the Trust Domain agree on what types of calls can + be affected by this SIP load-filtering mechanism. For example, + <call-identity> condition elements (Section 5.3.1) <one> and + <many> might be limited to describe within certain prefixes. + + o SIP entities in the Trust Domain agree on the destinations to + which calls may be redirected when the "redirect" action + (Section 5.4) is used. For example, the URI might have to match a + given set of domains. + + SIP load filtering is only effective if all neighbors that are + possible signaling sources participate and enforce the designated + load-filtering policies. Otherwise, a single non-conforming neighbor + could make all filtering efforts useless by pumping in excessive + traffic to overload the server. Therefore, the SIP server that + + + +Shen, et al. Standards Track [Page 8] + +RFC 7200 SIP Load-Control Event Package April 2014 + + + distributes load-filtering policies needs to take countermeasures + towards any non-conforming neighbors. A simple method is to reject + excessive requests with 503 "Service Unavailable" response messages + as if they were obeying the rate. Considering the rejection costs, a + more complicated but fairer method would be to allocate at the + overloaded server the same amount of processing to the combination of + both normal processing and rejection as the overloaded server would + devote to processing requests for a conforming upstream SIP server. + These approaches work as long as the total rejection cost does not + overwhelm the entire server resources. In addition, SIP servers need + to handle message prioritization properly while performing load + filtering, which is described in Section 4.8. + +4. Load-Control Event Package + + The SIP load-filtering mechanism defines a load-control event package + for SIP based on [RFC6665]. + +4.1. Event Package Name + + The name of this event package is "load-control". This name is + carried in the Event and Allow-Events header, as specified in + [RFC6665]. + +4.2. Event Package Parameters + + No package-specific event header field parameters are defined for + this event package. + +4.3. SUBSCRIBE Bodies + + This specification does not define the content of SUBSCRIBE bodies. + Future specifications could define bodies for SUBSCRIBE messages, for + example, to request specific types of load-control event + notifications. + + A SUBSCRIBE request sent without a body implies the default + subscription behavior as specified in Section 4.7. + +4.4. SUBSCRIBE Duration + + The default expiration time for a subscription to load-filtering + policy is one hour. Since the desired expiration time may vary + significantly for subscriptions among SIP entities with different + signaling relationships, the subscribers and notifiers are + RECOMMENDED to explicitly negotiate appropriate subscription duration + when knowledge about the mutual signaling relationship is available. + + + + +Shen, et al. Standards Track [Page 9] + +RFC 7200 SIP Load-Control Event Package April 2014 + + +4.5. NOTIFY Bodies + + The body of a NOTIFY request in this event package contains load- + filtering policies. The format of the NOTIFY request body MUST be in + one of the formats defined in the Accept header field of the + SUBSCRIBE request or be the default format, as specified in + [RFC6665]. The default data format for the NOTIFY request body of + this event package is "application/load-control+xml" (defined in + Section 5). This means that when a NOTIFY request body exists but no + Accept header field is specified in a SUBSCRIBE request, the NOTIFY + request body MUST contain content conforming to the "application/ + load-control+xml" format. + +4.6. Notifier Processing of SUBSCRIBE Requests + + The notifier accepts a new subscription or updates an existing + subscription upon receiving a valid SUBSCRIBE request. + + If the identity of the subscriber sending the SUBSCRIBE request is + not allowed to receive load-filtering policies, the notifier MUST + return a 403 "Forbidden" response. + + If none of the media types specified in the Accept header of the + SUBSCRIBE request are supported, the notifier SHOULD return a 406 + "Not Acceptable" response. + +4.7. Notifier Generation of NOTIFY Requests + + A notifier MUST send a NOTIFY request with its current load-filtering + policy to the subscriber upon successfully accepting or refreshing a + subscription. If no load-filtering policy needs to be distributed + when the subscription is received, the notifier SHOULD sent a NOTIFY + request without a body to the subscriber. The content-type header + field of this NOTIFY request MUST indicate the correct body format as + if the body were present (e.g., "application/load-control+xml"). + Notifiers are likely to send NOTIFY requests without a body when a + subscription is initiated for the first time, e.g., when a SIP entity + is just introduced, because there may be no planned events that + require load filtering at that time. A notifier SHOULD generate + NOTIFY requests each time the load-filtering policy changes, with the + maximum notification rate not exceeding values defined in + Section 4.10. + +4.8. Subscriber Processing of NOTIFY Requests + + The subscriber is the load-filtering server that enforces load- + filtering policies received from the notifier. The way subscribers + process NOTIFY requests depends on the load-filtering policies + + + +Shen, et al. Standards Track [Page 10] + +RFC 7200 SIP Load-Control Event Package April 2014 + + + conveyed in the notifications. Typically, load-filtering policies + consist of rules specifying actions to be applied to requests + matching certain conditions. A subscriber receiving a notification + first installs these rules and then enforces corresponding actions on + requests matching those conditions, for example, limiting the sending + rate of call requests destined for a specific callee. + + In the case when load-filtering policies specify a future validity, + it is possible that when the validity time arrives, the subscription + to the specific notifier that conveyed the rules has expired. In + this case, it is RECOMMENDED that the subscriber re-activate its + subscription with the corresponding notifier. Regardless of whether + or not this re-activation of subscription is successful, when the + validity time is reached, the subscriber SHOULD enforce the + corresponding rules. + + Upon receipt of a NOTIFY request with a Subscription-State header + field containing the value "terminated", the subscription status with + the particular notifier will be terminated. Meanwhile, subscribers + MUST also terminate previously received load-filtering policies from + that notifier. + + The subscriber MUST discard unknown bodies. If the NOTIFY request + contains several bodies, none of them being supported, it SHOULD + unsubscribe unless it has knowledge that it will possibly receive + NOTIFY requests with supported bodies from that notifier. A NOTIFY + request without a body indicates that no load-filtering policies need + to be updated. + + When the subscriber enforces load-filtering policies, it needs to + prioritize requests and select those requests that need to be + rejected or redirected. This selection is largely a matter of local + policy. It is expected that the subscriber will follow local policy + as long as the result in reduction of traffic is consistent with the + overload algorithm in effect at that node. Accordingly, the + normative behavior described in the next three paragraphs should be + interpreted with the understanding that the subscriber will aim to + preserve local policy to the fullest extent possible. + + o The subscriber SHOULD honor the local policy for prioritizing SIP + requests such as policies based on message type, e.g., INVITEs + versus requests associated with existing sessions. + + o The subscriber SHOULD honor the local policy for prioritizing SIP + requests based on the content of the Resource-Priority header + (RPH, [RFC4412]). Specific (namespace.value) RPH contents may + indicate high-priority requests that should be preserved as much + + + + +Shen, et al. Standards Track [Page 11] + +RFC 7200 SIP Load-Control Event Package April 2014 + + + as possible during overload. The RPH contents can also indicate a + low-priority request that is eligible to be dropped during times + of overload. + + o The subscriber SHOULD honor the local policy for prioritizing SIP + requests relating to emergency calls as identified by the sos URN + [RFC5031] indicating an emergency request. + + 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. + +4.9. Handling of Forked Requests + + Forking is not applicable when this load-control event package + mechanism is used within a single-hop distance between neighboring + SIP entities. If communication scope of the load-control event + package mechanism is among multiple hops, forking is also not + expected to happen because the subscription request is addressed to a + clearly defined SIP entity. However, in the unlikely case when + forking does happen, the load-control event package only allows the + first potential dialog-establishing message to create a dialog, as + specified in Section 5.4.9 of [RFC6665]. + +4.10. Rate of Notifications + + The rate of notifications is unlikely to be of concern for this local + control event package mechanism when it is used in a non-real-time + mode for relatively static load-filtering policies. Nevertheless, if + a situation does arise in which a rather frequently used load + filtering policy update is needed, it is RECOMMENDED that the + notifier not generate notifications at a rate higher than once per + second in all cases, in order to avoid the NOTIFY request itself + overloading the system. + +4.11. State Delta + + It is likely that updates to specific load-filtering policies are + made by changing only part of the policy parameters (e.g., acceptable + request rate or percentage, but not matching identities). This will + typically be because the utilization of a resource subject to + overload depends upon dynamic unknowns such as holding time and the + relative distribution of offered loads over subscribing SIP entities. + The updates could originate manually or be determined automatically + by an algorithm that dynamically computes the load-filtering policies + (Section 3.2). Another factor that is usually not known precisely or + + + + + +Shen, et al. Standards Track [Page 12] + +RFC 7200 SIP Load-Control Event Package April 2014 + + + needs to be computed automatically is the duration of the event + requiring load filtering. Therefore, it would also be common for the + validity to change frequently. + + This event package allows the use of state delta as in [RFC6665] to + accommodate frequent updates of partial policy parameters. For each + NOTIFY transaction in a subscription, a version number that increases + by exactly one MUST be included in the NOTIFY request body when the + body is present. When the subscriber receives a state delta, it + associates the partial updates to the particular policy by matching + the appropriate rule id (Appendix D). If the subscriber receives a + NOTIFY request with a version number that is increased by more than + one, it knows that it has missed a state delta and needs to ask for a + full state snapshot. Therefore, the subscriber ignores that NOTIFY + request containing the state delta, and resends a SUBSCRIBE request + to force a NOTIFY request containing a complete state snapshot. + +5. Load-Control Document + +5.1. Format + + A load-control document is an XML document that describes the load- + filtering policies. It inherits and enhances the common policy + document defined in [RFC4745]. A common policy document contains a + set of rules. Each rule consists of three parts: conditions, + actions, and transformations. The conditions part is a set of + expressions containing attributes such as identity, domain, and + validity time information. Each expression evaluates to TRUE or + FALSE. Conditions are matched on "equality" or "greater than" style + comparison. There is no regular expression matching. Conditions are + evaluated on receipt of an initial SIP request for a dialog or + standalone transaction. If a request matches all conditions in a + rule set, the action part and the transformation part are consulted + to determine the "permission" on how to handle the request. Each + action or transformation specifies a positive grant to the policy + server to perform the resulting actions. Well-defined mechanism are + available for combining actions and transformations obtained from + more than one sources. + +5.2. Namespace + + The namespace URI for elements defined by this specification is a + Uniform Resource Namespace (URN) ([RFC2141]), using the namespace + identifier "ietf" defined by [RFC2648] and extended by [RFC3688]. + The URN is as follows: + + urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:load-control + + + + +Shen, et al. Standards Track [Page 13] + +RFC 7200 SIP Load-Control Event Package April 2014 + + +5.3. Conditions + + [RFC4745] defines three condition elements: <identity>, <sphere>, and + <validity>. This specification defines new condition elements and + reuses the <validity> element. The <sphere> element is not used. + +5.3.1. Call Identity + + Since the problem space of this specification is different from that + of [RFC4745], the [RFC4745] <identity> element is not sufficient for + use with load filtering. First, load filtering may be applied to + different identities contained in a request, including identities of + both the receiving entity and the sending entity. Second, the + importance of authentication varies when different identities of a + request are concerned. This specification defines new identity + conditions that can accommodate the granularity of specific SIP + identity header fields. The requirement for authentication depends + on which field is to be matched. + + The identity condition for load filtering is specified by the + <call-identity> element and its sub-element <sip>. The <sip> element + itself contains sub-elements representing SIP sending and receiving + identity header fields: <from>, <to>, <request-uri>, and + <p-asserted-identity>. All those sub-elements are of an extended + form of the [RFC4745] <identity> element. In addition to the sub- + elements including <one>, <except>, and <many> in the <identity> + element from [RFC4745], the extended form adds two new sub-elements, + namely, <many-tel> and <except-tel>, which will be explained later in + this section. + + The [RFC4745] <one> and <except> elements may contain an "id" + attribute, which is the URI of a single entity to be included or + excluded in the condition. When used in the <from>, <to>, + <request-uri>, and <p-asserted-identity> elements, this "id" value is + the URI contained in the corresponding SIP header field, i.e., From, + To, Request-URI, and P-Asserted-Identity. + + When the <call-identity> element contains multiple <sip> sub- + elements, the result is combined using logical OR. When the <from>, + <to>, <request-uri>, and <p-asserted-identity> elements contain + multiple <one>, <many>, or <many-tel> sub-elements, the result is + also combined using logical OR. When the <many> sub-element further + contains one or more <except> sub-elements, or when the <many-tel> + sub-element further contains one or more <except-tel> sub-elements, + the result of each <except> or <except-tel> sub-element is combined + using a logical OR, similar to that of the [RFC4745] <identity> + element. However, when the <sip> element contains multiple <from>, + <to>, <request-uri>, and <p-asserted-identity> sub-elements, the + + + +Shen, et al. Standards Track [Page 14] + +RFC 7200 SIP Load-Control Event Package April 2014 + + + result is combined using logical AND. This allows the call identity + to be specified by multiple fields of a SIP request simultaneously, + e.g., both the From and the To header fields. + + The following shows an example of the <call-identity> element, which + matches call requests whose To header field contains the SIP URI + "sip:alice@hotline.example.com" or the 'tel' URI + "tel:+1-212-555-1234". + + <call-identity> + <sip> + <to> + <one id="sip:alice@hotline.example.com"/> + <one id="tel:+1-212-555-1234"/> + </to> + </sip> + </call-identity> + + Before evaluating <call-identity> conditions, the subscriber shall + convert URIs received in SIP header fields in canonical form as per + [RFC3261], except that the "phone-context" parameter shall not be + removed, if present. + + The [RFC4745] <many> and <except> elements may take a "domain" + attribute. The "domain" attribute specifies a domain name to be + matched by the domain part of the candidate identity. Thus, it + allows matching a large and possibly unknown number of entities + within a domain. The "domain" attribute works well for SIP URIs. + + A URI identifying a SIP user, however, can also be a 'tel' URI. + Therefore, a similar way to match a group of 'tel' URIs is needed. + There are two forms of 'tel' URIs: for global numbers and local + numbers. According to [RFC3966], "All phone numbers MUST use the + global form unless they cannot be represented as such...Local numbers + MUST be tagged with a 'phone-context'". The global number 'tel' URIs + start with a "+". The "phone-context" parameter of local numbers may + be labeled as a global number or any number of its leading digits or + a domain name. Both forms of the 'tel' URI make the resulting URI + globally unique. + + 'tel' URIs of global numbers can be grouped by prefixes consisting of + any number of common leading digits. For example, a prefix formed by + a country code or both the country and area code identifies telephone + numbers within a country or an area. Since the length of the country + and area code for different regions are different, the length of the + number prefix also varies. This allows further flexibility such as + + + + + +Shen, et al. Standards Track [Page 15] + +RFC 7200 SIP Load-Control Event Package April 2014 + + + grouping the numbers into sub-areas within the same area code. 'tel' + URIs of local numbers can be grouped by the value of the + "phone-context" parameter. + + The <many> and <except> sub-elements in the <identity> element of + [RFC4745] do not allow additional attributes to be added directly. + Redefining behavior of their existing "domain" attribute creates + backward-compatibility issues. Therefore, this specification defines + the <many-tel> and <except-tel> sub-elements that extend the + [RFC4745] <identity> element. Both of them have a "prefix" attribute + for grouping 'tel' URIs, similar to the "domain" attribute for + grouping SIP URIs in existing <many> and <except> sub-elements. For + global numbers, the "prefix" attribute value holds any number of + common leading digits, for example, "+1-212" for US phone numbers + within area code "212" or "+1-212-854" for the organization with US + area code "212" and local prefix "854". For local numbers, the + "prefix" attribute value contains the "phone-context" parameter + value. It should be noted that visual separators (such as the "-" + sign) in 'tel' URIs are not used for URI comparison as per [RFC3966]. + + The following example shows the use of the "prefix" attribute along + with the "domain" attribute. It matches those requests calling to + the number "+1-202-999-1234" but are not calling from a "+1-212" + prefix or a SIP From URI domain of "manhattan.example.com". + + <call-identity> + <sip> + <from> + <many> + <except domain="manhattan.example.com"/> + </many> + <many-tel> + <except-tel prefix="+1-212"/> + </many-tel> + </from> + <to> + <one id="tel:+1-202-999-1234"/> + </to> + </sip> + </call-identity> + +5.3.2. Method + + The load created on a SIP server depends on the type of initial SIP + requests for dialogs or standalone transactions. The <method> + element specifies the SIP method to which the load-filtering action + applies. When this element is not included, the load-filtering + actions are applicable to all applicable initial requests. These + + + +Shen, et al. Standards Track [Page 16] + +RFC 7200 SIP Load-Control Event Package April 2014 + + + requests include INVITE, MESSAGE, REGISTER, SUBSCRIBE, OPTIONS, and + PUBLISH. Non-initial requests, such as ACK, BYE, and CANCEL MUST NOT + be subjected to load filtering. In addition, SUBSCRIBE requests are + not filtered if the event-type header field indicates the event + package defined in this specification. + + The following example shows the use of the <method> element in the + case the filtering actions should be applied to INVITE requests. + + <method>INVITE</method> + +5.3.3. Target SIP Entity + + A SIP server that performs load-filtering may have multiple paths to + route call requests matching the same set of call identity elements. + In those situations, the SIP load-filtering server may desire to take + advantage of alternative paths and only apply load-filtering actions + to matching requests for the next-hop SIP entity that originated the + corresponding load-filtering policy. To achieve that, the SIP load- + filtering server needs to associate every load-filtering policy with + its originating SIP entity. The <target-sip-entity> element is + defined for that purpose, and it contains the URI of the entity that + initiated the load-filtering policy, which is generally the + corresponding notifier. A notifier MAY include this element as part + of the condition of its filtering policy being sent to the + subscriber, as below. + + <target-sip-entity>sip:biloxi.example.com</target-sip-entity> + + When a SIP load-filtering server receives a policy with a + <target-sip-entity> element, it SHOULD record it and take it into + consideration when making load-filtering decisions. If the load- + filtering server receives a load-filtering policy that does not + contain a <target-sip-entity> element, it MAY still record the URI of + the load-filtering policy's originator as the <target-sip-entity> + information and consider it when making load-filtering decisions. + + The following are two examples of using the <target-sip-entity> + element. + + Use case I: The network has user A connected to SIP Proxy 1 (SP1), + user B connected to SIP Proxy 3 (SP3), SP1 and SP3 connected via + SIP Proxy 2 (SP2), and SP2 connected to an Application Server + (AS). Under normal load conditions, a call from A to B is routed + along the following path: A-SP1-SP2-AS-SP3-B. The AS provides a + nonessential service and can be bypassed in case of overload. Now + let's assume that AS is overloaded and sends to SP2 a load- + filtering policy requesting that 50% of all INVITE requests be + + + +Shen, et al. Standards Track [Page 17] + +RFC 7200 SIP Load-Control Event Package April 2014 + + + dropped. SP2 can maintain AS as the <target-sip-entity> for that + policy so that it knows the 50% drop action is only applicable to + call requests that must go through AS, without affecting those + calls directly routed through SP3 to B. + + Use case II: A translation service for toll-free numbers is + installed on two Application Servers, AS1 and AS2. User A is + connected to SP1 and calls 800-1234-4529, which is translated by + AS1 and AS2 into a regular E.164 number depending on, e.g., the + caller's location. SP1 forwards INVITE requests with Request-URI + = "800 number" to AS1 or AS2 based on a load-balancing strategy. + As calls to 800-1234-4529 create a pre-overload condition in AS1, + AS1 sends to SP1 a load-filtering policy requesting that 50% of + calls towards 800-1234-4529 be rejected. In this case, SP1 can + maintain AS1 as the <target-sip-entity> for the rule, and only + apply the load-filtering policy on incoming requests that are + intended to be sent to AS1. Those requests that are sent to AS2, + although matching the <call-identity> of the filter, will not be + affected. + +5.3.4. Validity + + A filtering policy is usually associated with a validity period + condition. This specification reuses the <validity> element of + [RFC4745], which specifies a period of validity time by pairs of + <from> and <until> sub-elements. When multiple time periods are + defined, the validity condition is evaluated to TRUE if the current + time falls into any of the specified time periods. That is, it + represents a logical OR operation across all validity time periods. + + The following example shows a <validity> element specifying a valid + period from 12:00 to 15:00 US Eastern Standard Time on 2008-05-31. + + <validity> + <from>2008-05-31T12:00:00-05:00</from> + <until>2008-05-31T15:00:00-05:00</until> + </validity> + +5.4. Actions + + The actions a load-filtering server takes on loads matching the load- + filtering conditions are defined by the <accept> element in the load- + filtering policy, which includes any one of the three sub-elements + <rate>, <percent>, and <win>. The <rate> element denotes an absolute + value of the maximum acceptable request rate in requests per second; + the <percent> element specifies the relative percentage of incoming + requests that should be accepted; the <win> element describes the + acceptable window size supplied by the receiver, which is applicable + + + +Shen, et al. Standards Track [Page 18] + +RFC 7200 SIP Load-Control Event Package April 2014 + + + in window-based load-filtering. In static load-filtering policy + configuration scenarios, using the <rate> sub-element is RECOMMENDED + because it is hard to enforce the percentage rate or window-based + load filtering when incoming load from upstream or reactions from + downstream are uncertain. (See [SIP-OVERLOAD] and [RFC6357] for more + details on rate-based, loss-based, and window-based load control.) + + In addition, the <accept> element takes an optional "alt-action" + attribute that can be used to explicitly specify the desired action + in case a request cannot be processed. The "alt-action" can take one + of the following three values: "reject", "redirect", or "drop". + + o The "reject" action is the default value for "alt-action". It + means that the load-filtering server will reject the request with + a 503 "Service Unavailable" response message. + + o The "redirect" action means redirecting the request to another + target. When it is used, an "alt-target" attribute MUST be + defined. The "alt-target" specifies one URI or a list of URIs + where the request should be redirected. The server sends out the + redirect URIs in a 300-class response message. + + o The "drop" action means simply ignoring the request without doing + anything, which can, in certain cases, help save processing + capability during overload. For example, when SIP is running over + a reliable transport such as TCP, the "drop" action does not send + out the rejection response, neither does it close the transport + connection. However, when running SIP over an unreliable + transport such as UDP, using the "drop" action will create message + retransmissions that further worsen the possible overload + situation. Therefore, any "drop" action applied to an unreliable + transport MUST be treated as if it were "reject". + + The above "alt-action" processing can also be illustrated through the + following pseudocode. + + SWITCH "alt-action" + "redirect": "redirect" + "drop": + IF unreliable-transport + THEN treat as "reject" + ELSE + "drop" + "reject": "reject" + default: "reject" + END + + + + + +Shen, et al. Standards Track [Page 19] + +RFC 7200 SIP Load-Control Event Package April 2014 + + + In the following <actions> element example, the server accepts + maximum of 100 call requests per second. The remaining calls are + redirected to an answering machine. + + <actions> + <accept alt-action="redirect" alt-target= + "sip:answer-machine@example.com"> + <rate>100</rate> + </accept> + </actions> + +6. XML Schema Definition for Load Control + + This section defines the XML schema for the load-control document. + It extends the Common Policy schema in [RFC4745] in two ways. + Firstly, it defines two mandatory attributes for the <ruleset> + element: "version" and "state". The "version" attribute allows the + recipient of the notification to properly order them. Versions start + at zero and increase by one for each new document sent to a + subscriber within the same subscription. Versions MUST be + representable using a non-negative 32-bit integer. The "state" + attribute indicates whether the document contains a full load- + filtering policy update or only state delta as partial update. + Secondly, it defines new members of the <conditions> and <actions> + elements. + + <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> + <xs:schema targetNamespace="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:load-control" + xmlns:lc="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:load-control" + xmlns:cp="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:common-policy" + xmlns:xs="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema" + elementFormDefault="qualified" + attributedFormDefault="unqualified"> + + <xs:import namespace="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:common-policy"/> + + <!-- RULESET --> + + <xs:element name="ruleset"> + <xs:complexType> + <xs:complexContent> + <xs:restriction base="xs:anyType"> + <xs:sequence> + <xs:element name="rule" type="cp:ruleType" + minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded"/> + </xs:sequence> + </xs:restriction> + </xs:complexContent> + + + +Shen, et al. Standards Track [Page 20] + +RFC 7200 SIP Load-Control Event Package April 2014 + + + <xs:attribute name="version" type="xs:integer" use="required"/> + <xs:attribute name="state" use="required"> + <xs:simpleType> + <xs:restriction base="xs:string"> + <xs:enumeration value="full"/> + <xs:enumeration value="partial"/> + </xs:restriction> + </xs:simpleType> + </xs:attribute> + </xs:complexType> + </xs:element> + + <!-- CONDITIONS --> + + <!-- CALL IDENTITY --> + <xs:element name="call-identity" type="lc:call-identity-type"/> + + <!-- CALL IDENTITY TYPE --> + <xs:complexType name="call-identity-type"> + <xs:choice> + <xs:element name="sip" type="lc:sip-id-type"/> + <any namespace="##other" processContents="lax" minOccurs="0" + maxOccurs="unbounded"/> + </xs:choice> + <anyAtrribute namespace="##other" processContents="lax"/> + </xs:complexType> + + <!-- SIP ID TYPE --> + <xs:complexType name="sip-id-type"> + <xs:sequence> + <element name="from" type="lc:identityType" minOccurs="0"/> + <element name="to" type="lc:identityType" minOccurs="0"/> + <element name="request-uri" type="lc:identityType" + minOccurs="0"/> + <element name="p-asserted-identity" type="lc:identityType" + minOccurs="0"/> + <any namespace="##other" processContents="lax" minOccurs="0" + maxOccurs="unbounded"/> + </xs:sequence> + <anyAtrribute namespace="##other" processContents="lax"/> + </xs:complexType> + + <!-- IDENTITY TYPE --> + <xs:complexType name="identityType"> + <xs:complexContent> + <xs:restriction base="xs:anyType"> + <xs:choice minOccurs="1" maxOccurs="unbounded"> + <xs:element name="one" type="cp:oneType"/> + + + +Shen, et al. Standards Track [Page 21] + +RFC 7200 SIP Load-Control Event Package April 2014 + + + <xs:element name="many" type="lc:manyType"/> + <xs:element name="many-tel" type="lc:manyTelType"/> + <xs:any namespace="##other" processContents="lax"/> + </xs:choice> + </xs:restriction> + </xs:complexContent> + </xs:complexType> + + <!-- MANY-TEL TYPE --> + <xs:complexType name="manyTelType"> + <xs:complexContent> + <xs:restriction base="xs:anyType"> + <xs:choice minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded"> + <xs:element name="except-tel" type="lc:exceptTelType"/> + <xs:any namespace="##other" + minOccurs="0" processContents="lax"/> + </xs:choice> + <xs:attribute name="prefix" + use="optional" type="xs:string"/> + </xs:restriction> + </xs:complexContent> + </xs:complexType> + + <!-- EXCEPT-TEL TYPE --> + <xs:complexType name="exceptTelType"> + <xs:attribute name="prefix" type="xs:string" use="optional"/> + <xs:attribute name="id" type="xs:anyURI" use="optional"/> + </xs:complexType> + + <!-- METHOD --> + <xs:element name="method" type="lc:method-type"/> + + <!-- METHOD TYPE --> + <xs:simpleType name="method-type"> + <xs:restriction base="xs:string"> + <xs:enumeration value="INVITE"/> + <xs:enumeration value="MESSAGE"/> + <xs:enumeration value="REGISTER"/> + <xs:enumeration value="SUBSCRIBE"/> + <xs:enumeration value="OPTIONS"/> + <xs:enumeration value="PUBLISH"/> + </xs:restriction> + </xs:simpleType> + + <!-- TARGET SIP ENTITY --> + <xs:element name="target-sip-entity" type="xs:anyURI" minOccurs="0"/> + + <!-- ACTIONS --> + + + +Shen, et al. Standards Track [Page 22] + +RFC 7200 SIP Load-Control Event Package April 2014 + + + <xs:element name="accept"> + <xs:choice> + <element name="rate" type="xs:decimal" minOccurs="0"/> + <element name="win" type="xs:integer" minOccurs="0"/> + <element name="percent" type="xs:decimal" minOccurs="0"/> + <any namespace="##other" processContents="lax" minOccurs="0" + maxOccurs="unbounded"/> + </xs:choice> + <xs:attribute name="alt-action" type="xs:string" default="reject"/> + <xs:attribute name="alt-target" type="lc:alt-target-type" + use="optional"/> + <anyAtrribute namespace="##other" processContents="lax"/> + </xs:element> + + <!-- ALT TARGET TYPE --> + <xs:simpleType name="alt-target-type"> + <xs:list itemType="xs:anyURI"/> + </xs:simpleType> + + </xs:schema> + +7. Security Considerations + + Two primary security considerations arise from this specification. + One is the distribution mechanism for the load filtering policy that + is based on the SIP event notification framework, and the other is + the enforcement mechanism for the load-filtering policy. + + Security considerations for SIP event package mechanisms are covered + in Section 6 of [RFC6665]. A particularly relevant security concern + for this event package is that if the notifiers can be spoofed, + attackers can send fake notifications asking subscribers to throttle + all traffic, leading to denial-of-service (DoS) attacks. Therefore, + this SIP load-filtering mechanism MUST be used in a Trust Domain + (Section 3.4). But if a legitimate notifier in the Trust Domain is + itself compromised, additional mechanisms will be needed to detect + the attack. + + Security considerations for load-filtering policy enforcement depends + very much on the contents of the policy. This specification defines + a possible match of the following SIP header fields in a load- + filtering policy: <from>, <to>, <request-uri>, and + <p-asserted-identity>. The exact requirement to authenticate and + authorize these fields is up to the service provider. In general, if + the identity field represents the source of the request, it SHOULD be + authenticated and authorized; if the identity field represents the + destination of the request, the authentication and authorization is + optional. + + + +Shen, et al. Standards Track [Page 23] + +RFC 7200 SIP Load-Control Event Package April 2014 + + + In addition, the "redirect" action (Section 5.4) could facilitate a + reflection denial-of-service attack. If a number of SIP proxy + servers in a Trust Domain are using UDP and configured to get their + policies from a central server. An attacker spoofs the central + server's address to send a number of NOTIFY bodies telling the proxy + servers to redirect all calls to victim@outside-of-trust-domain.com. + The proxy servers then redirect all calls to the victim, who then + becomes a victim of Denial of Service attack and becomes + inaccessiable from the Internet. To address this type of threat, + this specification requires that a Trust Domain agrees on what types + of calls can be affected as well as on the destinations to which + calls may be redirected, as in Section 3.4. + +8. IANA Considerations + + This specification registers a SIP event package, a new media type, a + new XML namespace, and a new XML schema. + +8.1. Load-Control Event Package Registration + + This section registers an event package based on the registration + procedures defined in [RFC6665]. + + Package name: load-control + + Type: package + + Published specification: This specification + + Person to contact: Charles Shen, charles@cs.columbia.edu + +8.2. application/load-control+xml Media Type Registration + + This section registers a new media type based on the procedures + defined in [RFC6838] and guidelines in [RFC3023]. + + Type name: application + + Subtype name: load-control+xml + + Required parameters: none + + Optional parameters: Same as charset parameter of application/xml as + specified in [RFC3023]. + + Encoding considerations: Same as encoding considerations of + application/xml as specified in [RFC3023]. + + + + +Shen, et al. Standards Track [Page 24] + +RFC 7200 SIP Load-Control Event Package April 2014 + + + Security considerations: See Section 10 of [RFC3023] and Section 7 of + this specification. + + Interoperability considerations: none + + Published specification: This specification + + Applications that use this media type: Applications that perform load + control of SIP entities. + + Fragment identifier considerations: Same as fragment identifier + considerations of application/xml as specified in [RFC3023]. + + Additional Information: + + Deprecated alias names for this type: none + + Magic Number(s): none + + File Extension(s): .xml + + Macintosh file type code(s): "TEXT" + + Person and email address for further information: Charles Shen, + charles@cs.columbia.edu + + Intended usage: COMMON + + Restrictions on usage: none + + Author: Charles Shen, Henning Schulzrinne, Arata Koike + + Change controller: IESG + + Provisional registration? (standards tree only): no + +8.3. URN Sub-Namespace Registration + + This section registers a new XML namespace, as per the guidelines in + [RFC3688] + + URI: The URI for this namespace is + + urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:load-control + + Registrant Contact: IETF SOC Working Group <sip-overload@ietf.org>, + as designated by the IESG <iesg@ietf.org> + + + + +Shen, et al. Standards Track [Page 25] + +RFC 7200 SIP Load-Control Event Package April 2014 + + + XML: + + BEGIN + <?xml version="1.0"?> + <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML Basic 1.0//EN" + "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-basic/xhtml-basic10.dtd"> + <html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"> + <head> + <meta http-equiv="content-type" + content="text/html;charset=iso-8859-1"/> + <title>SIP Load-Control Namespace</title> + </head> + <body> + <h1>Namespace for SIP Load Control</h1> + <h2>urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:load-control</h2> + <p>See <a href="http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7200.txt"> + RFC 7200</a>.</p> + </body> + </html> + END + +8.4. Load-Control Schema Registration + + URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:schema:load-control + + Registrant Contact: IETF SOC working group, Charles Shen + (charles@cs.columbia.edu). + + XML: the XML schema contained in Section 6 has been registered. + + Its first line is + + <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> + + and its last line is + + </xs:schema> + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Shen, et al. Standards Track [Page 26] + +RFC 7200 SIP Load-Control Event Package April 2014 + + +9. Acknowledgements + + The authors would like to thank Jari Arkko, Richard Barnes, Stewart + Bryant, Gonzalo Camarillo, Bruno Chatras, Benoit Claise, Spencer + Dawkins, Martin Dolly, Keith Drage, Ashutosh Dutta, Donald Eastlake, + Adrian Farrel, Stephen Farrell, Janet Gunn, Vijay Gurbani, Brian + Haberman, Volker Hilt, Geoff Hunt, Carolyn Johnson, Hadriel Kaplan, + Paul Kyzivat, Barry Leiba, Pearl Liang, Salvatore Loreto, Timothy + Moran, Eric Noel, Parthasarathi R, Pete Resnick, Adam Roach, Dan + Romascanu, Shida Schubert, Robert Sparks, Martin Stiemerling, Sean + Turner, Phil Williams, and other members of the SOC and SIPPING + working groups for many helpful comments. In particular, Bruno + Chatras proposed the <method> and <target-sip-entity> condition + elements along with many other text improvements. Janet Gunn + provided detailed text suggestions including Appendix C. Eric Noel + suggested clarification on load-filtering policy distribution + initialization process. Shida Schubert made many suggestions such as + terminology usage. Phil Williams suggested adding support for delta + updates. Ashutosh Dutta gave pointers to Public Switched Telephone + Network (PSTN) references. Adam Roach suggested improvements related + to RFC 6665 and offered other helpful clarifications. Richard Barnes + made many suggestions such as referencing the Trust Domain concept of + RFCs 3324 and 3325, the use of a separate element for 'tel' URI + grouping, and addressing the "redirect" action security threat. + +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. + + [RFC2141] Moats, R., "URN Syntax", RFC 2141, May 1997. + + [RFC3023] Murata, M., St. Laurent, S., and D. Kohn, "XML Media + Types", RFC 3023, January 2001. + + [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. + + [RFC3688] Mealling, M., "The IETF XML Registry", BCP 81, RFC 3688, + January 2004. + + [RFC3966] Schulzrinne, H., "The tel URI for Telephone Numbers", RFC + 3966, December 2004. + + + + +Shen, et al. Standards Track [Page 27] + +RFC 7200 SIP Load-Control Event Package April 2014 + + + [RFC4745] Schulzrinne, H., Tschofenig, H., Morris, J., Cuellar, J., + Polk, J., and J. Rosenberg, "Common Policy: A Document + Format for Expressing Privacy Preferences", RFC 4745, + February 2007. + + [RFC6665] Roach, A., "SIP-Specific Event Notification", RFC 6665, + July 2012. + + [RFC6838] Freed, N., Klensin, J., and T. Hansen, "Media Type + Specifications and Registration Procedures", BCP 13, RFC + 6838, January 2013. + +10.2. Informative References + + [E.300SerSup3] + ITU-T, "North American Precise Audible Tone Plan", + Recommendation E.300 Series Supplement 3, November 1988. + + [E.412] ITU-T, "Network Management Controls", Recommendation + E.412-2003, January 2003. + + [Q.1248.2] ITU-T, "Interface Recommendation for Intelligent Network + Capability Set4:SCF-SSF interface", Recommendation + Q.1248.2, July 2001. + + [RFC2648] Moats, R., "A URN Namespace for IETF Documents", RFC 2648, + August 1999. + + [RFC3324] Watson, M., "Short Term Requirements for Network Asserted + Identity", RFC 3324, November 2002. + + [RFC3325] Jennings, C., Peterson, J., and M. Watson, "Private + Extensions to the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) for + Asserted Identity within Trusted Networks", RFC 3325, + November 2002. + + [RFC4412] Schulzrinne, H. and J. Polk, "Communications Resource + Priority for the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)", RFC + 4412, February 2006. + + [RFC4825] Rosenberg, J., "The Extensible Markup Language (XML) + Configuration Access Protocol (XCAP)", RFC 4825, May 2007. + + [RFC5031] Schulzrinne, H., "A Uniform Resource Name (URN) for + Emergency and Other Well-Known Services", RFC 5031, + January 2008. + + + + + +Shen, et al. Standards Track [Page 28] + +RFC 7200 SIP Load-Control Event Package April 2014 + + + [RFC5390] Rosenberg, J., "Requirements for Management of Overload in + the Session Initiation Protocol", RFC 5390, December 2008. + + [RFC6357] Hilt, V., Noel, E., Shen, C., and A. Abdelal, "Design + Considerations for Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) + Overload Control", RFC 6357, August 2011. + + [SIP-OVERLOAD] + Gurbani, V., Ed., Hilt, V., and H. Schulzrinne, "Session + Initiation Protocol (SIP) Overload Control", Work in + Progress, March 2014. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Shen, et al. Standards Track [Page 29] + +RFC 7200 SIP Load-Control Event Package April 2014 + + +Appendix A. Definitions + + This specification reuses the definitions for "Event Package", + "Notification", "Notifier", "Subscriber", and "Subscription" as in + [RFC6665]. The following additional definitions are also used. + + Load Filtering: A load-control mechanism that applies specific + actions to selected loads (e.g., SIP requests) matching specific + conditions. + + Load-Filtering Policy: A set of zero or more load-filtering rules, + also known as load-filtering rule set. + + Load-Filtering Rule: Conditions and actions to be applied for load + filtering. + + Load-Filtering Condition: Elements that describe how to select loads + to apply load-filtering actions. This specification defines the + <call-identity>, <method>, <target-sip-identity>, and <validity> + condition elements (Section 5.3). + + Load-Filtering Action: An operation to be taken by a load-filtering + server on loads that match the load-filtering conditions. This + specification allows actions such as accept, reject, and redirect + of loads (Section 5.4). + + Load-Filtering Server: A server that performs load filtering. In + the context of this specification, the load-filtering server is + the subscriber, which receives load-filtering policies from the + notifier and enforces those policies during load filtering. + + Load-Control Document: An XML document that describes the load- + filtering policies (Section 5). It inherits and enhances the + common policy document defined in [RFC4745]. + +Appendix B. Design Requirements + + The SIP load-filtering mechanism needs to satisfy the following + requirements: + + o For simplicity, the solution should focus on a method for + controlling SIP load, rather than a generic application-layer + mechanism. + + o The load-filtering policy needs to be distributed efficiently to + possibly a large subset of all SIP elements. + + + + + +Shen, et al. Standards Track [Page 30] + +RFC 7200 SIP Load-Control Event Package April 2014 + + + o The solution should reuse existing SIP protocol mechanisms to + reduce implementation and deployment complexity. + + o For predictable overload situations, such as holidays and mass + calling events, the load-filtering policy should specify during + what time it is to be applied, so that the information can be + distributed ahead of time. + + o For destination-specific overload situations, the load-filtering + policy should be able to describe the destination domain or the + callee. + + o To address accidental and intentional high-volume call generators, + the load-filtering policy should be able to specify the caller. + + o Caller and callee need to be specified as both SIP URIs and 'tel' + URIs [RFC3966] in load-filtering policies. + + o It should be possible to specify particular information in the SIP + headers (e.g., prefixes in telephone numbers) that allow load + filtering over limited regionally focused overloads. + + o The solution should draw upon experiences from related PSTN + mechanisms [Q.1248.2] [E.412] [E.300SerSup3] where applicable. + + o The solution should be extensible to meet future needs. + +Appendix C. Discussion of How This Specification Meets the Requirements + of RFC 5390 + + This section evaluates whether the load-control event package + mechanism defined in this specification satisfies various SIP + overload control requirements set forth by [RFC5390]. As mentioned + in Section 1, this specification complements other efforts in the + overall SIP load-control solution space. Therefore, not all RFC 5390 + requirements are found applicable to this specification. This + specification categorizes the assessment results into Yes (the + requirement is met), P/A (Partially Applicable), No (must be used in + conjunction with another mechanism to meet the requirement), and N/A + (Not Applicable). + + REQ 1: The overload mechanism shall strive to maintain the overall + useful throughput (taking into consideration the quality-of- + service needs of the using applications) of a SIP server at + reasonable levels, even when the incoming load on the network is + far in excess of its capacity. The overall throughput under load + is the ultimate measure of the value of an overload control + mechanism. + + + +Shen, et al. Standards Track [Page 31] + +RFC 7200 SIP Load-Control Event Package April 2014 + + + P/A. The goal of load filtering is to prevent overload or maintain + overall goodput during the time of overload, but it is dependent on + the predictions of the load and the computations as well as + distribution of the filtering policies. If the load predictions or + filtering policy computations are incorrect, or the filtering policy + is not properly distributed, the mechanism will be less effective. + On the other hand, if the load can be accurately predicted and + filtering policies be computed and distributed appropriately, this + requirement can be met. + + REQ 2: When a single network element fails, goes into overload, or + suffers from reduced processing capacity, the mechanism should + strive to limit the impact of this on other elements in the + network. This helps to prevent a small-scale failure from + becoming a widespread outage. + + N/A if load-filtering policies are installed in advance and do not + change during the potential overload period, P/A if load-filtering + policies are dynamically adjusted. The algorithm to dynamically + compute load-filtering policies is outside the scope of this + specification, while the distribution of the updated filtering + policies uses the event package mechanism of this specification. + + REQ 3: The mechanism should seek to minimize the amount of + configuration required in order to work. For example, it is + better to avoid needing to configure a server with its SIP message + throughput, as these kinds of quantities are hard to determine. + + No. This mechanism is entirely dependent on advance configuration, + based on advance knowledge. In order to satisfy REQ 3, it should be + used in conjunction with other mechanisms that are not based on + advance configuration. + + REQ 4: The mechanism must be capable of dealing with elements that + do not support it, so that a network can consist of a mix of + elements that do and don't support it. In other words, the + mechanism should not work only in environments where all elements + support it. It is reasonable to assume that it works better in + such environments, of course. Ideally, there should be + incremental improvements in overall network throughput as + increasing numbers of elements in the network support the + mechanism. + + No. This mechanism is entirely dependent on the participation of all + possible neighbors. In order to satisfy REQ 4, it should be used in + conjunction with other mechanisms, some of which are described in + Section 3.4. + + + + +Shen, et al. Standards Track [Page 32] + +RFC 7200 SIP Load-Control Event Package April 2014 + + + REQ 5: The mechanism should not assume that it will only be + deployed in environments with completely trusted elements. It + should seek to operate as effectively as possible in environments + where other elements are malicious; this includes preventing + malicious elements from obtaining more than a fair share of + service. + + No. This mechanism is entirely dependent on the non-malicious + participation of all possible neighbors. In order to satisfy REQ 5, + it should be used in conjunction with other mechanisms, some of which + are described in Section 3.4. + + REQ 6: When overload is signaled by means of a specific message, + the message must clearly indicate that it is being sent because of + overload, as opposed to other, non overload-based failure + conditions. This requirement is meant to avoid some of the + problems that have arisen from the reuse of the 503 response code + for multiple purposes. Of course, overload is also signaled by + lack of response to requests. This requirement applies only to + explicit overload signals. + + N/A. This mechanism signals anticipated overload, not actual + overload. However, the signals in this mechanism are not used for + any other purpose. + + REQ 7: The mechanism shall provide a way for an element to + throttle the amount of traffic it receives from an upstream + element. This throttling shall be graded so that it is not all- + or-nothing as with the current 503 mechanism. This recognizes the + fact that "overload" is not a binary state and that there are + degrees of overload. + + Yes. This event package allows rate-/loss-/window-based overload + control options as discussed in Section 5.4. + + REQ 8: The mechanism shall ensure that, when a request was not + processed successfully due to overload (or failure) of a + downstream element, the request will not be retried on another + element that is also overloaded or whose status is unknown. This + requirement derives from REQ 1. + + N/A to the load-control event package mechanism itself. + + REQ 9: That a request has been rejected from an overloaded element + shall not unduly restrict the ability of that request to be + submitted to and processed by an element that is not overloaded. + This requirement derives from REQ 1. + + + + +Shen, et al. Standards Track [Page 33] + +RFC 7200 SIP Load-Control Event Package April 2014 + + + Yes. For example, load-filtering policy (Section 3.1) can include + alternative forwarding destinations for rejected requests. + + REQ 10: The mechanism should support servers that receive requests + from a large number of different upstream elements, where the set + of upstream elements is not enumerable. + + No. Because this mechanism requires advance configuration of + specifically identified neighbors, it does not support environments + where the number and identity of the upstream neighbors are not known + in advance. In order to satisfy REQ 10, it should be used in + conjunction with other mechanisms. + + REQ 11: The mechanism should support servers that receive requests + from a finite set of upstream elements, where the set of upstream + elements is enumerable. + + Yes. See also answer to REQ 10. + + REQ 12: The mechanism should work between servers in different + domains. + + Yes. The load-control event package mechanism is not limited by + domain boundaries. However, it is likely more applicable in intra- + domain scenarios than in inter-domain scenarios due to security and + other concerns (see also Section 3.4). + + REQ 13: The mechanism must not dictate a specific algorithm for + prioritizing the processing of work within a proxy during times of + overload. It must permit a proxy to prioritize requests based on + any local policy, so that certain ones (such as a call for + emergency services or a call with a specific value of the + Resource-Priority header field [RFC4412]) are given preferential + treatment, such as not being dropped, being given additional + retransmission, or being processed ahead of others. + + P/A. This mechanism does not specifically address the prioritizing + of work during times of overload. But it does not preclude any + particular local policy. + + REQ 14: The mechanism should provide unambiguous directions to + clients on when they should retry a request and when they should + not. This especially applies to TCP connection establishment and + SIP registrations, in order to mitigate against avalanche restart. + + N/A to the load-control event package mechanism itself. + + + + + +Shen, et al. Standards Track [Page 34] + +RFC 7200 SIP Load-Control Event Package April 2014 + + + REQ 15: In cases where a network element fails, is so overloaded + that it cannot process messages, or cannot communicate due to a + network failure or network partition, it will not be able to + provide explicit indications of the nature of the failure or its + levels of congestion. The mechanism must properly function in + these cases. + + P/A. Because the load-filtering policies are provisioned in advance, + they are not affected by the overload or failure of other network + elements. On the other hand, they may not, in those cases, be able + to protect the overloaded network elements (see REQ 1). + + REQ 16: The mechanism should attempt to minimize the overhead of + the overload control messaging. + + Yes. The standardized SIP event package mechanism [RFC6665] is used. + + REQ 17: The overload mechanism must not provide an avenue for + malicious attack, including DoS and DDoS attacks. + + P/A. This mechanism does provide a potential avenue for malicious + attacks. Therefore, the security mechanisms for SIP event packages, + in general, [RFC6665] and Section 7 of this specification should be + used. + + REQ 18: The overload mechanism should be unambiguous about whether + a load indication applies to a specific IP address, host, or URI, + so that an upstream element can determine the load of the entity + to which a request is to be sent. + + Yes. The identity of load indication is covered in the load- + filtering policy format definition in Section 3.1. + + REQ 19: The specification for the overload mechanism should give + guidance on which message types might be desirable to process over + others during times of overload, based on SIP-specific + considerations. For example, it may be more beneficial to process + a SUBSCRIBE refresh with Expires of zero than a SUBSCRIBE refresh + with a non-zero expiration (since the former reduces the overall + amount of load on the element), or to process re-INVITEs over new + INVITEs. + + N/A to the load-control event package mechanism itself. + + REQ 20: In a mixed environment of elements that do and do not + implement the overload mechanism, no disproportionate benefit + shall accrue to the users or operators of the elements that do not + implement the mechanism. + + + +Shen, et al. Standards Track [Page 35] + +RFC 7200 SIP Load-Control Event Package April 2014 + + + No. This mechanism is entirely dependent on the participation of all + possible neighbors. In order to satisfy REQ 20, it should be used in + conjunction with other mechanisms, some of which are described in + Section 3.4. + + REQ 21: The overload mechanism should ensure that the system + remains stable. When the offered load drops from above the + overall capacity of the network to below the overall capacity, the + throughput should stabilize and become equal to the offered load. + + N/A to the load-control event package mechanism itself. + + REQ 22: It must be possible to disable the reporting of load + information towards upstream targets based on the identity of + those targets. This allows a domain administrator who considers + the load of their elements to be sensitive information, to + restrict access to that information. Of course, in such cases, + there is no expectation that the overload mechanism itself will + help prevent overload from that upstream target. + + N/A to the load-control event package mechanism itself. + + REQ 23: It must be possible for the overload mechanism to work in + cases where there is a load balancer in front of a farm of + proxies. + + Yes. The load-control event package mechanism does not preclude its + use in a scenario with server farms. + +Appendix D. Complete Examples + +D.1. Load-Control Document Examples + + This section presents two complete examples of load-control documents + valid with respect to the XML schema defined in Section 6. + + The first example assumes that a set of hotlines are set up at + "sip:alice@hotline.example.com" and "tel:+1-212-555-1234". The + hotlines are activated from 12:00 to 15:00 US Eastern Standard Time + on 2008-05-31. The goal is to limit the incoming calls to the + hotlines to 100 requests per second. Calls that exceed the rate + limit are explicitly rejected. + + + + + + + + + +Shen, et al. Standards Track [Page 36] + +RFC 7200 SIP Load-Control Event Package April 2014 + + + <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> + <ruleset xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:common-policy" + xmlns:lc="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:load-control" + version="0" state="full"> + + <rule id="f3g44k1"> + <conditions> + <lc:call-identity> + <lc:sip> + <lc:to> + <one id="sip:alice@hotline.example.com"/> + <one id="tel:+1-212-555-1234"/> + </lc:to> + </lc:sip> + </lc:call-identity> + <method>INVITE</method> + <validity> + <from>2008-05-31T12:00:00-05:00</from> + <until>2008-05-31T15:00:00-05:00</until> + </validity> + </conditions> + <actions> + <lc:accept alt-action="reject"> + <lc:rate>100</lc:rate> + </lc:accept> + </actions> + + </rule> + </ruleset> + + The second example optimizes the usage of server resources during the + three-day period following a hurricane. Incoming calls to the domain + "sandy.example.com" or to call destinations with prefix "+1-212" will + be limited to a rate of 100 requests per second, except for those + calls originating from a particular rescue team domain + "rescue.example.com". Outgoing calls from the hurricane domain or + calls within the local domain are never limited. All calls that are + throttled due to the rate limit will be forwarded to an answering + machine with updated hurricane rescue information. + + + + + + + + + + + + +Shen, et al. Standards Track [Page 37] + +RFC 7200 SIP Load-Control Event Package April 2014 + + + <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> + <ruleset xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:common-policy" + xmlns:lc="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:load-control" + version="1" state="full"> + + <rule id="f3g44k2"> + <conditions> + <lc:call-identity> + <lc:sip> + <lc:to> + <many domain="sandy.example.com"/> + <many-tel prefix="+1-212"/> + </lc:to> + <lc:from> + <many> + <except domain="sandy.example.com"/> + <except domain="rescue.example.com"/> + </many> + </lc:from> + </lc:sip> + </lc:call-identity> + <method>INVITE</method> + <validity> + <from>2012-10-25T09:00:00+01:00</from> + <until>2012-10-28T09:00:00+01:00</until> + </validity> + </conditions> + <actions> + <lc:accept alt-action="redirect" alt-target= + "sip:sandy@update.example.com"> + <lc:rate>100</lc:rate> + </lc:accept> + </actions> + + </rule> + </ruleset> + + Sometimes it may occur that multiple rules in a ruleset define + actions that match the same methods, call identity and validity. In + those cases, the "first-match-wins" principle is used. For example, + in the following ruleset, the first rule requires all calls from the + "example.com" domain to be rejected. Even though the rule following + that one specifies that calls from "sip:alice@example.com" be + redirected to a specific target "sip:eve@example.com", the calls from + "sip:alice@example.com" will still be rejected because they have + already been matched by the earlier rule. + + + + + +Shen, et al. Standards Track [Page 38] + +RFC 7200 SIP Load-Control Event Package April 2014 + + + <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> + <ruleset xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:common-policy" + xmlns:lc="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:load-control" + version="1" state="full"> + + <rule id="f3g44k3"> + <conditions> + <lc:call-identity> + <lc:sip> + <lc:from> + <many domain="example.com"/> + </lc:from> + </lc:sip> + </lc:call-identity> + <method>INVITE</method> + <validity> + <from>2013-7-2T09:00:00+01:00</from> + <until>2013-7-3T09:00:00+01:00</until> + </validity> + </conditions> + <actions> + <lc:accept alt-action="reject"> + <lc:rate>0</lc:rate> + </lc:accept> + </actions> + </rule> + + <rule id="f3g44k4"> + <conditions> + <lc:call-identity> + <lc:sip> + <lc:from> + <one id="sip:alice@example.com"/> + </lc:from> + </lc:sip> + </lc:call-identity> + <method>INVITE</method> + <validity> + <from>2013-7-2T09:00:00+01:00</from> + <until>2013-7-3T09:00:00+01:00</until> + </validity> + </conditions> + <actions> + <lc:accept alt-action="redirect" alt-target= + "sip:eve@example.com"> + <lc:rate>0</lc:rate> + </lc:accept> + </actions> + + + +Shen, et al. Standards Track [Page 39] + +RFC 7200 SIP Load-Control Event Package April 2014 + + + </rule> + </ruleset> + +D.2. Message Flow Examples + + This section presents an example message flow of using the load- + control event package mechanism defined in this specification. + + atlanta biloxi + | F1 SUBSCRIBE | + |------------------>| + | F2 200 OK | + |<------------------| + | F3 NOTIFY | + |<------------------| + | F4 200 OK | + |------------------>| + + F1 SUBSCRIBE atlanta.example.com -> biloxi.example.com + + SUBSCRIBE sip:biloxi.example.com SIP/2.0 + Via: SIP/2.0/TCP atlanta.example.com;branch=z9hG4bKy7cjbu3 + From: sip:atlanta.example.com;tag=162ab5 + To: sip:biloxi.example.com + Call-ID: 2xTb9vxSit55XU7p8@atlanta.example.com + CSeq: 2012 SUBSCRIBE + Contact: sip:atlanta.example.com + Event: load-control + Max-Forwards: 70 + Accept: application/load-control+xml + Expires: 3600 + Content-Length: 0 + + F2 200 OK biloxi.example.com -> atlanta.example.com + + SIP/2.0 200 OK + Via: SIP/2.0/TCP biloxi.example.com;branch=z9hG4bKy7cjbu3 + ;received=192.0.2.1 + To: <sip:biloxi.example.com>;tag=331dc8 + From: <sip:atlanta.example.com>;tag=162ab5 + Call-ID: 2xTb9vxSit55XU7p8@atlanta.example.com + CSeq: 2012 SUBSCRIBE + Expires: 3600 + Contact: sip:biloxi.example.com + Content-Length: 0 + + + + + + +Shen, et al. Standards Track [Page 40] + +RFC 7200 SIP Load-Control Event Package April 2014 + + + F3 NOTIFY biloxi.example.com -> atlanta.example.com + + NOTIFY sip:atlanta.example.com SIP/2.0 + Via: SIP/2.0/TCP biloxi.example.com;branch=z9hG4bKy71g2ks + From: <sip:biloxi.example.com>;tag=331dc8 + To: <sip:atlanta.example.com>;tag=162ab5 + Call-ID: 2xTb9vxSit55XU7p8@atlanta.example.com + Event: load-control + Subscription-State: active;expires=3599 + Max-Forwards: 70 + CSeq: 1775 NOTIFY + Contact: sip:biloxi.example.com + Content-Type: application/load-control+xml + Content-Length: ... + + [Load-Control Document] + + F4 200 OK atlanta.example.com -> biloxi.example.com + + SIP/2.0 200 OK + Via: SIP/2.0/TCP atlanta.example.com;branch=z9hG4bKy71g2ks + ;received=192.0.2.2 + From: <sip:biloxi.example.com>;tag=331dc8 + To: <sip:atlanta.example.com>;tag=162ab5 + Call-ID: 2xTb9vxSit55XU7p8@atlanta.example.com + CSeq: 1775 NOTIFY + Content-Length: 0 + +Appendix E. Related Work + +E.1. Relationship to Load Filtering in PSTN + + It is known that an existing PSTN network also uses a load-filtering + mechanism to prevent overload and the filtering policy configuration + is done manually except in specific cases when the Intelligent + Network architecture is used [Q.1248.2][E.412]. This specification + defines a load-filtering mechanism based on the SIP event + notification framework that allows automated filtering policy + distribution in suitable environments. + + PSTN overload control uses messages that specify an outgoing control + list, call gap duration, and control duration [Q.1248.2][E.412]. + These items correspond roughly to the identity, action, and time + fields of the SIP load-filtering policy defined in this + specification. However, the load-filtering policy defined in this + specification is much more generic and flexible as opposed to its + PSTN counterpart. + + + + +Shen, et al. Standards Track [Page 41] + +RFC 7200 SIP Load-Control Event Package April 2014 + + + Firstly, PSTN load filtering only applies to telephone numbers. The + identity element of SIP load-filtering policy allows both SIP URI and + telephone numbers (through 'tel' URI) to be specified. These + identities can be arbitrarily grouped by SIP domains or any number of + leading prefixes of the telephone numbers. + + Secondly, the PSTN load-filtering action is usually limited to call + gapping. The action field in SIP load-filtering policy allows more + flexible possibilities such as rate throttle and others. + + Thirdly, the duration field in PSTN load filtering specifies a value + in seconds for the load-filtering duration only, and the allowed + values are mapped into a value set. The time field in SIP load- + filtering policy may specify not only a duration, but also a future + activation time that could be especially useful for automating load + filtering for predictable overloads. + + PSTN load filtering can be performed in both edge switches and + transit switches; the SIP load filtering can also be applied in both + edge proxy servers and core proxy servers, and even in capable user + agents. + + PSTN load filtering also has special accommodation for High + Probability of Completion (HPC) calls, which would be similar to + calls designated by the SIP Resource Priority Headers [RFC4412]. The + SIP load-filtering mechanism also allows prioritizing the treatment + of these calls by specifying favorable actions for them. + + PSTN load filtering also provides an administrative option for + routing failed call attempts to either a reorder tone [E.300SerSup3] + indicating overload conditions or a special recorded announcement. A + similar capability can be provided in the SIP load-filtering + mechanism by specifying appropriate "alt-action" attribute in the SIP + load-filtering action field. + +E.2. Relationship with Other IETF SIP Overload Control Efforts + + The load-filtering policies in this specification consist of + identity, action, and time. The identity can range from a single + specific user to an arbitrary user aggregate, domains, or areas. The + user can be identified by either the source or the destination. When + the user is identified by the source and a favorable action is + specified, the result is, to some extent, similar to identifying a + priority user based on authorized Resource Priority Headers [RFC4412] + in the requests. Specifying a source user identity with an + unfavorable action would cause an effect to some extent similar to an + inverse SIP resource priority mechanism. + + + + +Shen, et al. Standards Track [Page 42] + +RFC 7200 SIP Load-Control Event Package April 2014 + + + The load-filtering policy defined in this specification is generic + and expected to be applicable not only to the load-filtering + mechanism but also to the feedback overload control mechanism in + [SIP-OVERLOAD]. In particular, both mechanisms could use specific or + wildcard identities for load control and could share well-known load- + control actions. The time duration field in the load-filtering + policy could also be used in both mechanisms. As mentioned in + Section 1, the load-filtering policy distribution mechanism and the + feedback overload control mechanism address complementary areas in + the overload control problem space. Load filtering is more proactive + and focuses on distributing filtering policies towards the source of + the traffic; the hop-by-hop feedback-based approach is reactive and + reduces traffic already accepted by the network. Therefore, they + could also make different use of the generic load-filtering policy + components. For example, the load-filtering mechanism may use the + time field in the filtering policy to specify not only a control + duration but also a future activation time to accommodate a + predicable overload such as the one caused by Mother's Day greetings + or a viewer-voting program; the feedback-based control might not need + to use the time field or might use the time field to specify an + immediate load-control duration. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Shen, et al. Standards Track [Page 43] + +RFC 7200 SIP Load-Control Event Package April 2014 + + +Authors' Addresses + + Charles Shen + Columbia University + Department of Computer Science + 1214 Amsterdam Avenue, MC 0401 + New York, NY 10027 + USA + + Phone: +1 212 854 3109 + EMail: charles@cs.columbia.edu + + + Henning Schulzrinne + Columbia University + Department of Computer Science + 1214 Amsterdam Avenue, MC 0401 + New York, NY 10027 + USA + + Phone: +1 212 939 7004 + EMail: schulzrinne@cs.columbia.edu + + + Arata Koike + NTT Network Technology Labs + 3-9-11 Midori-cho Musashino-shi + Tokyo 180-8585 + Japan + + Phone: +81 422 59 6099 + EMail: koike.arata@lab.ntt.co.jp + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Shen, et al. Standards Track [Page 44] + |