Subject: RE: [AAA-WG]: Transport-09 strawman

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 8 Dec 2002 11:24:20 +0200

Hi Bernard,

> Any comments on how many streams might be appropriate? The draft describes
> this as depending on the implementation.
> 
> One thought is that on a Diameter client, the number of streams might be
> proportional to the number of ports on the NAS. If there is one stream per
> NAS port going from the NAS to a proxy, then there is no possibility of
> head-of-line blocking.
> 
> On a proxy, the number of streams going from the proxy to the AAA server
> is harder to estimate. It probably should be determined by the peak number
> of simultaneous AAA sessions between the proxy and each AAA server.

Those should be a lower limit.  However, one possibility is to simply 
recommend using maximum number of streams possible (64k).  On TSVWG
some time ago, there was a discussion about stream usage and it was
noted that on several implementations, inactive streams don't consume
any kernel resources, so limiting the total number doesn't save
anything.  

John

---

From: Bernard Aboba <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 8 Dec 2002 06:54:22 -0800 (PST)

> any kernel resources, so limiting the total number doesn't save

But on other implementations inactive streams do consume kernel resources,
so using the maximum number may have penalties. Here is some suggested
text:

"n a Diameter client, the number of streams may be determined by the
maximum number of peak users on the NAS. If a stream is available per
user, then this should be sufficient to prevent head-of-line blocking.
On a Diameter proxy, the number of streams may be determined by the
maximum number of peak sessions in progress from that proxy to each
downstream AAA server."