The subject matter described herein relates to auditing Sy or Rx sessions. More particularly, the subject matter described herein relates to detecting orphan Sy or Rx sessions using audit messages with fake parameter values.
In Diameter networks, sessions are often established between policy and charging rules functions (PCRFs) and other nodes. For example, PCRFs establish Sy sessions with online charging systems (OCSs) to monitor policy counters, which govern subscriber spending limits with regard to one or more services. The PCRF makes policy decisions based on the status of the policy counters received from the OCS. On the Rx interface, the PCRF sends re-authorization request (RAR) messages to application functions (AFs) to re-establish sessions with the application functions.
The PCRF reserves memory and other resources associated with each session on each interface that the PCRF supports. If a session is terminated by the OCS or AF, the PCRF may not be aware of the termination. A session that is terminated by the remote end but where the PCRF is not aware of the termination is referred to herein as an orphan session. As the number of sessions managed by the PCRF increases, wasted resources due to orphan sessions can degrade PCRF performance.
The Sy and Rx interface specifications to not define procedures for detecting orphan sessions. One possible procedure for detecting orphan sessions could be to use an existing message on one of the interfaces to audit sessions. However, if an existing message is used to audit sessions, that message can trigger undesirable results, such as a subscription to future updates. For example, on the Sy interface, if a spending limit request with a valid policy counter identifier is used as an audit message, sending such a message to the OCS will result the PCRF receiving policy counter updates for the session. An audit procedure that triggers a subscription and future updates is undesirable as such a procedure further wastes PCRF and OCS resources. The base Diameter protocol includes keepalive timers and related procedures for Diameter messages. However, such procedures only test the availability or unavailability of Diameter communications, which could represent hundreds or thousands of sessions and is thus unsuitable for detecting individual orphan sessions.
Accordingly, there exists a need for methods, systems, and computer readable media for detecting orphan Sy or Rx sessions using audit messages with fake parameters
The subject matter described herein includes methods, systems and computer readable media for detecting orphan Sy or Rx sessions using audit messages with fake parameter values. One exemplary method includes, at a policy and charging rules function (PCRF), generating a Diameter audit message concerning an application level Diameter session for which the PCRF maintains local resources. The method further includes including, in the audit message, at least one fake parameter value. The method further includes sending the audit message with the fake parameter value to the OCS or the AF over an SY or RX interface. The method further includes receiving a response to the audit message from the OCS or AF. The method further includes determining, based on the response, whether the application level session comprises and orphan session. The method further includes, in response to determining that the application level Diameter session comprises an orphan session freeing the local resources maintained by the PCRF for the orphan session.
The subject matter described herein can be implemented in software in combination with hardware and/or firmware. For example, the subject matter described herein can be implemented in software executed by a processor. In one exemplary implementation, the subject matter described herein can be implemented using a non-transitory computer readable medium having stored thereon computer executable instructions that when executed by the processor of a computer control the computer to perform steps. Exemplary computer readable media suitable for implementing the subject matter described herein include non-transitory computer-readable media, such as disk memory devices, chip memory devices, programmable logic devices, and application specific integrated circuits. In addition, a computer readable medium that implements the subject matter described herein may be located on a single device or computing platform or may be distributed across multiple devices or computing platforms.
Preferred embodiments of the subject matter described herein will now be explained with reference to the accompanying drawings of which:
The subject matter described herein includes methods, systems, and computer readable media for detecting orphan sessions using fake parameter values. In one embodiment, a PCRF may implement an auditing procedure for detecting orphan sessions on the Sy interface by using an existing Sy protocol message with a fake parameter value to audit sessions with an OCS. As used herein, the term “fake parameter value” refers to any of the following: a valid value for an existing parameter, an invalid value for an existing parameter, or a new parameter (and associated new parameter value), which triggers the receiving node to respond with a message from which the auditing node can identify the session as an orphan session or not and without triggering a subscription. For example, on the Sy interface, the spending limit request message is used by the PCRF to determine the spending limit associated with a particular session. The spending limit request includes a value referred to as the policy counter identifier which identifies a policy counter that defines bandwidth to be allocated to a subscriber for a particular type of traffic. For example, the policy counter may indicate that the subscriber has 2 gigabytes of bandwidth per month for Internet traffic. The spending limit request message may also include an update request, which triggers the OCS to send the PCRF updates in the amount of bandwidth remaining for the subscriber. Using such a message as an audit message would be undesirable as receiving updates for each session being audited would waste OCS and PCRF resources.
In light of this difficulty, in one embodiment, the PCRF may utilize an existing spending limit request message with a fake policy counter identifier to trigger the OCS to respond but not to trigger a subscription as the fake policy counter identifier would not trigger such a subscription.
In Table 1, the session ID Sy.Op.com;1876543210;102 corresponds to a session that PCRF 100 believes to be active and for which PCRF 100 is currently reserving resources. The policy counter identifier in Table 1 may be fake value that is out of range for valid policy counter identifiers for that particular session.
In this example, the session is an orphan session because is OCS 102 has ceased to maintain state associated with the session. OCS 102 may cease maintaining a state, for example, if there is an error associated with the OCS 102, such as a reboot that causes loss of session data. In step 2 of the message flow in
In Table 2, the result code of the spending limit answer messages Diameter unknown session ID. Such a code may notify a PCRF that the session is no longer active. Accordingly, PCRF 100 may free resources associated with the session.
In the example illustrated in
In Table 3, the session ID in the spending limit request message is assumed to correspond to a valid session being maintained by OCS 102. The policy counter identifier is assumed to be a fake value. Accordingly, in step 2 of the message flow diagram, OCS 102 sends a spending limit answer message to PCRF 100. The spending limit answer message includes the session identifier and has a result code indicating that the fake policy counter identifier is an invalid value. Table 4 shown below illustrates exemplary parameters that may be included in the spending limit answer message.
From Table 4, it can be seen that the spending limit answer message indicates a valid session identifier but an invalid AVP (attribute value pair) value. As such, the spending limit answer message is interpreted by PCRF 100 to be a response to an audit request for that session and indicates that the session is still active. Accordingly, PCRF 100 may maintain its resources associated with the particular session. Because the policy counter identifier sent to OCS 102 is invalid, no unnecessary subscription is triggered by the spending limit request message.
If, in state 306, an OCS message is received that indicates that the session is not unknown, as indicated by state 308, control returns to state 302 where the session lifetime timer is reset. If a response is received that indicates that the session is unknown, as indicated by state 310, control proceeds to state 312 where the PCRF 100 frees resources associated with the session. If no response to the audit message is received, control proceeds to step 314 where it is determined whether a maximum inactivity time has been reached. If a maximum inactivity time has been reached, control proceeds to state 312 where resources associated with the session are freed. If the maximum inactivity timeout has not been reached, control returns to state 302 where the session lifetime timer is reset and the states are repeated.
The subject matter described herein is not limited to auditing sessions on the Sy interface. PCRF 100 may also audit sessions on other interfaces, such as the Rx interface.
In step 706, PCRF 100 receives a response to the audit message. In step 708, PCRF 100 determines whether the response indicates an orphan session. For example, PCRF 100 may receive a response indicating that the session is unknown. If this occurs, control proceeds to step 710 where resources associated with the session are freed. If, on the other hand, the response does not indicate an orphan session, control returns to step 700 where the session is reevaluated.
It will be understood that various details of the presently disclosed subject matter may be changed without departing from the scope of the presently disclosed subject matter. Furthermore, the foregoing description is for the purpose of illustration only, and not for the purpose of limitation.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
7257636 | Lee et al. | Aug 2007 | B2 |
8042148 | Andreasen et al. | Oct 2011 | B2 |
8131831 | Hu | Mar 2012 | B1 |
8640188 | Riley et al. | Jan 2014 | B2 |
8787174 | Riley et al. | Jul 2014 | B2 |
8813168 | Riley et al. | Aug 2014 | B2 |
8943209 | Cervenak et al. | Jan 2015 | B2 |
20030003928 | Marjelund et al. | Jan 2003 | A1 |
20050022115 | Baumgartner et al. | Jan 2005 | A1 |
20050107091 | Vannithamby et al. | May 2005 | A1 |
20050122945 | Hurtta | Jun 2005 | A1 |
20070094712 | Gibbs et al. | Apr 2007 | A1 |
20070195788 | Vasamsetti et al. | Aug 2007 | A1 |
20070226775 | Andreasen et al. | Sep 2007 | A1 |
20070242692 | Limb et al. | Oct 2007 | A1 |
20070286117 | Balasubramanian et al. | Dec 2007 | A1 |
20080046963 | Grayson et al. | Feb 2008 | A1 |
20080120700 | Pandey et al. | May 2008 | A1 |
20080250156 | Agarwal et al. | Oct 2008 | A1 |
20080271113 | Belling | Oct 2008 | A1 |
20080310334 | Nakamura et al. | Dec 2008 | A1 |
20090080440 | Balyan et al. | Mar 2009 | A1 |
20090109845 | Andreasen et al. | Apr 2009 | A1 |
20090129271 | Ramankutty et al. | May 2009 | A1 |
20090141625 | Ghai et al. | Jun 2009 | A1 |
20090156213 | Spinelli et al. | Jun 2009 | A1 |
20090177650 | Petersson et al. | Jul 2009 | A1 |
20090227231 | Hu et al. | Sep 2009 | A1 |
20090307028 | Eldon et al. | Dec 2009 | A1 |
20100020812 | Nakamura et al. | Jan 2010 | A1 |
20100027448 | Puthiyandyil et al. | Feb 2010 | A1 |
20100048161 | He et al. | Feb 2010 | A1 |
20100154031 | Montemurro et al. | Jun 2010 | A1 |
20100185488 | Hogan et al. | Jul 2010 | A1 |
20100188975 | Raleigh | Jul 2010 | A1 |
20100284336 | Rui et al. | Nov 2010 | A1 |
20100286490 | Koverzin | Nov 2010 | A1 |
20100299451 | Yigang et al. | Nov 2010 | A1 |
20100311392 | Stenfelt et al. | Dec 2010 | A1 |
20100312740 | Clemm et al. | Dec 2010 | A1 |
20100329243 | Buckley et al. | Dec 2010 | A1 |
20100329244 | Buckley et al. | Dec 2010 | A1 |
20110075557 | Chowdhury et al. | Mar 2011 | A1 |
20110075675 | Koodli et al. | Mar 2011 | A1 |
20110122870 | Dixon et al. | May 2011 | A1 |
20110141947 | Li et al. | Jun 2011 | A1 |
20110167471 | Riley et al. | Jul 2011 | A1 |
20110199903 | Cuervo | Aug 2011 | A1 |
20110208853 | Castro-Castro et al. | Aug 2011 | A1 |
20110211465 | Farrugia et al. | Sep 2011 | A1 |
20110238547 | Belling et al. | Sep 2011 | A1 |
20110296489 | Fernandez Alonso et al. | Dec 2011 | A1 |
20110302289 | Shaikh et al. | Dec 2011 | A1 |
20110320323 | Cuervo | Dec 2011 | A1 |
20110320544 | Yee et al. | Dec 2011 | A1 |
20120005357 | Hellgren | Jan 2012 | A1 |
20120014332 | Smith et al. | Jan 2012 | A1 |
20120084425 | Riley et al. | Apr 2012 | A1 |
20120096177 | Rasanen | Apr 2012 | A1 |
20120102174 | Zhou et al. | Apr 2012 | A1 |
20120202491 | Fox et al. | Aug 2012 | A1 |
20120221899 | Cervenak et al. | Aug 2012 | A1 |
20120314632 | Martinez De La Cruz et al. | Dec 2012 | A1 |
20130262308 | Cai et al. | Oct 2013 | A1 |
20140086052 | Cai et al. | Mar 2014 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
101272256 | Sep 2008 | CN |
101296509 | Oct 2008 | CN |
1 988 680 | Nov 2008 | EP |
2 093 931 | Aug 2009 | EP |
1 988 680 | Mar 2010 | EP |
WO 2008132100 | Nov 2008 | WO |
WO 2009058067 | May 2009 | WO |
WO 2009149341 | Dec 2009 | WO |
WO 2010086013 | Aug 2010 | WO |
WO 2010088085 | Aug 2010 | WO |
WO 2010142327 | Dec 2010 | WO |
WO 2011082035 | Jul 2011 | WO |
WO 2011082036 | Jul 2011 | WO |
Entry |
---|
Non-Final Official Action for U.S. Appl. No. 12/973,186 (Aug. 24, 2012). |
Notification of Transmittal of the International Search Report and the Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority, or the Declaration for International Patent Application No. PCT/US2010/061589 (Sep. 26, 2011). |
“3rd Generation Partnership Project; Technical Specification Group Core Network and Terminals; Policy and Charging Control over Rx reference point (Release 11),” 3GPP TS 29.214 V11.7.0, pp. 1-53 (Dec. 2012). |
Fajardo et al., “Diameter Base Protocol,” RFC 6733, pp. 1-152 (Oct. 2012). |
“Digital cellular telecommunications system (Phase 2+); Universal Mobile Telecommunications System (UMTS); LTE; Policy and charging control: Spending limit reporting over Sy reference point (3GPP TS 29.219 version 11.2.0 Release 11),” ETSI TS 129 219 V11.2.0, pp. 1-22 (Oct. 2012). |
Notice of Allowance and Fee(s) Due for U.S. Appl. No. 13/244,259 (Oct. 3, 2014). |
Final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 13/244,259 (Jul. 8, 2014). |
Non-Final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 13/244,259 (Dec. 16, 2013). |
Liebsch et al., “Diameter General Purpose Session,” draft-liebsch-dime-diameter-gps-00.txt (Jun. 29, 2010). |
Calhoun et al., “Diameter Base Protocol,” RFC 3588, pp. 1-147 (Jun. 29, 2010). |
“3rd Generation Partnership Project; Technical Specification Group Services and System Aspects; Telecommunication management; Charging management; Diameter charging applications (Release 9),” 3GPP TS 32.299, V9.4.0, pp. 1-148 (Jun. 2010). |
“3rd Generation Partnership Project; Technical Specification Group Core Network and Terminals; IP Multimedia (IM) Subsystem Sh interface; Signalling flows and message contents (Release 9),” 3GPP TS 29.328, V9.2.0, pp. 1-49 (Jun. 2010). |
Znaty, “Diameter, GPRS, (LTE+ePC=EPS), IMS, PCC and SDM,” EFORT (May 2010). (Part 1 of 2, pp. 1-229). |
Znaty, “Diameter, GPRS, (LTE+ePC=EPS), IMS, PCC and SDM,” EFORT (May 2010). (Part 2 of 2, pp. 230-460). |
“3rd Generation Partnership Project; Technical Specification Group Core Network and Terminals; Study on PCRF failure and restoration (Release 9),” 3GPP TR 29.816 V1.1.0, pp. 1-60 (May 2010). |
“3rd Generation Partnership Project; Technical Specification Group Core Network and Terminals; Policy and Charging Control over Gx reference point (Release 9),” 3GPP TS 29.212 V9.2.0, pp. 1-111 (Mar. 2010). |
Sou et al., “Design and Implementation of Policy and Charging Control System for Advanced Mobile Services,” ICIS, IEEE (2009). |
Pencheva et al., “Web Services for Quality of Service Monitoring,” IEEE (2009). |
Pencheva et al., “Cross Layer Design of Application-level Resource Management Interfaces,” IEEE (2009). |
“Universal Mobile Telecommunications System (UMTS); Policy and charging control over Rx reference point (3GPP TS 29.214 version 7.4.0 Release 7),” ETSI TS 129 214, V7.4.0, pp. 1-38 (Apr. 2008). |
“3rd Generation Partnership Project; Technical Specification Group Services and System Aspects; Policy and charging control architecture (Release 8),” 3GPP TS 23.203 V8.1.1, pp. 1-87 (Mar. 2008). |
Bengtsson et al., “How to Enable Better Service Assurance Using the PCRF,” Master of Science Thesis, KTH Computer Science (2006). |
“3rd Generation Partnership Project; Technical Specification Group Core Network and Terminals; Charging rule provisioning over Gx interface (Release 9),” 3GPP TS 29.210, V6.7.0, pp. 1-21 (Dec. 2006). |
Aboba et al., “Authentication, Authorization and Accounting (AAA) Transport Profile,” RFC 3539, pp. 1-41 (Jun. 2003). |
Notification of the First Office Action for Chinese Application No. 201080064945.X (Sep. 17, 2014). |
Communication of extended European Search Report for European Patent Application No. 10841576.1 (May 9, 2014). |
Notice of Allowance and Fee(s) Due for U.S. Appl. No. 13/157,052 (Apr. 14, 2014). |
Notice of Allowance and Fee(s) Due for U.S. Appl. No. 12/973,228 (Mar. 20, 2014). |
Applicant-Initiated Interview Summary and Advisory Action Before the Filing of an Appeal Brief for U.S. Appl. No. 13/157,052 (Mar. 17, 2014). |
Final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 13/157,052 (Jan. 2, 2014). |
Non-Final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 12/973,228 (Oct. 25, 2013). |
Notice of Allowance and Fee(s) Due for U.S. Appl. No. 12/973,186 (Sep. 19, 2013). |
Final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 12/973,228 (Jun. 21, 2013). |
Non-Final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 13/157,052 (Jun. 6, 2013). |
Final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 12/973,186 (May 22, 2013). |
Non-Final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 12/973,228 (Feb. 1, 2013). |
Communication of European Publication Number and Information on the Application of Article 67(3) EPC for European Patent Application No. 10841576.1 (Oct. 10, 2012). |
Notification of Transmittal of the International Search Report and the Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority, or the Declaration for International Patent Application No. PCT/US2010/061586 (Sep. 26, 2011). |
“Smart Cards; Card Application Toolkit (CAT) (Release 9),” ETSI TS 102 223 V9.2.0, pp. 1-209 (Oct. 2010). |
3GPP, “3rd Generation Partnership Project; Technical Specification Group GSM/EDGE Radio Access Network; Mobile Radio Interface Layer 3 Specification; Radio Resource Control (RRC) Protocol (Release 10),” 3GPP TS 44.018 V10.0.0, pp. 1-429 (Sep. 2010). |
3GPP, “3rd Generation Partnership Project; Technical Specification Group Radio Access Network; Evolved Universal Terrestrial Radio Access (E-UTRA); Radio Resource Control (RRC); Protocol Specification (Release 9),” 3GPP TS 36.331 V9.4.0, pp. 1-252 (Sep. 2010). |
3GPP, “3rd Generation Partnership Project; Technical Specification Group Radio Access Network; Radio Resource Control (RRC); Protocol Specification (Release 9),” 3GPP TS 25.331, V9.4.0, pp. 1-1789 (Sep. 2010). |
3GPP, “3rd Generation Partnership Project; Technical Specification Group Core Network and Terminals; UICC-terminal Interface; Physical and Logical Characteristics (Release 9),” 3GPP TS 31.101, V9.1.0, pp. 1-35 (Jun. 2010). |
3GPP, “3rd Generation Partnership Project; Technical Specification Group Core Network and Terminals; Non-Access-Stratum (NAS) Functions Related to Mobile Station (MS) in Idle Mode (Release 10),” 3GPP TS 23.122 v10,0.0, pp. 1-41 (Jun. 2010). |
3GPP, “Universal Mobile Telecommunications System (UMTS); LTE; 3GPP Evolved Packet System(EPS); Evolved General Packet Radio Service (GPRS) Tunnelling Protocol for Control Plane (GTPv2-C); Stage 3 (3GPP TS 29.274 version 9.3.0 Release 9),” ETSI TS 129 274 V9.3.0, pp. 1-162 (Jun. 2010). |
“Universal Mobile Telecommunications System (UMTS); LTE; Policy and Charging Control over Gx Reference Point (3GPP TS 29.212 version 9.2.0 Release 9),” ETIS TS 129 212 V9,2.0, pp. 1-115 (Apr. 2010). |
3GPP, “3rd Generation Partnership Project; Technical Specification Group Services and System Aspects; Network Identity and Timezone (NITZ); Service Description, Stage 1 (Release 9),” 3GPP TS 22.042, V9.0.0, pp. 1-8 (Dec. 2009). |
3GPP, “Digital Cellular Telecommunications System (Phase 2+); Universal Mobile Telecommunications System (UMTS); Universal Subscriber Identity Module (USIM) Application Toolkit (USAT) (3GPP TS 31.111 version 8.3.0 Release 8),” ETSI TS 131 111 V8.3.0, pp. 1-102 (Oct. 2008). |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20140233368 A1 | Aug 2014 | US |