RFC 6357: Design Considerations for Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Overload Control
In plain English — editorial summary, not part of the RFC
Overload occurs in Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) networks when SIP servers have insufficient resources to handle all SIP messages they receive. Even though the SIP protocol provides a limited overload control mechanism through its 503 (Service Unavailable) response code, SIP servers are still vulnerable to overload. This document discusses models and design considerations for a SIP overload control mechanism. This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is published for informational purposes.
Document record
- Document ID
- RFC6357
- Published
- August 2011
- Authors
- V. Hilt; E. Noel; C. Shen; A. Abdelal
- Status
- INFORMATIONAL
- Stream
- IETF
- Area
- rai
- Pages
- 25
- Also known as
- —
Topics
Related documents
Ranked automatically by shared keywords, IETF area and stream — not by editorial selection.
- RFC 5954Essential Correction for IPv6 ABNF and URI Comparison in RFC 3261Current
August 2010
- RFC 5763Framework for Establishing a Secure Real-time Transport Protocol (SRTP) Security Context Using Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS)Updated
May 2010
- RFC 7200A Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Load-Control Event PackageCurrent
April 2014
- RFC 7339Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Overload ControlCurrent
September 2014
- RFC 4479A Data Model for PresenceCurrent
July 2006
- RFC 4245High-Level Requirements for Tightly Coupled SIP ConferencingCurrent
November 2005
- RFC 3969The Internet Assigned Number Authority (IANA) Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) Parameter Registry for the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)Updated
December 2004
- RFC 3968The Internet Assigned Number Authority (IANA) Header Field Parameter Registry for the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)Current
December 2004
Also filed under
About this page
The document record above — title, authors, date, status, stream, area, relationships, DOI and errata — is imported verbatim from the public RFC Editor index. The “in plain English” section is editorial: written by The metasystema editorial team, not part of the RFC. Where the two differ, the RFC text governs.
Last checked against the RFC Editor index on . RFCs are never revised after publication; changes are issued as new documents.
Data sources · Editorial policy · Report a correction · What is an RFC?