Comparison of LBOC and RBOC Mechanisms for SIP Server Overload Control

  • Oleg E. Pavlotsky
  • Ekaterina V. BobrikovaEmail author
  • Konstantin E. Samouylov
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11118)


The purpose of this article is to analyze mechanisms of Loss-based Overload Control, LBOC and Rate-based Overload Control, RBOC for server overload control of the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP). Overloading occurs when a server is unable to process an entire incoming message flow due to a lack of resources. Standards of IETF SOC recommend several overload control mechanisms, including most important LBOC and RBOC. This article proposes the mechanisms of LBOC and RBOC and describes the results of the comparative analysis of these mechanisms based on the hysteresis control over incoming stream of signaling messages. The system resides in one of three modes (normal, overload, discard) based on thresholds and a size of an input queue. A signal message source implements the Markov-modulated Poisson process, MMPP-2 model. The leaky bucket algorithm is applied to limit the number of incoming messages in the implementation of RBOC mechanism. The comparison of results showed that RBOC mechanism based on the hysteresis control over incoming stream of signaling messages demonstrates higher effectiveness of the congestion control, as a result of which the average time in the overload mode is less than for LBOC mechanism. However, LBOC mechanism has the ability to maintain its high efficiency for all RTT values ​​on the same thresholds, while RBOC mechanism needs to have its own threshold dynamic control mechanism for different RTT values ​​to supply maximum efficiency.


SIP server Mechanism of overload control Hysteresis overload control RBOC LBOC 



The publication has been prepared with the support of the “RUDN University Pro-gram 5-100” and funded by RFBR according to the research project No. 16-07-00766. This work has been developed within the framework of the COST Action CA15104, Inclusive Radio Communication Networks for 5G and beyond (IRACON).


  1. 1.
    Pavlotsky, O., Talanova, M.: Analysis of overload control mechanisms on SIP servers for NGN/T-Comm. Telecommunications and Transport, no8, pp. 73–78 (2014)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Rosenberg, J.: RFC 5390: Requirements for Management of Overload in the Session Initiation Protocol (2008).
  3. 3.
    Gurbani, V., Hilt, Ed.V.: Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Overload Control (2015).
  4. 4.
    Hilt, Ed.V., Noel, E., Shen, C., Abdelal, A.: RFC 6357: Design Considerations for Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Overload Control (2013).
  5. 5.
    Noel, E., Williams, P.M.: Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Rate Control (2015).
  6. 6.
    Abaev, P., Gaidamaka, Y., Samouylov, Konstantin E.: Queuing model for loss-based overload control in a SIP server using a hysteretic technique. In: Andreev, S., Balandin, S., Koucheryavy, Y. (eds.) NEW2AN/ruSMART -2012. LNCS, vol. 7469, pp. 371–378. Springer, Heidelberg (2012). Scholar
  7. 7.
    Abaev, P., Gaidamaka, Yu., Pechinkin,A., Razumchik, R., Shorgin, S.: Simulation of overload control in SIP server networks. In: Proceedings of the 26th European Conference on Modelling and Simulation ECMS 2012, Koblenz, Germany, 29 May - 1 June, 2012, pp. 533–539 (2012)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Samouylov, K., Pavlotsky, O.: Rate-based overload control mechanism simulator for SIP server overload control. T-Comm Telecommun. Transp. 10(3), 44–48 (2016)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Akbar, A., Basha, S.M., Sattar, S.A.: Overload Control in SIP Networks: A Heuristic Approach Based on Mathematical Optimization (2015).
  10. 10.
    Montazerolghaem, A., Yaghmaee, M.H., Leon-Garcia, A., Naghibzadeh, M., Tashtarian, F.: A load-balanced call admission controller for IMS cloud computing. IEEE Trans. Network Service Manag. 13(4), 806–822 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Samouylov, K.E., Abaev, P.O., Gaidamaka, Y.V., Pechinkin, A.V., Razumchik, R.V.: Analytical modelling and simulation for performance evaluation of SIP server with hysteretic overload control. In: Proceedings of the 28th European Conference on Modelling and Simulation (ECMS 2014), Brescia, Italy, 27–30 May 2014, pp. 603–609 (2014).
  12. 12.
    Gaidamaka, Y., Pechinkin, A., Razumchik, R., Samouylov, K., Sopin, E.: Analysis of an MG1R queue with batch arrivals and two hysteretic overload control policies. Int. J. Appl. Math. Comput. Sci. 24(3), 519–534 (2014). Scholar
  13. 13.
    Abaev, P., Samouylov, K., Sinitsyn, I., Shorgin, S.: FSM based simulation for performance evaluation of SIP server loss-based overload control. In: Proceedings of the 29th European Conference on Modelling and Simulation (ECMS 2015), Albena, Bulgaria, May 26–29, 2015, pp. 675–681 (2015).
  14. 14.
    Montazerolghaem, A., Moghaddam, M.: Design, implementation and performance evaluation of a proactive overload control mechanism for networks of SIP servers. Telecommun. Syst. 67(2), 309–322 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Oleg E. Pavlotsky
    • 1
  • Ekaterina V. Bobrikova
    • 2
    Email author
  • Konstantin E. Samouylov
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Communication Networks and Commutation SystemsMoscow Technical University of Communication and Informatics (MTUCI)MoscowRussia
  2. 2.Department of Applied Probability and InformaticsPeoples’ Friendship, University of Russia, (RUDN University)MoscowRussia
  3. 3.Institute of Informatics ProblemsResearch Center “Computer Science and Control” of the Russian Academy of SciencesMoscowRussian Federation

Personalised recommendations