RE: [Diffserv-interest] packet classification and policing

Anoop Ghanwani <anoop@cosinecom.com> Fri, 17 August 2001 22:53 UTC

Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA16691 for <diffserv-interest-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Fri, 17 Aug 2001 18:53:36 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id SAA20265; Fri, 17 Aug 2001 18:53:21 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id SAA20233 for <diffserv-interest@ns.ietf.org>; Fri, 17 Aug 2001 18:53:19 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from exchsrv2.cosinecom.com (proxy141.cosinecom.com [63.88.104.141]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA16671 for <diffserv-interest@ietf.org>; Fri, 17 Aug 2001 18:52:05 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by exchsrv2.cosinecom.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <Q6WXV063>; Fri, 17 Aug 2001 15:52:41 -0700
Message-ID: <69BCCDDC980B4641BFC908D7BF95F18410A801@exchsrv-eng>
From: Anoop Ghanwani <anoop@cosinecom.com>
To: 'Jeff Norman' <jnorman@nortelnetworks.com>
Cc: "'diffserv-interest@ietf.org'" <diffserv-interest@ietf.org>
Subject: RE: [Diffserv-interest] packet classification and policing
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 15:52:45 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C1276F.54A531D0"
Sender: diffserv-interest-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: diffserv-interest-admin@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 1.0
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: Differentiated services general discussion <diffserv-interest.ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: diffserv-interest@ietf.org

Jeff,

Thanks for response.

If a packet can go through multiple policers, then
there is the following issue.  Suppose the
packet goes through two policers.  One of them says it's
conforming, the other says that it's out of profile.  I
assume then, that the packet would be treated as an 
out-of-profile packet.  However, it has just used some
some "good" credits from the policer that considered it
conforming.  Those are wasted credits and could well
have been used by some other packet.

How do you think that should be handled?

-Anoop

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeff Norman [mailto:jnorman@nortelnetworks.com]
> Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2001 1:48 PM
> To: Anoop Ghanwani
> Cc: 'diffserv-interest@ietf.org'
> Subject: re:[Diffserv-interest] packet classification and policing
> 
> 
> Anoop,
>   Although not part of a standard, I don't think there is anything
> preventing anyone from allowing packets from going through more
> than one policer.   Actually the example you gave is the most
> common example known IMHO of using two policiers for IP packets,
> one to control the microflow feeding conforming packets into 
> a BA policer.
> 
> --Jeff
> 
> In message "[Diffserv-interest] packet classification and 
> policing", Anoop Ghanwani writes:
> 
> >
> >
> >When setting up packet classifiers and policers, is it 
> >valid to assume that a packet can hit more than one policer?  
> >
> >For instance, a packet which gets classified as being part 
> >of a microflow may have a policer associated with it.  At 
> >the same time, it may be desirable to police the aggregate 
> >traffic from the interface that this packet came in on. 
> >
> >Does the above scenario make sense, or is it expected that 
> >a packet will hit at most one policer on ingress? 
> >
> >Thanks, 
> >-Anoop 
> 
############################################################################
########################## This email communication may contain CONFIDENTIAL
INFORMATION and is intended only for the use of the intended recipients
identified above.  If you are not the intended recipient of this
communication, you must not use, disclose, distribute, copy or print this
email. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately
notify the sender by reply email, delete the communication and destroy all
copies.
############################################################################
##########################