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.
>########################################################################
>##############################
>
>
>  [Part 2,  Text/html  1.7KB]
>  [Not Shown. Use the attachment viewer to view this part]
>

_______________________________________________
Diffserv-interest mailing list
Diffserv-interest@ietf.org
http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/diffserv-interest