Subject: Re: Separate policy tables for docsDevFilterIpTable

From: "Michael W. Patrick" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1999 17:53:58 -0500

Lisa,

> I look at the current MIB and I don't see the changes fitting in
> very well with the DOCSIS 1.1 packet classification. Can you help me
> understand what the purpose of the Policy Table in the -06 MIB is?
> What is it that we are trying to accomplish? I think I agree with
> you that whatever it is that needs to be accomplished, it's overly
> complicated at the implementation level the way it is now.  But I'm
> having trouble totally understanding what is in there now, which
> means I don't really understand the changes you are recommending.
> If you can help clarify some of this for me, I will be more than
> happy to get on the reflector in support of what you are trying to
> do.  I don't like it the way it is right now either.

What is needed is the configurable ability to mark TOS packets.
Rather than defining an entirely new table to classify
packets for TOS marking, based on source/destination IP address/mask
and TCP/UDP port,  Mike St.J. designed -05 et al to add a 
"Tos Overwrite Policy" to be applied instead of accepting/dropping
a packet.

I strongly agree with the decision to NOT add a new packet
classification MIB just for TOS overwrite; I'm only suggesting an
enhancement to make the "policies" be totally unrelated to each other,
and not have to agree on things like rule index number and policy
number.

I think it would be a real service to the IETF community to generalize
the concept of IP header matching and applying arbitrary policies
based on that match.  I've been trying to convince MikeSJ of this 
for that past three weeks or so, but he's busier than I am :-).
He hasn't said "no" yet, anyway.  

-mike