Subject: Re: question on traffic policing

From: [email-masked] (Fred Baker)
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 1995 16:47:26 -0700

At 3:43 PM 4/10/95, [email-masked] wrote:
>Would you expect that any service that does policing will do it this
>way?  More specifically, RSVP currently defines a single flag to the
>kernel "policing is needed", and turns it on for either the edge of
>the network or a source merge point.  Is one flag enough, or should
>the two conditions be distinguished in the interface?

IMHO, it depends a lot on what you mean by "policing".

If you mean "ordering things in the queue the way the flowspec says they
want to be ordered", it's easier for me to do it everywhere cold stop.

If you mean "holding traffic in queue that goes beyond the token bucket
depth and metering it out at the specified average flow rate" (not as
unreasonable as it sounds on a frame relay network), I'm not going to be
happy about the host not doing it in the first place, and see no value in
doing it anywhere except the first hop router. And I have no plan to do it
in the first release...

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
computers run on smoke, it if leaks out they won't run

---

From: [email-masked] (John Krawczyk)
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 95 10:45:56 EDT

On Mon, 10 April, Fred Baker ([email-masked]) wrote:

   
Fred,

Perhaps we need a precise definition of policing.  I always thought it
meant "monitoring the rate of arrival of packets on a flow to ensure
that it does not exceed its Tspec (b,r).  Packets that exceed their
Tspec are dealt with as defined in the service definition."  All of
the current service definitions say to drop these packets.

-jj