[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Distributing site-wide RFC 3484 policy



On 2007-08-03 12:34, YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / $B5HF#1QL@ wrote:
...

2. Applicability of distribution of "exact" policy table is too restricted.
   An implementation may want to have their own policy, or more attributes
   (probably, in addition to ifindex), e.g. traffic class or whatever.
   The ifindex should be assumed one of extensions to the "standard"
   policy table, and the details should be left to implementations.
   The policy announced from network cannot be set directly.

   I know that conflicts are common, but, I would say, the distribution
   should not (or cannot) be an exact one, but a "hint", "suggestion" or
   "recommendation".  I do think it is much better to have information as
   "relative" representation, but at least, we should make the interpretation
   clear.

   Of course, an implementation may assume such information an order from
   network, but the network policy can only be enforced by the network.

   If the interpretation of the "policy" is relaxed, we will have more
   chances to use such framework.

I agree that the IETF specifcation should not say that the central
policy takes priority over the host policy. IMHO we should provide
a mechanism (such as assigning a weight to each policy element),
so that it is a configuration issue whether the central policy or the
host policy wins.

   Brian