RE: Outstanding issue with docsDevFilterIpSourcePortLow and simil ar MIB objects

Yeah, I came to the same conclusion as I looked into how that would affect
the code! What do they say about people who think alike ;-) (heuum, heuum)
 
André

-----Original Message-----
From: Matthew Schmitt [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, December 06, 2004 12:32 PM
To: [email protected]; DOCSIS OSS Majordomo List
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: RE: Outstanding issue with docsDevFilterIpSourcePortLow and similar
MIB objects


Perhaps it'd be simpler to just say that it only applies when the packet is
TCP/UDP?  That's essentially the way that it was worded in the RFI
specification.
 
Matt

-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] 
Sent: Monday, December 06, 2004 10:21 AM
To: DOCSIS OSS Majordomo List
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Outstanding issue with docsDevFilterIpSourcePortLow and similar MIB
objects


Hi,
 
We have noticed a discrepancy between the implementation of
docsDevFilterIpSourcePortLow between different modems. The difference
probably comes from that fact that what makes sense and what the
specification says are different. The spec says:
 
docsDevFilterIpSourcePortLow :
    If docsDevFilterIpProtocol is udp or tcp, this is the
    inclusive lower bound of the transport-layer source port
    range that is to be matched, otherwise it is ignored
    during matching.
 
However, docsDevFilterIpProtocol can also be set to any (256), which is not
listed above. This means that compliant CMs, should ignore
docsDevFilterIpSourcePortLow when the Protocol is set to any. However, this
does not seem to make much sense, as such interpretation makes the "any"
value pretty much useless.
 
Long time ago, this issue was brought up on the IPCDN reflector by other
people. However, it seems it has never been resolved.
 
I would like to propose an ECR to section 7.3.5 of the OSSI spec to clarify
that docsDevFilterIpSourcePortLow and similar MIBs are also applicable when
docsDevFilterIpProtocol is set to any (256) and the IP packet is either tcp
or udp.
 
Would there be an objection to this?
 
Thanks,
André
 

NOTICE: This communication contains information which may be proprietary,
privileged or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient (or
authorized to receive for the intended recipient), or believe that you have
received this communication in error, please do not print, copy,retransmit,
disseminate, disclose or otherwise use the information. Also, please
indicate to the sender that you have received this communication in error
and delete the copy you received. Thank you.

NOTICE: This communication contains information which may be proprietary,
privileged or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient (or
authorized to receive for the intended recipient), or believe that you have
received this communication in error, please do not print, copy,retransmit,
disseminate, disclose or otherwise use the information. Also, please
indicate to the sender that you have received this communication in error
and delete the copy you received. Thank you.

_______________________________________________
IPCDN mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipcdn