Resolving Policy Merge Conflicts

The set of component policies are first ordered by their name to form the final merged policy. For example, if the component policies sets contain cp_1, cp_3, cp_9, cp_2, the order in which these policies are merged is cp_1, cp_2, cp_3, and cp_9. The merge order is important for resolving merge conflicts.

Various conflicting combinations of component policies can result in a merged policy that is not a perfect union of the component policies. These conflicts are resolved as they currently are in policy CLI context, where, in any conflict, the most recently executed command takes precedence.

More than one component policy can contain the same classifier group. If the precedence does not match, the precedence of the classifier group defined in the last component policy becomes the final precedence for this classifier group in the merged policy, as in the following example:

If you combine p1, p2, and p3, you get the following with p1, p2, p3 as the merge order for the set of component policies.

For IP, the forward, filter, next-hop, and next-interface rules are mutually exclusive within a classifier group. For all other types, filter and forward rules are mutually exclusive.

A conflict arises when more than one component policy has the same classifier group and when the rule sets defined in these classifier groups conflict. To resolve the merge conflict, the last command entered replaces any previous conflicting commands for a classifier group, as in the following example:

Combining p1 and p2 internally results in:

Combining p2 and p3 internally results in:

Combining p1, p2, and p3 internally results in:

ip policy-list mpl_22

If you have the same policy rule with different parameters, the parameter of the last rule entered with the same type is used, with the exception of IP forward rule, to resolve the conflict, as in the following example:

Combining p1 and p2 internally results in:

With the IP policy forward rule, when more forward rules are added to an existing classifier group, the list of forward rules is created. This is also true during merging, as in the following example:

Combining p1, p2, and p3, internally results in the following:

Policy management enables multiple policy attachments at the same attachment point, which results in a merged policy that is created and attached at the specified attachment point. The logical OR of the statistics and baseline keywords of all attachments are used as the statistics and baseline keyword for the merged policy attachment, as in the following example:

Results in the following: