The MPLS WG Archive

[Giles Heron <giles@packetexchange.net>]

On Mon, 2002-04-15 at 13:40, David Allan wrote:
> Giles:
> 
> A clarification...
> 
> > which means that intermediate LSRs that use a hash to load 
> > balance MPLS
> > traffic over equal cost links/paths have to be careful to 
> > exclude the S
> > bit from any hash.
> 
> If I am inverse muxing an LSP at an intermadiate LSR, is this not on the
> basis of some hashing on the payload for the current label, which could be
> more labels...I'm not quite getting your example.

effectively yes, you are hashing on the payload for the current label -
given that it includes more labels.  So, for example, an LSR switching
based on an LDP-assigned label might have a set of equal cost next hops
in its IGP - across which it could load balance traffic based on a hash
which includes the draft-martini label inside that LDP assigned label
(though of course it wouldn't know whether the inner label was being
used for draft-martini, for MPLS VPN, or for something else...)

Giles

> 
> Dave
> 
>  
-- 
=================================================================
Giles Heron    Principal Network Architect    PacketExchange Ltd.
ph: +44 7880 506185              "if you build it they will yawn"
=================================================================