The MPLS WG Archive[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index][Subject Index] AW: your mail
It gets weirder and weirder: The MPLS WG invents a label stack, but does not care at all that any of the deeper nested labels may ever be signalled/carried by means of a Label-TLV/object (no public comments to my Hierarchical LSPs, draft-hummel-mpls-hierarchical-lsp-01.txt). However it is ok, to "steal" the deepest nested label and call it "VC-label" for indexing some VRF at some remote PE. Furthermore it is ok, to "steal" the very same label for hashing. Independent from what is clean and what is quick&dirty, I cannot detect any sense in giving a hash-meaning to the bottom label at all. Heinrich Hummel Siemens -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: Eric Rosen [mailto:erosen@cisco.com] Gesendet: Dienstag, 2. Juli 2002 16:06 An: Shahram Davari Cc: 'Eric Osborne'; George Sheng; scullptor@yahoo.com; mpls@UU.NET Betreff: Re: your mail Shahram> To do ECMP, you need to assign hashed values to egress ports. This Shahram> assignment is the hash state that I said you need. A hash is a function that maps some sequence of octets into a sequence of integers. If you want to split traffic over six paths, while ensuring that all packets with the same bottom label travel the same path, you need a function that maps a 20 bit quantity into a number from 1-6. There is no need to maintain state of any kind.
|
|