The MPLS WG Archive

Cell Relay Retreat>MPLS WG Archive>month:2003-Apr> msg00014



[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]  
  [Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index][Subject Index]

[PWE3] MPLS PID

  • From: Lloyd Wood <l.wood@eim.surrey.ac.uk>
  • Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2003 17:03:11 +0100 (BST)
  • cc: pwe3@ietf.org, "" <mpls@UU.NET>
  • Organization: speaking for none
  • X-no-archive: yes
  • X-Scanner: exiscan *190OED-0005W7-00*g9YP0XDFns.* (SECM, UniS)
  • X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.50 (1.173-2003-02-20-exp)
  • X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-130.8 required=5.5tests=AWL,BAYES_01,EMAIL_ATTRIBUTION,IN_REP_TO,REFERENCES, REPLY_WITH_QUOTES,SUBJ_ALL_CAPS,USER_AGENT_PINE, USER_IN_WHITELISTautolearn=ham version=2.50
  • X-url: http://www.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/L.Wood/
  • X-X-Sender: eep1lw@argos.ee.surrey.ac.uk

On Mon, 31 Mar 2003, Shahram Davari wrote:

> for all ECMP
> implementations such as the one that I described
> in earlier emails in which both the first nibble
> and the CRC are used to detect IP.

IPv6 doesn't _have_ a header checksum.
IPv4's header checksum is a pain to work with.

Are you describing an existing implementation? It sounds broken.

If you know from context you're carrying IP, then the intended
identification in the first nibble is enough to identify 4 or 6 or
something else, and you don't need to sniff the packet contents.

L.

<http://www.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/L.Wood/><L.Wood@ee.surrey.ac.uk>