The MPLS WG Archive

Cell Relay Retreat>MPLS WG Archive>month:2003-Mar> msg00341



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

[PWE3] MPLS PID

  • From: Shahram Davari <Shahram_Davari@pmc-sierra.com>
  • Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 14:42:49 -0800
  • Cc: "'Thomas D. Nadeau'" <tnadeau@lucidvision.com>, "'George Swallow'" <swallow@cisco.com>, "W. Mark Townsley" <townsley@cisco.com>, "Andrew G. Malis" <Andy.Malis@vivacenetworks.com>, "'mpls@uu.net'" <mpls@UU.NET>, tnadeau@cisco.com

>A PID is not non-standard and proprietary if it is standardized and
>that is what we are discussing.

That is exactly what I said. You want to standardize a proprietary PID that
uses the first 4 bits. If it is approved by IETF then off course it won't be
proprietary any more.

>
>> Do you think that all hashing key selection algorithms by 
>all vendors should 
>> be supported
>> by all IETF standards? What if one decides to use CRC to 
>distinguish IP packe
>> ts? should IETF
>> standards be backward compatible with that too?
>> 
>> -Shahram
>
>RFC2991 is fine as is.  Load balancing algorithms exist.  There is no
>need to standardize them.  Some are based on hashing.
>

You didn't answer my question. I asked what if a vendor wants to use CRC as IP PID. 
Should IETF protocols support them too by requiring that all other protocols that
get transported over MPLS not to produce a valid CRC?

BTW I never said we need to standardize load balancing algorithms. Where did you get
that from?

-Shahram


-Shahram

  • Follow-Ups: