The MPLS WG Archive

Cell Relay Retreat>MPLS WG Archive>month:2003-Mar> msg00357



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

[PWE3] MPLS PID

  • From: Eric Rosen <erosen@cisco.com>
  • Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 14:00:06 -0500
  • cc: "'curtis@fictitious.org'" <curtis@fictitious.org>, "'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
  • User-Agent: EMH/1.14.1 SEMI/1.14.3 (Ushinoya) FLIM/1.14.3(Unebigoryōmae) APEL/10.3 Emacs/21.2(sparc-sun-solaris2.8) MULE/5.0 (SAKAKI)


Shahram> my proposal superior in terms of probability of false positives,

Only in  the absence of  the control word.   In the presence of  the control
word, there are no false positives. 

Shahram> Checksum is easy and is done all the time in routers

For IPv4  packets, but for non-IPv4  packets, this is extra  work that would
not otherwise need  to be done.  Extra code too (gates  or microcode), as it
would happen  in a different  forwarding path than  that used for  IPv4, and
microcoders and hardware designers are not very big on calling subroutines.

  • Follow-Ups:
  • References: