The MPLS WG Archive

[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: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 10:58:31 -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>

It certainly is a better kludge than checking the first 4 bits to decide whether
the payload is IP or not.

-Shahram

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Thomas D. Nadeau [mailto:tnadeau@cisco.com]
>Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2003 1:56 PM
>To: Shahram Davari; 'curtis@fictitious.org'
>Cc: 'Thomas D. Nadeau'; 'George Swallow'; W. Mark Townsley; Andrew G.
>Malis; 'mpls@uu.net'
>Subject: RE: [PWE3] MPLS PID 
>
>
>
>> >I don't feel obligated to answer nonsense questions.  No one has
>> >proposed putting a CRC in the PID.
>>
>>First of all I meant computing CRC over the first 20 byte of 
>payload header
>>and comparing it to the suspected IP CRC in octets 11 and 12 
>of the payload.
>>If they match then it is IPv4, if not it is something else (similar 
>>procedure for IPv6)
>
>         Doesn't this seem like a bit of a kludge that is prone to
>potential errors?
>
>         --Tom
>
>
>>Secondly I am proposing it now. Is there a problem? I feel my 
>procedure is 
>>far superior to just checking 4 bits to decide whether the 
>payload is IP 
>>or not.
>>
>> >
>> >Curtis
>> >
>> >ps - "requiring [..] not to produce a valid CRC" doesn't 
>even parse in
>> >english so your question is complete nonsense.
>>
>>
>>It makes perfect sense if you understand my proposal. I think 
>you need to 
>>talk to Alia, since she could parse it correctly :)
>>
>>-Shahram
>
>
>http://www.elsevier-international.com/catalogue/title.cfm?ISBN=
>155860751X
>
>