The MPLS WG Archive

Cell Relay Retreat>MPLS WG Archive>month:2003-Mar> msg00360



[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 11:08:44 -0800
  • 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

>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. 

Wrong. Have a look at SONET/SDH PW control word.


>
>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.

Checksum has been designed to be simple so that it can be implemented in software.
But still my argument is mostly about false positives which is a much important
issue. 

-Shahram