The MPLS WG Archive

Cell Relay Retreat>MPLS WG Archive>month:2003-Mar> msg00374



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

[PWE3] MPLS PID

  • From: "Thomas D. Nadeau" <tnadeau@lucidvision.com>
  • Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 14:28:12 -0500
  • Cc: "'curtis@fictitious.org'" <curtis@fictitious.org>, "'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.

         Not to get too off topic, but again, this seems like
another good reason to use the control word and make it
an implementation requirement.

         --Tom

>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.