The MPLS WG Archive

[Shahram Davari <Shahram_Davari@pmc-sierra.com>]

I agree with Lloyd. Sniffing IP packets in the middle of an MPLS network is fundamentally wrong, and is impossible to do for all ECMP implementations such as the one that I described
in earlier emails in which both the first nibble and the CRC are used to detect IP.

The best way to solve this problem is to do ECMP only based on label stack. Doing so should be
easier than introducing new standard.

-Shahram


>-----Original Message-----
>From: Lloyd Wood [mailto:l.wood@eim.surrey.ac.uk]
>Sent: Sunday, March 30, 2003 6:11 PM
>To: Eric Rosen
>Cc: jeremy.de_clercq@alcatel.be; David Allan; 'Scott W Brim';
>pwe3@ietf.org; mpls@UU.NET
>Subject: Re: [PWE3] MPLS PID 
>
>
>On Thu, 27 Mar 2003, Eric Rosen wrote:
>
>> 1. The  only  reason for  a  PID  field in  MPLS  and/or  
>PWE3  is to  allow
>>    intermediate routers to determine whether a particular 
>MPLS payload is an
>>    IP packet or not.
>
>which is a layer violation, and shouldn't be done.
>
>>    There are a number  of reasons why this is useful, and  
>no one has argued
>>    that this is not useful.
>
>not appropriate, more like.
>
>if you're going to sniff for an IP packet (so you can sniff TCP/UDP or
>higher) you might want to ask why you even have any form of mpls
>label stack in there in the first place.
>
>if you're not separating out your ip flows via explicit mpls label,
>why not?
>
>L.
>
><http://www.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/L.Wood/><L.Wood@ee.surrey.ac.uk>
>_______________________________________________
>pwe3 mailing list
>pwe3@ietf.org
>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3
>