Subject: RE: [PWE3] MPLS PID

From: Shahram Davari <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 11:08:44 -0800

>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