On Tue, 31 Dec 2019 at 15:59, <[email protected]> wrote: > I was going to object that this can't possibly be by design cause what if I > have 100 labels on the packet, then I realized that ASR1k's QFP gets the > whole packets not just the first N bytes, so I guess I can see the thought > process like "since we are getting the whole packet we might as well look > into IP header and balance based on what we'll find there".
Based on context I believe 'this' here means ability to look past labels into IP headers. This is the norm, not exception. And it is typically followed by restriction such as 'up tp 5 labels'. There is absolutely no way to know for sure what is carried by MPLS, so fast and simple rule of 4/6 is fine, as it's the common case to follow MPLS label by IP header, with implied promise that any other protocol you send does not start with 4 or 6, i.e. code-word is non-optional if you plan to do any transit heuristics, no matter how smart the heuristics is, it is heuristics, not guarantee. I agree with Lukas that not including labels in balancing hash calculation is broken behaviour. -- ++ytti _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
