Re: [mpls] Last Call: <draft-ietf-mpls-in-udp-04.txt> (Encapsulating MPLS in UDP) to Proposed Standard

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Yes Joe, routers could ahve been built to do those calcualtions at that performance scale.
There are however two major problems:

1) That is not how routers are built.
2) The target performance scale is rather higher.

So could someone build an ASIC to do what you want? Probably. Is there any reason in the world to expect operators to pay the significant extra cost for such? Not that I can see. And even if we could and they would, that is not the world into which we are deploying these tunnels.

Yours,
Joel

On 1/27/14 1:53 PM, Joe Touch wrote:


On 1/27/2014 10:48 AM, joel jaeggli wrote:
On 1/27/14, 8:48 AM, Joe Touch wrote:
Those same mechanisms have provided hardware checksum support for a
very long time.

The new header and the payload are actually in different parts of the
forwarding complex until they hit the output queue, you can't checksum
data you don't have.

You can (and some do) the checksum component parts when things go into
memory; the partial sums can be added as the parts are combined in the
output queue.

I appreciate that we're all taking about what might be done, but the
reality is that there are many 'transparent TCP proxies' that have to do
this, so there's clearly a solution, and it clearly runs fast enough.

Joe
_______________________________________________
mpls mailing list
mpls@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls





[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]