Hi Alexey, > On 27 Sep 2018, at 19:31, Dino Farinacci <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Ok, maybe this is just me, but you don't actually define how to hash these >> things, you are only talking about what needs to be covered by the hash. I >> appreciate that picking a specific hashing algorithm is probably not relevant >> for interoperability, but I feel adding a specific algorithm (as an example >> or >> via a pointer) would improve the document. > > We decided to leave this to the implementation and is a local matter ot the > encapsulator. Most implementations use a “folded XOR”. Which means XOR the > set of 32-bit fields from the 5-tuple hash, then XOR the 2 16-bit quantities, > then XOR the 2 bytes. Mod the number of best priority RLOCs, to give you an > index to choose one.
While you are right that what is in the document is just what can be covered by the hash, I agree with Dino on this point. I do not think that we need a specific algorithm even as an example. The load-sharing is local to the ITR, it just need to use any algorithm that does that. Would you prefer a clear statement? Something like: “The specific algorithm the ITR uses for load-sharing is out of the scope of this document and does not prevent interoperability" Ciao L. > > Dino > _______________________________________________ lisp mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
