On Fri, Sep 28, 2018, at 8:32 AM, Luigi Iannone wrote: > 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?
Yes. > Something like: > > “The specific algorithm the ITR uses for load-sharing is out of the > scope of this document and does not prevent interoperability" Sounds good to me. Thank you. > Ciao > > L. > > > > > > Dino > > > _______________________________________________ lisp mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
