Hi Robert, Discussions about hashing functions are certainly welcome.
> And why not simply use the same hash function just increase its size, say to > 256 bits ? You can’t always do that. For example CRC-16 is defined to produce a 16 bit result. You can’t just cause it to produce 32 bits. You can shift to CRC-32, but that’s a different hashing function. > Isn't it true that the probability of collision significantly (or even > exponentially) decreases when hash size grows ? That’s true, assuming good hashing functions. Not true for bad functions. > Besides as draft says there is still fallback to scoped lower level check > hence I am not sure if there is any issue with the proposal. > > And ideally, a hash mismatch should produce not more than a single packet > or two with lower level checksums or CSNPs to optimize re-convergence > while minimizing amount of packets exchanged. Thanks, T
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
