Hi Tony, I was under the assumption that we are free to introduce a new hashing function if really needed (as fallback for subset of mismatched LSPs would still be there so not sure if this is needed).
Maybe this fallback needs to be said in bold in the document ... Thx, R. On Wed, Oct 8, 2025 at 6:47 PM Tony Li <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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]
