Hi.
It might or might not require hardware upgrades but frankly a
substitution from a precalculated 256 x 1 byte or 1024 byte x 10 bit
table that is what this 'hash' amounts to is not going to break the CPU
piggy bank, even on a software device. We aren't (necessarily) talking
on the fly HMAC calculations here.
/Elwyn
Randall Atkinson wrote:
Earlier, Dow Street noted:
% That's correct - this would be a new per-packet processing cost,
% probably implemented in hardware. I'll leave it to the equipment
% designers to comment on the implementation cost / complexity.
This would be a major increase in equipment costs to ISPs,
as near as I can tell, because changes to per-packet-processing
that require new hardware are not low cost.
The burden on smaller access routers, which often still use
CPU-based forwarding would also be an issue (software is
easier to update, but the increase in number of CPU cycles
per packet is an issue for deployed routers).
Ran
--
to unsubscribe send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the
word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://psg.com/lists/rrg/> & ftp://psg.com/pub/lists/rrg
--
to unsubscribe send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the
word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://psg.com/lists/rrg/> & ftp://psg.com/pub/lists/rrg
