Hi,
In summary: I have tested, on real packet traces, several variants of the
hash algorithm suggested in the Appendix to draft-ietf-6man-flow-3697bis.
Of hashes based on the von Neumann algorithm, the one in the draft that's
now in the RFC Editor queue still seems best. Note that it is only
given
A small update on this:
1. David Malone found a bug in my C code, which changes the conclusion.
Of the algorithms I tried, the one designated #2 apparently performs best
of the three, once the bug is fixed. I can't complete the tests and post
an updated report until mid-July, due to travel.
2. Fr
below...
On 2011-06-07 11:22, Bob Hinden wrote:
> Ran,
>
> On Jun 6, 2011, at 9:39 AM, RJ Atkinson wrote:
>
>> I would be reluctant to advocate use of a hash algorithm
>> as computationally expensive as MD5() for generating an
>> IPv6 Flow Label.
>>
>> My sense is that a thoughtful implementer
Ran,
On Jun 6, 2011, at 9:39 AM, RJ Atkinson wrote:
>
> I would be reluctant to advocate use of a hash algorithm
> as computationally expensive as MD5() for generating an
> IPv6 Flow Label.
>
> My sense is that a thoughtful implementer likely would
> choose the least computationally expensive
I would be reluctant to advocate use of a hash algorithm
as computationally expensive as MD5() for generating an
IPv6 Flow Label.
My sense is that a thoughtful implementer likely would
choose the least computationally expensive algorithm
that would suffice to generate a Flow Label value
suitab
On 2011-06-02 11:19, Fernando Gont wrote:
> Hi, Brian,
>
> On 06/01/2011 07:09 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>> My to-do list included running your algorithm against the
>> same datasets. However, I just looked at your draft again and
>> it seems to be underspecified - you do not define what functi
Hi, Brian,
On 06/01/2011 07:09 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> My to-do list included running your algorithm against the
> same datasets. However, I just looked at your draft again and
> it seems to be underspecified - you do not define what functions
> F and G are.
To some extent, this was intent
Fernando,
My to-do list included running your algorithm against the
same datasets. However, I just looked at your draft again and
it seems to be underspecified - you do not define what functions
F and G are. And I think it's stateful, because of the statement
"if(three-tuple is unique)".
All we a
On 06/01/2011 02:13 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> In summary: the algorithm suggested in the Appendix to
> draft-ietf-6man-flow-3697bis-04 doesn't perform very well
> on real packets, and I have an improved version to suggest.
Sorry if I'm missing something: Any reasons for which you chose a
diff
In summary: the algorithm suggested in the Appendix to
draft-ietf-6man-flow-3697bis-04 doesn't perform very well
on real packets, and I have an improved version to suggest.
This doesn't affect the normative text in the draft, so I
believe it can be fixed.
The full story, with fonts, tables and pi
10 matches
Mail list logo
