Re: [mpls-linux-devel] DaveM - mpls_nhlfe_hash_code()

[Ramon C. <cas...@in...>]

On Fri, 20 Feb 2004, James R. Leu wrote:



> That and we should never build the hash based on the label to begin with.
> This all goes back whether or not the label for a out-segment can change.

I see. So the lookup basically reduces to the nhlfeid itself, which to me
seems fine.


> Labelspace has no meaning when talking about NHLFE or out-segments.
> Labelspaces are meant to help the LSR manage the labels it advertises,
> in otherwords its ILM or in-segments.

Agreed. We did not use labelspaces for moi objects.



>
> I think nhlfeids should be globally unique.

Agreed.


> That is fine if every out-segment is responsible for sending
> the PDU (ie needs the oif and neighbour), but if you build hiearchy via
> indirection, then there are out-segments which do not actually send the PDU,
> they just hand it off to another out-segment to continue processing, thus
> they do not need a oif or neighbour.

Well, I agree :) (I have been working with you before ;)) but what would
you suggest to do? Jamal? comments? I think I should start gathering a
list of potential changes + arguments, so we can later justify them to the
original author of the code... Otherwise, I wont be able to remember why
we change this or that


>
> >
> > Another question: why is the struct postfixed with _route? what's the
> > point of calling it mpls_nhlfe_route and not plain mpls_nhlfe?
>
> It is a side effect of an MPLS implementation that used IPv4 as a roadmap.

Ok, can be easily fixed :P
R.