Re: [bess] Encoding a 20 bit label in a 24 bit field.

<stephane.litkowski@orange.com> Mon, 22 October 2018 13:47 UTC

Return-Path: <stephane.litkowski@orange.com>
X-Original-To: bess@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: bess@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 33AA212D4EF for <bess@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 22 Oct 2018 06:47:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8Q8p4cejIhd9 for <bess@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 22 Oct 2018 06:47:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from orange.com (mta136.mail.business.static.orange.com [80.12.70.36]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4F14C1286E7 for <bess@ietf.org>; Mon, 22 Oct 2018 06:47:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from opfednr00.francetelecom.fr (unknown [xx.xx.xx.64]) by opfednr25.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 42dyWT03fBzCrrc; Mon, 22 Oct 2018 15:47:33 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from Exchangemail-eme2.itn.ftgroup (unknown [xx.xx.31.10]) by opfednr00.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 42dyWS61JFzDq7h; Mon, 22 Oct 2018 15:47:32 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from OPEXCLILMA4.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([fe80::65de:2f08:41e6:ebbe]) by OPEXCLILM5C.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([fe80::4bd:9b2b:3651:6fba%19]) with mapi id 14.03.0415.000; Mon, 22 Oct 2018 15:47:32 +0200
From: <stephane.litkowski@orange.com>
To: "Ali Sajassi (sajassi)" <sajassi@cisco.com>, "Jakob Heitz (jheitz)" <jheitz@cisco.com>, Zhuangshunwan <zhuangshunwan@huawei.com>, BESS <bess@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [bess] Encoding a 20 bit label in a 24 bit field.
Thread-Index: AQHUZXXQtL95BPb7ykKkMP+1MApI8aUrTQFg
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2018 13:47:32 +0000
Message-ID: <26390_1540216052_5BCDD4F4_26390_189_1_9E32478DFA9976438E7A22F69B08FF924B311B3B@OPEXCLILMA4.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
References: <F78CB1EA-86B9-4496-852A-4E262263E256@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <F78CB1EA-86B9-4496-852A-4E262263E256@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.168.234.4]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bess/X2nsgLJzrbH4ur5rgZA7qK_m7aQ>
Subject: Re: [bess] Encoding a 20 bit label in a 24 bit field.
X-BeenThere: bess@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: BGP-Enabled ServiceS working group discussion list <bess.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/bess>, <mailto:bess-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/bess/>
List-Post: <mailto:bess@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bess-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess>, <mailto:bess-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2018 13:47:38 -0000

Hi,

Does anyone disagree with the additional Jakob's statement proposal ?
" The lower order 4 bits SHOULD be sent as 0 and ignored on receipt."

As an example, in MVPN for PMSI tunnel attribute, we have the following statement which does not tell anything about the lower order bits:
" If the MPLS Label field is non-zero, then it contains an MPLS label
   encoded as 3 octets, where the high-order 20 bits contain the label
   value.  Absence of an MPLS Label is indicated by setting the MPLS
   Label field to zero."


Brgds,


-----Original Message-----
From: BESS [mailto:bess-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ali Sajassi (sajassi)
Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2018 19:30
To: Jakob Heitz (jheitz); Zhuangshunwan; BESS
Subject: Re: [bess] Encoding a 20 bit label in a 24 bit field.


Yes, just the encoding of label value needs to be clear. 

Cheers,
Ali



On 10/15/18, 6:24 PM, "BESS on behalf of Jakob Heitz (jheitz)" <bess-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of jheitz@cisco.com> wrote:

    How about:
    The lower order 4 bits SHOULD be sent as 0 and ignored on receipt.
    
    Regards,
    Jakob.
    
    
    -----Original Message-----
    From: Zhuangshunwan <zhuangshunwan@huawei.com> 
    Sent: Monday, October 15, 2018 6:02 PM
    To: Jakob Heitz (jheitz) <jheitz@cisco.com>; BESS <bess@ietf.org>
    Subject: RE: Encoding a 20 bit label in a 24 bit field.
    
    It is good to make this explicit. This ambiguity has led to some unnecessary interworking problems.
    
    Should we also need to explicitly define the "bottom of stack" bit in the low-order bit of the 3-octet label field?
    
    Thanks,
    Shunwan
    
    -----Original Message-----
    From: BESS [mailto:bess-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Jakob Heitz (jheitz)
    Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2018 4:21 AM
    To: BESS <bess@ietf.org>
    Subject: [bess] Encoding a 20 bit label in a 24 bit field.
    
    We have proposed the following erratum for RFC 7432.
    
    Opinions?
    
    Regards,
    Jakob.
    
    
    -----Original Message-----
    From: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
    Sent: Friday, October 12, 2018 12:37 PM
    To: Ali Sajassi (sajassi) <sajassi@cisco.com>; raggarwa_1@yahoo.com; nabil.n.bitar@verizon.com; aisaac71@bloomberg.net; uttaro@att.com; jdrake@juniper.net; wim.henderickx@alcatel-lucent.com; db3546@att.com; aretana.ietf@gmail.com; martin.vigoureux@nokia.com; Giles Heron (giheron) <giheron@cisco.com>; nabil.n.bitar@verizon.com
    Cc: Krishnamoorthy Arumugham (karumugh) <karumugh@cisco.com>; l2vpn@ietf.org; rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
    Subject: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7432 (5523)
    
    The following errata report has been submitted for RFC7432, "BGP MPLS-Based Ethernet VPN".
    
    --------------------------------------
    You may review the report below and at:
    http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5523
    
    --------------------------------------
    Type: Technical
    Reported by: Krishnamoorthy Arumugham <karumugh@cisco.com>
    
    Section: 7
    
    Original Text
    -------------
    Clarifications to following sub-sections:
    Section 7.1
    Section 7.2
    Section 7.5
    
    
    Corrected Text
    --------------
    Section 7.1:
    Add below text to the section 7.1 regarding the encoding of MPLS label:
    
    "The value of the 20-bit MPLS label is encoded in the high-order 20 bits of the 3 bytes MPLS Label field."
    
    Section 7.2:
    Add below text to the section 7.2 regarding the encoding of both the MPLS label fields:
    
    "The value of the 20-bit MPLS label is encoded in the high-order 20 bits of the 3 bytes MPLS Label field for both MPLS Label1 and MPLS Label2."
    
    Section 7.5:
    Add below text to the section 7.5 regarding the encoding of ESI Label fields:
    
    "The value of the 20-bit MPLS label is encoded in the high-order 20 bits of the ESI Label field."
    
    
    Notes
    -----
    MPLS label is a 20-bit value and is stored in a 3 bytes field in a packet. The 20-bit MPLS label value is generally stored in higher order 20 bits of the 3 byte label field. The exact encoding to be followed for storing MPLS label values are not explicitly mentioned in the RFC 7432 under section 7.1, 7.2 and 7.5 for different types of EVPN routes. This lead to ambiguity in different implementations. Hence a clarification is required.
    
    Instructions:
    -------------
    This erratum is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary, please
    use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or
    rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party  
    can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary. 
    
    --------------------------------------
    RFC7432 (draft-ietf-l2vpn-evpn-11)
    --------------------------------------
    Title               : BGP MPLS-Based Ethernet VPN
    Publication Date    : February 2015
    Author(s)           : A. Sajassi, Ed., R. Aggarwal, N. Bitar, A. Isaac, J. Uttaro, J. Drake, W. Henderickx
    Category            : PROPOSED STANDARD
    Source              : Layer 2 Virtual Private Networks
    Area                : Routing
    Stream              : IETF
    Verifying Party     : IESG
    
    _______________________________________________
    BESS mailing list
    BESS@ietf.org
    https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
    
    _______________________________________________
    BESS mailing list
    BESS@ietf.org
    https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
    

_______________________________________________
BESS mailing list
BESS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.

This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;
they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
Thank you.