Re: [bess] Encoding a 20 bit label in a 24 bit field.
Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com> Mon, 22 October 2018 22:07 UTC
Return-Path: <gregimirsky@gmail.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 A4FF6130EF9 for <bess@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 22 Oct 2018 15:07:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 9vn5PqL1Ju1y for <bess@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 22 Oct 2018 15:07:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lj1-x235.google.com (mail-lj1-x235.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::235]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 854C8130EA1 for <bess@ietf.org>; Mon, 22 Oct 2018 15:07:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lj1-x235.google.com with SMTP id x3-v6so38450618lji.13 for <bess@ietf.org>; Mon, 22 Oct 2018 15:07:53 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=872Gz5B7rHHW+IeZRJHZp11xgOrcukLPz4+FoBt11IA=; b=V/1otbg6nrX6t6nTNjI52tG3ldnKXvigLKMF7MZRLeiOnESnrV6MNhsbxz3okDT5qu Ui7aRzgV8SAFII+ZLaFnJJzbghsOSOvbq7YoNBTakhNLG101DKtUsGJT03kn/FCAk5FS oU68dQUB+pIOOV3F5nT1RVlROcJbeBFIvhsfoNHqKl1D1Hf8OukK1PUl/Z2gXH4RNyzq f4ZUPxw69miQ3/FW09UOrHaAAPh13hlKHXxYcBzNdRKO3BUrbzDOH5b5sAMQU4QB6A4t /yiaw4WFKsjZybjPaLYmMlUJY5+yoATwjtYFsHmZ5bQqgxG+wVbBYvzKbl+Zr3Dr14Ke AidQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=872Gz5B7rHHW+IeZRJHZp11xgOrcukLPz4+FoBt11IA=; b=QHtKG5D7uxHkUX/R/6j40wa3VjRmltl2cd+PJ86nXfW37ScektmLxa2vU7G7laSlwK /9O7cf0kwgfnpRgES8Yq9I5fNUN/VfA5CcLHIB41oHZBlEDfAVKFQc+DkF1L6h46TuFR BDSncjjGDEq2Z7R3+M+s9acJg3At2w7KofITRmU+NDauvVZ23VcTmAkIn/OoNYntDb6V SRumsYrqehYKmSwBsFrQJlfPF3NJC8CfMTiWhKHyEQRBFF82vKP4Y1Jyrax4e0SLBLaJ X7J+s0nqT1rcCi/V/tBoq/bmGSz52Z9B+v+pcuWuwYoivIMo4tSBNmq2GsvLkQnBE5G+ vfHQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ABuFfohfgoAkDZJmxqW3HE2ufBoFYH1KU0YtlM3lByb4KNEnr/ECaVUp zQ6sBfpjOE7yvI84TAQDVuUxQGXZTM5zUfl7xaI=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACcGV61+FKKboQiUIWrj/W3unYR9PMikTIOh3HH+fZNhosksxCBAiUzK+m9wmVXGX9S3VW2Hn/Y/m8ClrMcUYUDp9uo=
X-Received: by 2002:a2e:140c:: with SMTP id u12-v6mr25718244ljd.76.1540246071508; Mon, 22 Oct 2018 15:07:51 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <F78CB1EA-86B9-4496-852A-4E262263E256@cisco.com> <26390_1540216052_5BCDD4F4_26390_189_1_9E32478DFA9976438E7A22F69B08FF924B311B3B@OPEXCLILMA4.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
In-Reply-To: <26390_1540216052_5BCDD4F4_26390_189_1_9E32478DFA9976438E7A22F69B08FF924B311B3B@OPEXCLILMA4.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
From: Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2018 15:07:39 -0700
Message-ID: <CA+RyBmWjrKmOkjOnK6cUSLQyMQw-YXeTQ751Xmc1328H1Gktcw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Stephane Litkowski <stephane.litkowski@orange.com>
Cc: "Ali Sajassi (sajassi)" <sajassi@cisco.com>, "Jakob Heitz (jheitz)" <jheitz@cisco.com>, zhuangshunwan@huawei.com, BESS <bess@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000f5858b0578d87b2a"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bess/sMcnGmvHv_BGrjGIVpM2n1QS2oc>
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 22:08:05 -0000
Hi Stephane, should note that "setting the MPLS Label field to zero" may be also interpreted as a valid label, IPv4 Explicit Null Label. Regards, Greg On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 6:47 AM <stephane.litkowski@orange.com> wrote: > 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. > > _______________________________________________ > BESS mailing list > BESS@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess >
- [bess] Encoding a 20 bit label in a 24 bit field. Jakob Heitz (jheitz)
- Re: [bess] Encoding a 20 bit label in a 24 bit fi… Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US/Mountain View)
- Re: [bess] Encoding a 20 bit label in a 24 bit fi… Jeff Tantsura
- Re: [bess] Encoding a 20 bit label in a 24 bit fi… Zhuangshunwan
- Re: [bess] Encoding a 20 bit label in a 24 bit fi… Jakob Heitz (jheitz)
- Re: [bess] Encoding a 20 bit label in a 24 bit fi… Zhuangshunwan
- Re: [bess] Encoding a 20 bit label in a 24 bit fi… John E Drake
- Re: [bess] Encoding a 20 bit label in a 24 bit fi… Tapraj Singh (tapsingh)
- Re: [bess] Encoding a 20 bit label in a 24 bit fi… Ali Sajassi (sajassi)
- Re: [bess] Encoding a 20 bit label in a 24 bit fi… stephane.litkowski
- Re: [bess] Encoding a 20 bit label in a 24 bit fi… Acee Lindem (acee)
- Re: [bess] Encoding a 20 bit label in a 24 bit fi… Jakob Heitz (jheitz)
- Re: [bess] Encoding a 20 bit label in a 24 bit fi… Greg Mirsky
- Re: [bess] Encoding a 20 bit label in a 24 bit fi… Ali Sajassi (sajassi)