Re: [Bier] Possible conflict between nibble value in RFC 8296 and IANA registry of IP version number
" 徐小虎(义先) " <xiaohu.xxh@alibaba-inc.com> Fri, 23 March 2018 12:27 UTC
Return-Path: <xiaohu.xxh@alibaba-inc.com>
X-Original-To: bier@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: bier@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A2B5E12D7F7; Fri, 23 Mar 2018 05:27:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=alibaba-inc.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 AJ557cPxkGIV; Fri, 23 Mar 2018 05:27:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out0-130.mail.aliyun.com (out0-130.mail.aliyun.com [140.205.0.130]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 91A1F1201F8; Fri, 23 Mar 2018 05:27:05 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=alibaba-inc.com; s=default; t=1521808021; h=Date:From:To:Message-ID:Subject:MIME-Version:Content-Type; bh=oP3pCS6MPX490sQnHktOE+N3jifbjmPVh+Pqqr6Vmpk=; b=jkibdIg/pG7m2V/T87Lt4LvoJaug/fUaYD8vEnoHRovcW+x6BhJOJXsQtGrHLL2Kh06Pc3ylg8FCNy1+S1iLtzfZHaXz8lzf47C+0r2nvl9XnwN0Mx7H7UsKLaXuUly8gtEo8/E7W4nBi22NNCFN8m9RjB9uNnB/BwiobvPfFQk=
X-Alimail-AntiSpam: AC=PASS; BC=-1|-1; BR=01201311R121e4; CH=green; FP=0|-1|-1|-1|0|-1|-1|-1; HT=e02c03271; MF=xiaohu.xxh@alibaba-inc.com; NM=1; PH=DW; RN=3; SR=0; TI=W4_5211206_v5ForWebDing_0A932697_1521807517324_o7001c182c;
Received: from WS-web (xiaohu.xxh@alibaba-inc.com[W4_5211206_v5ForWebDing_0A932697_1521807517324_o7001c182c]) by e01l04448.eu6 at Fri, 23 Mar 2018 20:26:59 +0800
Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2018 20:26:59 +0800
From: "徐小虎(义先)" <xiaohu.xxh@alibaba-inc.com>
To: BIER <bier-bounces@ietf.org>, BIER WG <bier@ietf.org>, Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu>
Reply-To: "徐小虎(义先)" <xiaohu.xxh@alibaba-inc.com>
Message-ID: <354a0aa0-cb37-4067-88ba-4a2b3c38de5c.xiaohu.xxh@alibaba-inc.com>
X-Mailer: [Alimail-Mailagent revision 948139][W4_5211206][v5ForWebDing][Safari]
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CA+RyBmUnsjo015FuSQO6BzouA=S-MDoJ8H38-AVRF7_+Yigihw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CA+RyBmUnsjo015FuSQO6BzouA=S-MDoJ8H38-AVRF7_+Yigihw@mail.gmail.com>
x-aliyun-mail-creator: W4_5211206_v5ForWebDing_QvNTW96aWxsYS81LjAgKE1hY2ludG9zaDsgSW50ZWwgTWFjIE9TIFggMTBfMTJfNikgQXBwbGVXZWJLaXQvNjA0LjUuNiAoS0hUTUwsIGxpa2UgR2Vja28pIFZlcnNpb24vMTEuMC4zIFNhZmFyaS82MDQuNS42La
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=ALIBOUNDARY_16963_557e8940_5ab4f293_42908d"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bier/xv-_Etb2UsXDyNx3GQAl8AqWsgQ>
Subject: Re: [Bier] Possible conflict between nibble value in RFC 8296 and IANA registry of IP version number
X-BeenThere: bier@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: "\"Bit Indexed Explicit Replication discussion list\"" <bier.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/bier>, <mailto:bier-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/bier/>
List-Post: <mailto:bier@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bier-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bier>, <mailto:bier-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2018 12:27:09 -0000
Hi Greg, Thanks for raising this issue. As had been said in (https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-xu-mpls-sr-over-ip-00#page-9) as follows: " The MPLS label stack has no explicit protocol identifier field to indicate the protocol type of the MPLS payload. This document proposes a mechanism for containing a protocol identifier field within the MPLS packet, which is useful for any new encapsulation header which may need to be encapsulated with an MPLS header. With this explicit protocol identifier field, there is no need any more for each new encapsulation header to deal with the notorious first nibble issue associated with MPLS individually. More specifically, there is no need to intentionally avoid the first nibble of each new encapsulation header from being 0100 (IPv4) or 0110 (IPv6) and even worsely misuse the first nibble of each new encapsulation header as an MPLS payload type field (e.g., MPLS-BIER [I-D.ietf-bier-mpls-encapsulation]). The tacit permission of misusing the first nibble of each new encapsulation header as an MPLS payload type field would exhause the valuable nibble space quickly."I strongly believe the MPLS community should start to consider how to deal with the nibble issue caused by the lack of a protocol field in the MPLS architecture, rather than leaving this issue to each new encapsulation. Best regards,Xiaohu------------------------------------------------------------------Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>2018年3月23日(星期五) 20:11BIER WG <bier@ietf.org>; Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu>[Bier] Possible conflict between nibble value in RFC 8296 and IANA registry of IP version number Dear All,RFC 8296 explains the nibble field on BIER header as: Nibble: This field is set to the binary value 0101; this ensures that the MPLS ECMP logic will not confuse the remainder of the BIER header with an IP header or with the header of a pseudowire packet. In an MPLS network, if a BFR receives a BIER packet with any other value in the first nibble after the label stack, it SHOULD discard the packet and log an error. But IANA registry for IP version numbers reflects allocation of 5 for ST RFC 1819 (thanks to Loa for pointing me to the registry): Decimal Keyword Version Reference 0-1 Reserved [Jon_Postel][RFC4928]2-3 Unassigned [Jon_Postel]4 IP Internet Protocol [RFC791][Jon_Postel]5 ST ST Datagram Mode [RFC1819][Jim_Forgie]6 IPv6 Internet Protocol version 6 [RFC8200]7 TP/IX TP/IX: The Next Internet [RFC6814]8 PIP The P Internet Protocol [RFC1621]9 TUBA TUBA [RFC1347]10-14 Unassigned [Jon_Postel]15 Reserved [Jon_Postel] Perhaps ST Datagram never saw the light of deployment but, as it looks, we may have formal conflict at hand. The way to remedy the situation may be to re-assign value 5 to BIER or, at the minimum, make it reserved.What do you think? Regards,Greg