IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [mpls] [Bier] Encapsulation first nibble

"UTTARO, JAMES" <ju1738@att.com> Thu, 19 March 2015 11:21 UTC

Return-Path: <ju1738@att.com>
X-Original-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D39A41A8987; Thu, 19 Mar 2015 04:21:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.21
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.21 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
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 yhd9inf1ZYAm; Thu, 19 Mar 2015 04:21:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nbfkord-smmo07.seg.att.com (nbfkord-smmo07.seg.att.com [209.65.160.93]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2CD361A897D; Thu, 19 Mar 2015 04:21:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from unknown [144.160.229.24] (EHLO alpi155.enaf.aldc.att.com) by nbfkord-smmo07.seg.att.com(mxl_mta-7.2.4-5) with ESMTP id 841ba055.2ac71be52940.712039.00-2473.2004047.nbfkord-smmo07.seg.att.com (envelope-from <ju1738@att.com>); Thu, 19 Mar 2015 11:21:44 +0000 (UTC)
X-MXL-Hash: 550ab14865649ad0-25ceca41a2027a8f4c88a27a64d1e2baa5193bc1
Received: from unknown [144.160.229.24] (EHLO alpi155.enaf.aldc.att.com) by nbfkord-smmo07.seg.att.com(mxl_mta-7.2.4-5) over TLS secured channel with ESMTP id 131ba055.0.711937.00-2355.2003718.nbfkord-smmo07.seg.att.com (envelope-from <ju1738@att.com>); Thu, 19 Mar 2015 11:21:21 +0000 (UTC)
X-MXL-Hash: 550ab13135a93a18-f507932942442f3dd0501fe25118d8c3b55b5ef3
Received: from enaf.aldc.att.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by alpi155.enaf.aldc.att.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t2JBLK7s017741; Thu, 19 Mar 2015 07:21:20 -0400
Received: from mlpi408.sfdc.sbc.com (mlpi408.sfdc.sbc.com [130.9.128.240]) by alpi155.enaf.aldc.att.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t2JBLC77017631 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 19 Mar 2015 07:21:17 -0400
Received: from MISOUT7MSGHUBAB.ITServices.sbc.com (MISOUT7MSGHUBAB.itservices.sbc.com [130.9.129.146]) by mlpi408.sfdc.sbc.com (RSA Interceptor); Thu, 19 Mar 2015 11:20:53 GMT
Received: from MISOUT7MSGUSRCD.ITServices.sbc.com ([169.254.4.34]) by MISOUT7MSGHUBAB.ITServices.sbc.com ([130.9.129.146]) with mapi id 14.03.0224.002; Thu, 19 Mar 2015 07:20:53 -0400
From: "UTTARO, JAMES" <ju1738@att.com>
To: "'Stewart Bryant (stbryant)'" <stbryant@cisco.com>, 'Ignas Bagdonas' <ibagdona.ietf@gmail.com>
Thread-Topic: [Bier] Encapsulation first nibble
Thread-Index: AQHQYhgcaT61EyeEBUKVRfvUSw0LlZ0jqlJw
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2015 11:20:53 +0000
Message-ID: <B17A6910EEDD1F45980687268941550F06E220BE@MISOUT7MSGUSRCD.ITServices.sbc.com>
References: <55033E87.3030305@juniper.net> <5503403E.4050304@cisco.com> <1FEE3F8F5CCDE64C9A8E8F4AD27C19EE0831CB77@NKGEML512-MBS.china.huawei.com> <1FEE3F8F5CCDE64C9A8E8F4AD27C19EE0831CBB2@NKGEML512-MBS.china.huawei.com> <2E4BB27CAB87BF43B4207C0E55860F1827D3C5@eusaamb103.ericsson.se> <BY2PR05MB079ACD3AE28CC48B48C789ED4030@BY2PR05MB079.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <1FEE3F8F5CCDE64C9A8E8F4AD27C19EE0831CCE9@NKGEML512-MBS.china.huawei.com> <BY2PR05MB07904EDBB62DAF1E826E107D4000@BY2PR05MB079.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <1FEE3F8F5CCDE64C9A8E8F4AD27C19EE0831CEFD@NKGEML512-MBS.china.huawei.com>, <550A2B98.4010409@gmail.com> <95467337-1826-4C9E-888A-ABABE872CD56@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <95467337-1826-4C9E-888A-ABABE872CD56@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [135.70.46.160]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-RSA-Inspected: yes
X-RSA-Classifications: public
X-AnalysisOut: [v=2.0 cv=VY5AyiV9 c=1 sm=1 a=dhB6nF3YHL5t/Ixux6cINA==:17 a]
X-AnalysisOut: [=-vCCya6ofXAA:10 a=BLceEmwcHowA:10 a=kj9zAlcOel0A:10 a=zQP]
X-AnalysisOut: [7CpKOAAAA:8 a=XIqpo32RAAAA:8 a=emO1SXQWCLwA:10 a=48vgC7mUA]
X-AnalysisOut: [AAA:8 a=pGLkceISAAAA:8 a=DoV0cjcpzXQ8FZWdvQMA:9 a=CjuIK1q_]
X-AnalysisOut: [8ugA:10 a=4xa8uTXoekMmPyhK:21 a=OMQviz-YQPlPQJv3:21]
X-Spam: [F=0.2000000000; CM=0.500; S=0.200(2014051901)]
X-MAIL-FROM: <ju1738@att.com>
X-SOURCE-IP: [144.160.229.24]
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/MzJ9P8qFgO5smETB9teMy02HLTE>
Cc: "'mpls@ietf.org'" <mpls@ietf.org>, 'BIER' <bier@ietf.org>, "'sfc@ietf.org'" <sfc@ietf.org>, 'Antoni Przygienda' <antoni.przygienda@ericsson.com>, "'IJsbrand Wijnands (iwijnand)'" <ice@cisco.com>, "'Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang'" <zzhang@juniper.net>
Subject: Re: [mpls] [Bier] Encapsulation first nibble
X-BeenThere: mpls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multi-Protocol Label Switching WG <mpls.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mpls>, <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mpls/>
List-Post: <mailto:mpls@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls>, <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2015 11:21:49 -0000

Not really following this thread closely but from my point of view the ELI solution creates addl issues when one wants to use network elements that are label challenged in terms of pop/push/swap and label stack size. 

Jim Uttaro

-----Original Message-----
From: sfc [mailto:sfc-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Stewart Bryant (stbryant)
Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2015 3:41 AM
To: Ignas Bagdonas
Cc: mpls@ietf.org; BIER; sfc@ietf.org; Antoni Przygienda; IJsbrand Wijnands (iwijnand); Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang; Xuxiaohu; Eric Rosen
Subject: Re: [sfc] [Bier] Encapsulation first nibble

That is correct.

PWE3 took over the design after draft-martini had been widely adopted and deployed, otherwise PWs may well have been exclusively CW. The wide deployment of Ethernet PW without the CW means that PW OAM is more complicated than it would otherwise be - see the latest vcxo over GAL draft from PALS. It was asserted in the early days that there would not be a problem because there would never be an ethernet address issued that alias with the IPv4 first nibble. Well guess what happened? Yes they were and yes there was!

There is another way forward, require the inclusion of the ELI and exclusive use of ELI enabled LSPs, but in that case the packet size would go up by more than needed to fix BIER and the operational complexity would be significant, thus the cure would be worse than the disease.

Stewart 

Sent from my iPad

> On 19 Mar 2015, at 01:51, Ignas Bagdonas <ibagdona.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> > Since the control word is optional when transporting Ethernet over MPLS, I wonder whether the idea of reserving the first nibble value of 15 is feasible in practice.
> 
> Not using a control word for ethernet PW is painful from operational perspective. Many deployed platforms will look past the labels without much context and if they happen to find 4 or 6 there, the behavior will range from blindly believing that it is in fact IPv4 or IPv6 packet to trying to validate certain fields or even checksums. Control word helps here, and if both sides have support, it should be used.
> 
> Ignas
> 

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email