Re: [mpls] [bier] The first nibble issue associated with MPLS encapsulation

Stewart Bryant <> Thu, 14 April 2016 19:31 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C211B12E1D8; Thu, 14 Apr 2016 12:31:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OSkgan7lnU3D; Thu, 14 Apr 2016 12:31:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::22a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D16FF12E1C0; Thu, 14 Apr 2016 12:31:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id u206so2742438wme.1; Thu, 14 Apr 2016 12:31:47 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=rkGqqN+IaknXm6o/zvVPp/DYztSQXJ5AlMUyb8jMHOQ=; b=uS2jJKgZS1vkK4ik4Ep9HDmkBDZDVoPPMTuUikd86jIrLa4ogEXCedA8vRYWxA6IkO 7RM8ZNNF/H7rCowkuzILCxs9EKBEoOWFQj/TyWGpJYZ8Pp/UnJbHBKs1T+b6gPm+jcO/ nE8XKj6/3THYU7fxXKB20fcc7C7IkULZyagvP2eveP7mNxTMqGcxMkmE0DgaAMAOAVpN hdJVT1rgRN4+lMIrRVimk6is2/q1Naom9ixKmygHQ4N9mtuhXIcTnpCFkRz4avPAXMK1 0wiT7O/ZoRxHutLGwLnt8IyBIrXedZevw6UtCwHT+CMvSzr6QaB7TQ8BBSMc5ihXxRGl mNlg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=rkGqqN+IaknXm6o/zvVPp/DYztSQXJ5AlMUyb8jMHOQ=; b=hXR+bRW8gN01tr/alJ9HT881lmKHra0OYTlXzESXith0eFKEXTN2UiYTvCS7FyeFWh h2Vv9EfwvNZEXBtbeVdlKdUe6gtvsVBGRfT+tODNsqT3qyjRHqO7AAMnnio2NmS3Vi/3 98DzG2ucq9h6pPRP8xZ+1PW1d58aP+oBShhkuR8lO59y4eHlSUV1aNoLyMYZV6fU89R+ WxaASJ1nDKSZBbrjJvPj46m6M3F669khrDAXU5S4OfJtRFvqSQ+V/45OaJDggtm75503 hzdwpUzBckHmiVjOq0WQVOcbvVn0gEhyjJwRRI1zGY2qDhqVbOS7Mk+nQqj2nSbZsvTO BOYw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOPr4FW8cZGSkis7lizDkrAW0YW4uaDTDYbbzEcolTWCQ5RTpFQGVBFh6UecC0qXfDvMRQ==
X-Received: by with SMTP id h4mr614172wjg.104.1460662306343; Thu, 14 Apr 2016 12:31:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( []) by with ESMTPSA id y3sm34749103wmy.17.2016. (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Thu, 14 Apr 2016 12:31:45 -0700 (PDT)
To: Eric C Rosen <>, Alexander Vainshtein <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
From: Stewart Bryant <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2016 20:31:43 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <>
Cc: "" <>, "" <>, "Dr. Tony Przygienda" <>
Subject: Re: [mpls] [bier] The first nibble issue associated with MPLS encapsulation
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multi-Protocol Label Switching WG <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2016 19:31:50 -0000

On 14/04/2016 14:20, Eric C Rosen wrote:
> On 4/14/2016 6:06 AM, Alexander Vainshtein wrote:
>> Stewart and all,
>> I concur with Stewart that there is a strong case for 0 in the first 
>> nibble for all non-IP flows.
>> As for the need for sub-typing:
>> AFAIK quite a few implementations (including some HW-based packet 
>> processors) treat 0 in the first nibble after the label stack as an 
>> indication of an Ethernet PW.

Well there will be Ethernet PWs not using the CW that can put any 
Ethernet address in the first nibble, so
if there are Ethernet addresses that start with 5 they will look like 
BIER packets.

>> Some of them go as far as to hash on the assumed L2 headers for ECMP. 
>> This causes serious problems, e.g., with the TDM PWs that could be 
>> reordered if handled by such packet processors in transit LSRs.
>> This makes quite a case for sub-typing IMO regardless of BIER.
>> At the same time, it seems that all the bits in CW structure are used 
>> - at least for some PW types in some cases.
> It seems to me that Sasha's reasoning supports the conclusion that it 
> is best to avoid 0 in the first nibble (even if this is not the 
> conclusion he drew!)  I don't think sub-typing is a solution, because 
> it doesn't offer any protection against the behavior of existing 
> hardware.

There is no truly safe position until we mandate that all deployed PWs 
use the CW, but that is not going to happen for a while.

> On 4/14/2016 5:31 AM, Stewart Bryant wrote:
>> The nibble value  is recorded in the IP types registry
>> and any wish to take another value really needs to be discussed
>> with the INT area.
> Are you referring to the IP Version Number registry?  (I am not aware 
> of an "IP types registry".)   We're not asking for any modification to 
> that, since we're not doing another version of IP. I don't see any 
> need to get into  one of those long and non-productive arguments that 
> the INT area seems to relish.
Sorry I meant version number.

Before we assign a member of this very small number range to BIER, I 
would like some confidence that it will see any significant deployment. 
When PW took 0 and 1, it was already a widely deployed protocol.


- Stewart