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

Hi Loa, et. al,
assuming that deployed nodes understand some, at least 0x04 and 0x06, values of the first nibble, wouldn't it be sufficient to define one new value as None-of-the-Above? Though we're still exposed to Ethernet PW without CW case.

	Regards,
		Greg

-----Original Message-----
From: BIER [mailto:bier-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Loa Andersson
Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2016 8:12 AM
To: Nagendra Kumar Nainar (naikumar); Eric C Rosen; Alexander Vainshtein; Stewart Bryant
Cc: mpls@ietf.org; bier@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Bier] [mpls] [bier] The first nibble issue associated with MPLS encapsulation

Nagendra,

The IANA registry you refer to is the IP Version numbers
http://www.iana.org/assignments/version-numbers/version-numbers.xhtml#version-numbers-1

Please note that this registry does not globally define what needs to be in the first nibble of a packet carried over mpls, it the payload is IP you are correct.

If the payload is e.g. a PW then 0x0 in the first nibble of the payload indicates that it is PW the first nibble refer to to the PWMCW (Pseudowire MPLS Control Word), if the first nibble is 0x1 it tells you that this packet belongs to GACh.

/Loa

On 2016-04-14 22:41, Nagendra Kumar Nainar (naikumar) wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Per IANA registry, 0-1 are ³Reserved² and so is not strictly assigned 
> with PW. Something like a modified CW beneath LSE?. Further, BIER is 
> hop-by-hop lookup based. So I think we don¹t need to include this 
> always. Instead, we could conditionally include this, if the next BFR 
> is tunneled (not directly connected).
>
> The receiving node will use the label to identify the payload/FEC. So 
> I think, the presence of modified CW should not confuse it with PW.
>
> Thanks,
> Nagendra
>
>
> On 4/14/16, 9:20 AM, "mpls on behalf of Eric C Rosen"
> <mpls-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of erosen@juniper.net> 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.
>>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> On 4/13/2016 11:07 PM, Xuxiaohu wrote:
>>> In fact, there is an attempt to have a registry for the first nibble 
>>> (a.k.a., MPLS payload type field).
>>
>> Hopefully that attempt won't succeed!
>>
>> On 4/14/2016 7:06 AM, Loa Andersson wrote:
>>> While I can live with 0x0000, 0x0010 or 0x0101, RFC 4928 actually says:
>>>
>>>     It is REQUIRED, however, that applications depend upon in-order
>>>     packet delivery restrict the first nibble values to 0x0 and 0x1.
>>>
>>> If that is what we want for bier, there is a case to use 0x0 or 0x1 
>>> for
>>> bier-
>>
>> Strictly speaking, RFC 4928 needs to be updated, as the reasoning 
>> given there does not really support the above "requirement".  But the 
>> effort to do that hardly seems worthwhile.  RFC 4928 already makes 
>> clear that the above requirement is protecting against the risk that 
>> IPv5 ECMP will affect some MPLS packets inappropriately. No one seems 
>> to think that that is a real risk.
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> mpls mailing list
>> mpls@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
>
> _______________________________________________
> BIER mailing list
> BIER@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bier
>

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