Re: [mpls] [Bier] Encapsulation first nibble

Xuxiaohu <xuxiaohu@huawei.com> Tue, 17 March 2015 10:49 UTC

Return-Path: <xuxiaohu@huawei.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 5EE511A0263; Tue, 17 Mar 2015 03:49:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.422
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.422 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, CN_BODY_35=0.339, MIME_CHARSET_FARAWAY=2.45, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, 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 TojQWykVO_HJ; Tue, 17 Mar 2015 03:49:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E65621A0235; Tue, 17 Mar 2015 03:49:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml403-hub.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg01-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id BTT14245; Tue, 17 Mar 2015 10:49:26 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from NKGEML410-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.98.56.41) by lhreml403-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.217) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Tue, 17 Mar 2015 10:49:25 +0000
Received: from NKGEML512-MBS.china.huawei.com ([169.254.8.209]) by nkgeml410-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.98.56.41]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Tue, 17 Mar 2015 18:49:21 +0800
From: Xuxiaohu <xuxiaohu@huawei.com>
To: "stbryant@cisco.com" <stbryant@cisco.com>, Eric C Rosen <erosen@juniper.net>, BIER <bier@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Bier] Encapsulation first nibble
Thread-Index: AQHQXcZrqojq7Dn2dkqRctiyZ05xTp0aTR0AgAY0PqA=
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2015 10:49:21 +0000
Message-ID: <1FEE3F8F5CCDE64C9A8E8F4AD27C19EE0831CB77@NKGEML512-MBS.china.huawei.com>
References: <55033E87.3030305@juniper.net> <5503403E.4050304@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <5503403E.4050304@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.47.99.17]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="gb2312"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/vp-h14xE58azPt7LAJA1739h6Es>
Cc: "mpls@ietf.org" <mpls@ietf.org>, "sfc@ietf.org" <sfc@ietf.org>
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: Tue, 17 Mar 2015 10:49:30 -0000

I believe this should be applicable to the NSH as well (i.e., set the nibble to zero) if it's assumed that the NSH could be encapsulated within an MPLS packet. 

Best regards,
Xiaohu

-----邮件原件-----
发件人: BIER [mailto:bier-bounces@ietf.org] 代表 Stewart Bryant
发送时间: 2015年3月14日 3:54
收件人: Eric C Rosen; BIER
主题: Re: [Bier] Encapsulation first nibble

On 13/03/2015 19:46, Eric C Rosen wrote:
> Here's a small issue for the WG to consider.
>
> The mpls-bier-encapsulation draft specifies that the first nibble of 
> the encapsulation is to be a BIER encaps version number, initially 0.
> The values 4 and 6 are excluded from the "version number" space, as 
> there are various heuristic procedures deployed that interpret those 
> values of the first nibble following the MPLS label stack as 
> identifying the payload to be an IP packet.
>
> However, there are also various deployed heuristics that may interpret 
> the values 0 and 1 as identifying a pseudowire payload, either data or 
> OAM.
>
> This raises the issue of whether we might be better off setting this 
> nibble to a fixed value, rather than trying to use it as a version 
> number.  If we really need a version number in the encaps, perhaps it 
> should be someplace where it definitely won't impact any existing
> heuristics.   The safest value for the first nibble might be one of 
> the values 5-9, which are already assigned as IP Version Numbers, but 
> are assigned to things that (I think) don't actually exist.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> BIER mailing list
> BIER@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bier
>

I agree with Eric on this.

I would set the nibble to zero which tells any parser that the payload is only understandable only by a node that knows the actions required by the BOS label.

I think the ACH RFC says something like the above, but would have to go find the specific text.

- Stewart

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