Yes, just the encoding of label value needs to be clear. 

Cheers,
Ali



On 10/15/18, 6:24 PM, "BESS on behalf of Jakob Heitz (jheitz)" 
<[email protected] on behalf of [email protected]> wrote:

    How about:
    The lower order 4 bits SHOULD be sent as 0 and ignored on receipt.
    
    Regards,
    Jakob.
    
    
    -----Original Message-----
    From: Zhuangshunwan <[email protected]> 
    Sent: Monday, October 15, 2018 6:02 PM
    To: Jakob Heitz (jheitz) <[email protected]>; BESS <[email protected]>
    Subject: RE: Encoding a 20 bit label in a 24 bit field.
    
    It is good to make this explicit. This ambiguity has led to some 
unnecessary interworking problems.
    
    Should we also need to explicitly define the "bottom of stack" bit in the 
low-order bit of the 3-octet label field?
    
    Thanks,
    Shunwan
    
    -----Original Message-----
    From: BESS [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Jakob Heitz (jheitz)
    Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2018 4:21 AM
    To: BESS <[email protected]>
    Subject: [bess] Encoding a 20 bit label in a 24 bit field.
    
    We have proposed the following erratum for RFC 7432.
    
    Opinions?
    
    Regards,
    Jakob.
    
    
    -----Original Message-----
    From: RFC Errata System <[email protected]>
    Sent: Friday, October 12, 2018 12:37 PM
    To: Ali Sajassi (sajassi) <[email protected]>; [email protected]; 
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; 
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; 
[email protected]; [email protected]; Giles Heron (giheron) 
<[email protected]>; [email protected]
    Cc: Krishnamoorthy Arumugham (karumugh) <[email protected]>; 
[email protected]; [email protected]
    Subject: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7432 (5523)
    
    The following errata report has been submitted for RFC7432, "BGP MPLS-Based 
Ethernet VPN".
    
    --------------------------------------
    You may review the report below and at:
    http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5523
    
    --------------------------------------
    Type: Technical
    Reported by: Krishnamoorthy Arumugham <[email protected]>
    
    Section: 7
    
    Original Text
    -------------
    Clarifications to following sub-sections:
    Section 7.1
    Section 7.2
    Section 7.5
    
    
    Corrected Text
    --------------
    Section 7.1:
    Add below text to the section 7.1 regarding the encoding of MPLS label:
    
    "The value of the 20-bit MPLS label is encoded in the high-order 20 bits of 
the 3 bytes MPLS Label field."
    
    Section 7.2:
    Add below text to the section 7.2 regarding the encoding of both the MPLS 
label fields:
    
    "The value of the 20-bit MPLS label is encoded in the high-order 20 bits of 
the 3 bytes MPLS Label field for both MPLS Label1 and MPLS Label2."
    
    Section 7.5:
    Add below text to the section 7.5 regarding the encoding of ESI Label 
fields:
    
    "The value of the 20-bit MPLS label is encoded in the high-order 20 bits of 
the ESI Label field."
    
    
    Notes
    -----
    MPLS label is a 20-bit value and is stored in a 3 bytes field in a packet. 
The 20-bit MPLS label value is generally stored in higher order 20 bits of the 
3 byte label field. The exact encoding to be followed for storing MPLS label 
values are not explicitly mentioned in the RFC 7432 under section 7.1, 7.2 and 
7.5 for different types of EVPN routes. This lead to ambiguity in different 
implementations. Hence a clarification is required.
    
    Instructions:
    -------------
    This erratum is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary, please
    use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or
    rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party  
    can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary. 
    
    --------------------------------------
    RFC7432 (draft-ietf-l2vpn-evpn-11)
    --------------------------------------
    Title               : BGP MPLS-Based Ethernet VPN
    Publication Date    : February 2015
    Author(s)           : A. Sajassi, Ed., R. Aggarwal, N. Bitar, A. Isaac, J. 
Uttaro, J. Drake, W. Henderickx
    Category            : PROPOSED STANDARD
    Source              : Layer 2 Virtual Private Networks
    Area                : Routing
    Stream              : IETF
    Verifying Party     : IESG
    
    _______________________________________________
    BESS mailing list
    [email protected]
    https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
    
    _______________________________________________
    BESS mailing list
    [email protected]
    https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
    

_______________________________________________
BESS mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess

Reply via email to