Hi All, If we only mention 20-bit label then what will be the structure of it? As per generic MPLS label structure 24-bit used to look like as follows:
|<--------20-bit---------->|<-3-bit->|<-1-bit->| |<-MPLS 20-bit label->|<- TC ->|<- S ->| Now if we just mention about MPLS 20-bit label, is that mean following representation: |<-4-bit->|<--------20-bit---------->| |<-all 0->|<-MPLS 20-bit label->| Thanks & Regards, Mrinmoy On Wed, Mar 25, 2020 at 3:56 PM stefano previdi <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Dhruv, > > I agree with your proposed changes: > > 1. only mention the 20 bits label value > 2. fix the length to 4. > > > Thanks. > s. > > > > On Mar 24, 2020, at 3:14 PM, Dhruv Dhody <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Hi Mrinmoy, > > > > I will give authors some time to respond and confirm (and spin a new > > update). I have noted this in the PCE WG wiki [ > > https://trac.ietf.org/trac/pce/wiki/WikiStart ] to make sure we could > > track this to closure. > > > > Thanks! > > Dhruv > > > > On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 7:11 PM Mrinmoy Das <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> > >> Hi Dhruv, > >> > >> Thanks for your quick reply. > >> > >> I have added PCE WG in this mail. More inline. > >> > >> Thanks & Regards, > >> Mrinmoy > >> > >> On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 6:00 PM Dhruv Dhody <[email protected]> > wrote: > >>> > >>> Hi Mrinmoy, > >>> > >>> I was suggest you to also include [email protected]; WG could benefit from > >>> the discussion in future. More inline. > >>> > >>> On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 5:08 PM Mrinmoy Das <[email protected]> > wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Respected Authors and Contributors, > >>>> > >>>> Hope you all are doing well and safe in this tough times of Corona > Virus Outbreak. > >>>> > >>>> I like to draw your attention regarding some parts of > draft-ietf-pce-binding-label-sid-02 which I didn't able to understand > properly. > >>>> > >>>> 1. BT = 0: The binding value is an MPLS label carried in the format > >>>> > >>>> specified in [RFC5462] where only the label value is valid, and > >>>> other fields (TC, S, and TTL) fields MUST be considered invalid. > >>>> The Length MUST be set to 7. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Previous versions of private draft uses 4 byte to store MPLS 20 > Bit label and ignores TC, S & TTL fields. > >>> > >>> The length in the previous version was 6, which was incorrect. The TLV > >>> length is as per https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5440#section-7.1 > >>> Which didnt make sense and your calculation below is correct! > >>> > >>>> But in IETF draft after TLV structure redefinition, total length > of the TLV becomes 7, i.e. BT(1 Byte)+Reserved(3 Byte)+MPLS 20bit Label(3 > Byte) = 7 Byte > >>> > >>> Yes > >>> > >>>> So, now MPLS 20 Bit Labelwill be stored in 3 byte. Is it correct? > >>> > >>> You can consider it a case of rounding up 20 bits to 3 bytes. > >>> > >>> > >>>> If this is correct then I feel the wording of the above paragraph > needs to be more specific, meaning in 3 Byte Label there will be no space > for TTL, so > >>>> my suggestion is to make below correction: > >>>> > >>>> BT = 0: The binding value is an MPLS label carried in the format > >>>> > >>>> specified in [RFC5462] where only the label value is valid, and > >>>> other fields (TC, S, and TTL) fields MUST be considered invalid. > >>>> The Length MUST be set to 7. > >>>> > >>> > >>> My suggestion would be not mention any of the other fields and talk > >>> only of 20 bits of Label. I see other SR RFCs take similar approach. > >> > >> > >> Sounds Good. I'm agree with you. > >> > >>> > >>>> > >>>> 2. In some cases, a stateful PCE can request the PCC to allocate a > >>>> > >>>> binding value. It may do so by sending a PCUpd message containing an > >>>> empty TE-PATH-BINDING TLV, i.e., no binding value is specified > >>>> (making the length field of the TLV as 2). A PCE can also make the > >>>> request PCC to allocate a binding at the time of initiation by > >>>> sending a PCInitiate message with an empty TE-PATH-BINDING TLV. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> As per new Binding TLV Structure below, BT is of 1 Byte and there > will be 3 Byte Reserved. > >>>> > >>>> 0 1 2 3 > >>>> > >>>> 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 > >>>> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > >>>> | Type | Length | > >>>> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > >>>> | BT | Reserved | > >>>> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > >>>> ~ Binding Value (variable length) ~ > >>>> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Now, an empty Binding TLV should have length of BT(1 Byte) + > Reserved (3 Byte) = 4 Byte instead of 2 Byte. > >>>> > >>>> So, I do not understand how in the draft it is calculated as 2 > Byte. Could you please give me some clue? > >>> > >>> > >>> This seems to be an error IMHO. 4 seems to be correct. > >> > >> > >> Okay. So what would be your suggestion to developer who is > implementing this draft? Should it be taken as 4? If draft needs correction > >> when will that be published? > >>> > >>> > >>> Thanks! > >>> Dhruv > >>> > >>>> > >>>> Thanks & Regards, > >>>> Mrinmoy > >
_______________________________________________ Pce mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
