Thanks a lot Dhruv for the clarification. Thanks & Regards, Mrinmoy
On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 9:59 AM Dhruv Dhody <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Mrinmoy, > > On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 9:35 AM Mrinmoy Das <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > 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->| > > > > No! > The format is still based on RFC 5462 and thus it would look something > like this - > > 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=7 | > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | BT=0 | Reserved | > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | Label | all zeros (ignore) | > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > > Even though the length=7, you will need to process the Binding Value > field based on the Binding Type (BT) which says that the format is as > per RFC 5462. > > Note that the extra byte of zeros at the end is for padding as per > https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5440#section-7.1 and not counted in the > length. > > Stay Safe! > Dhruv > > PS. Request the authors to update the draft SOON based on Mrinmoy's > original email. > > > 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
