IETF Logo Mail Archive

[Softwires] draft-ietf-softwire-lw4over6 excluding Well Known Ports

Ian Farrer <ianfarrer@gmx.com> Mon, 26 May 2014 11:25 UTC

Return-Path: <ianfarrer@gmx.com>
X-Original-To: softwires@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: softwires@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A7C51A00F4 for <softwires@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 26 May 2014 04:25:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.5
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.5 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-0.5, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 ylw7MRp8RVJ9 for <softwires@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 26 May 2014 04:25:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.17.21]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA256 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B32E61A00EC for <softwires@ietf.org>; Mon, 26 May 2014 04:25:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ians-mbp.lan ([62.225.30.19]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx101) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0Lo2EO-1WMS213TPk-00fxna; Mon, 26 May 2014 13:24:53 +0200
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.2\))
From: Ian Farrer <ianfarrer@gmx.com>
In-Reply-To: <92E51E75-2914-421F-B222-7478EC3D6A02@cisco.com>
Date: Mon, 26 May 2014 13:24:59 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <BBFBDEAA-0D2B-4A74-86E4-88824712EA26@gmx.com>
References: <53422B8F.2020109@ericsson.com> <37A243DD-5249-4070-AB19-6DFFCFE17AA7@gmx.com> <DC98AF70-DBF1-48AD-8699-2FC4E645FF40@cisco.com> <C3B32B71-79EE-408F-A92C-D40021DC9A5A@gmx.com> <92E51E75-2914-421F-B222-7478EC3D6A02@cisco.com>
To: Ole Troan <ot@cisco.com>, draft-ietf-softwire-lw4over6@tools.ietf.org
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.2)
X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:yLGnL4thY9MEPtKp8w4fAoAzVDmNpuhEl+AZZisKjqWpYsTio/i /hXEEDbWGto3xPdq69t6O843YTZ0QGwG59uR16QRHKW8JuPFSilYhrYD41kEV/2MZEN9auq Mt36BxhLgxs+6V5KsKEP3GqxL0kqEeyXV7mFbMn1ZV67EwVT7tREUKLkeJ+XV1Tg0r7gbfG m7z30dtD4fJzlXBPsKLMQ==
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/softwires/j8STHTIotCWt0IXUypKRR2BQi-U
Cc: Softwires WG <softwires@ietf.org>, Yong Cui <cuiyong@tsinghua.edu.cn>
Subject: [Softwires] draft-ietf-softwire-lw4over6 excluding Well Known Ports
X-BeenThere: softwires@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: softwires wg discussion list <softwires.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/softwires>, <mailto:softwires-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/softwires/>
List-Post: <mailto:softwires@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:softwires-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires>, <mailto:softwires-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 26 May 2014 11:25:40 -0000

Hi,

This one slipped my mind…. 

From a discussion with Ole during the MAP dhcp last call, there was a discussion about the exclusion of provisioning WKPs to CPEs - http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/softwires/current/msg06010.html

In previous versions, the lw4o6 used to reference sun-dhc-port-set-option, which also stated that the WKPs should not be assigned. This advice got lost when changing to reference map-dhcp for PSID format.

Here’s a wording change proposal to resolve this:

Section 5.1

Original text (last sentence, para 7):

"For lw4o6, the  number of a-bits SHOULD be 0."

Proposed change:

"For lw4o6, the number of a-bits SHOULD be 0 to allocate a single contiguous port set to each lwB4.

Unless a lwB4 is being allocated a full IPv4 address, it is RECOMMENDED that PSIDs containing the well-known ports (0-1023) are not allocated to lwB4s.”

Please let me know if you are OK with the proposed change.

cheers,
Ian

> 
>> Good spot on the WKP exclusion. Before the lw4o6 draft was updated to reference map-dhcp for configuration,  the port configuration was described in sun-dhc-port-set-option, which also stated that the WKPs should not be assigned. This advice got lost when changing to reference map-dhcp. I’ll make a suggested text update for the lw4o6 draft to fix this. Does that work for you?
> 
> yes, that would be good.
> 
> cheers,
> Ole
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email