Re: [Softwires] Port-set algorithm of MAP - what is it? Why so complex?

[Rémi Després <[e-mail]>]

Le 2012-03-08 à 15:51, <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> a écrit :

> Hi Rémi,
> 
> I have explained my views (which is shared by other WG members) about this point in this mailing list. Below a pointer to that discussion: 
> 
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/softwires/current/msg02873.html

Thanks.
Please see my answer to Maoke:
- A Rule parameter to request "WKP Assignability" is IMHO an approach worth considering  (=> no PSID offset instead of the default offset).

Cheers,
RD


> Cheers,
> Med 
> 
> 
>> -----Message d'origine-----
>> De : Rémi Després [mailto:[e-mail]] 
>> Envoyé : mercredi 7 mars 2012 17:29
>> À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed OLNC/NAD/TIP
>> Cc : Ole Trøan; Softwires WG
>> Objet : Re: [Softwires] Port-set algorithm of MAP - what is 
>> it? Why so complex?
>> 
>> Hi Med,
>> 
>> I am, as you remember, well aware of these rules. 
>> 
>> But the fact is that, with the fixed PSID offset = 4 of 4rd-u 
>> (which could easily also apply to MAP), we have the following:
>> R-4: sharing ratios are from 1 to 2048 (PSID length limited 
>> to 11 for odd-even pairs always be in port sets) => OK
>> R-7: ports 0-1023 are excluded for sharing ratios 2 to 2048 => OK
>> R-8: well-known ports can be assigned to CEs with sharing 
>> ratio 1 => OK
>> 
>> So far, this seems to me so completely sufficient.
>> 
>> Yet, if some ISP has a deployment plan where it is 
>> convincingly necessary to have more flexibility, that is of 
>> course worth discussing. 
>> But if there is none, time has come IMHO to simplify what can 
>> be simplified.
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> RD
>> 
>> 
>> Le 2012-03-07 à 16:59, <[e-mail]> a écrit :
>> 
>>> Hi Rémi, all,
>>> 
>>> During the MAP discussion, we identified the following requirements:
>>> 
>>>  R-4:   MAP must allow service providers to define their 
>> own address
>>>         sharing ratio.  MAP MUST NOT in particular 
>> restrict by design
>>>         the possible address sharing ratio; ideally 1:1 and 1:65536
>>>         should be supported.  The mapping must at least support a
>>>         sharing ratio of 64, 1024 ports per end-user.
>>> 
>>>  R-7:   The MAP solution should support excluding the well 
>> known ports
>>>         0-1023.
>>> 
>>>  R-8:   It MUST be possible to assign well known ports to a CE.
>>> 
>>> The offset has been proposed as a flexible means to meet 
>> the requirements above.
>>> 
>>> Cheers,
>>> Med
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> -----Message d'origine-----
>>>> De : [e-mail] 
>>>> [mailto:[e-mail]] De la part de Rémi Després
>>>> Envoyé : mercredi 7 mars 2012 16:32
>>>> À : Ole Trøan
>>>> Cc : Softwires WG
>>>> Objet : Re: [Softwires] Port-set algorithm of MAP - what is 
>>>> it? Why so complex?
>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> my personal preference is for fixed offset, and that the 
>>>> only way to assign system ports is by assigning a full IPv4 
>>>> address. the design team reached a compromise on allowing the 
>>>> algorithm to be tunable though.
>>>> 
>>>> A compromise between what and what?
>>>> Since there is no MAP-discussion archive, it's hard to guess 
>>>> what the issue has been.
>>>> Since we both believe no parameter is needed, can we consider 
>>>> this is the WG provisional as long as no significant use case 
>>>> is provided?
>>