Re: [Softwires] draft-ietf-softwire-lw4over6 excluding Well Known Ports
"Yuchi Chen" <chenycmx@gmail.com> Tue, 03 June 2014 12:37 UTC
Return-Path: <chenycmx@gmail.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 CC3061A0229 for <softwires@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Jun 2014 05:37:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 MTWfQIdz6EjH for <softwires@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Jun 2014 05:37:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pd0-x22d.google.com (mail-pd0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c02::22d]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E58111A01E7 for <softwires@ietf.org>; Tue, 3 Jun 2014 05:37:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pd0-f173.google.com with SMTP id v10so4617642pde.18 for <softwires@ietf.org>; Tue, 03 Jun 2014 05:37:44 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=date:from:to:cc:reply-to:subject:references:mime-version:message-id :content-type; bh=2Ex5xDNan9U5dFdI+/ej7XPP6VGa+LfwxdbBad0n8f0=; b=J2vAWCg9aIhr9LmDvsnL1unFvy6MWBo6r6w87w1NkE+DPjoKKB+/DVIDiSGZWoXWvT spIWBsH7w5165+z9FjSjMA2AwpPlEM0sBbpgaF47DbrKIHbbHotKMn8oAPvl/vjzNIHg 8M/VEYPKOqCFdTgQ3/raeAOrGIx0Xlgxwk+NRqkpqlBeHgLrNV8wiLIDxfnAi+ep3xn5 hgNimdalx7AZgKmPUAqFGgMkidIlolIef6uErt196oTqZPX4PCKE4XKaoGcQWz1GJowG H75CWC8GhQ2IPGntOtJgDspjMjYNEKzbnuo2gpShCzjRuVSPwsDTB/aBzuvztvzN9KUK zZHA==
X-Received: by 10.68.245.162 with SMTP id xp2mr50379964pbc.69.1401799064257; Tue, 03 Jun 2014 05:37:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from netlab-PC ([114.242.249.123]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id iv2sm27669096pbc.19.2014.06.03.05.37.39 for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 03 Jun 2014 05:37:42 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Tue, 03 Jun 2014 20:37:36 +0800
From: Yuchi Chen <chenycmx@gmail.com>
To: Wojciech Dec <wdec.ietf@gmail.com>, Cong Liu <gnocuil@gmail.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> <BBFBDEAA-0D2B-4A74-86E4-88824712EA26@gmx.com> <CAFFjW4igsiqS5yNUECerMzpZSkmPaL28sqef1usZdxt87y1jEw@mail.gmail.com> <538CB982.2060502@gmail.com> <CAFFjW4jxY=fjCszomzHyWhYtb+1QE+bN-afp_Qi5_32WxUydJg@mail.gmail.com> <538CD547.8070108@gmail.com> <CAFFjW4hqGQ0-oxTcgtFeWgbZRBj5d+82YWJT5Dfh763PORZCYw@mail.gmail.com> <CEE0FE7C-9204-494D-8229-E055E57FAF85@cisco.com> <CAFFjW4gE2byQ7YYZMQfZ3YksmjF2pGYYMp6=A+G1HhY8WHmqTg@mail.gmail.com> <D1054450-6A7E-4EF8-A3D2-D535C60E70DA@cisco.com> <CAFFjW4jAFMe3Zc4FcfXB8CHdHMzns71dP86hRJ7jPiqT738+eg@mail.gmail.com> <CAF+sHxHSOHXrrPQDYp7PzNkEDQG_yfE5gmLsRXZPYNX8gxbSGw@mail.gmail.com>, <CAFFjW4g78btD+hetVk56X5CRQHUh76bFfSeV0Ag5Y_0wKobhrw@mail.gmail.com>
X-Priority: 3
X-GUID: 78708491-3D56-4F21-9881-3BF7523F27CE
X-Has-Attach: no
X-Mailer: Foxmail 7.0.1.92[cn]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <2014060320372786716329@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_001_NextPart672112364754_=----"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/softwires/5dMC1_QjN5ZNi8Fv-KanJeVJyK8
Cc: draft-ietf-softwire-lw4over6 <draft-ietf-softwire-lw4over6@tools.ietf.org>, Ole Troan <ot@cisco.com>, Yong Cui <cuiyong@tsinghua.edu.cn>, softwires WG <softwires@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Softwires] draft-ietf-softwire-lw4over6 excluding Well Known Ports
X-BeenThere: softwires@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
Reply-To: chenycmx <chenycmx@gmail.com>
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: Tue, 03 Jun 2014 12:37:53 -0000
Hi Woj, I don't agree that setting a=5 is equivalent to setting a=0 and PSID-len=5. Assume that a=5 and PSID-len=5. In this case, each of the port ranges with PSID=0x00~0x0F will cover 64 ports within WKP range. In order to exclude these ports, the value A must be larger than 0. As a result, each of these port ranges will just include 2048-64=1984 available ports. Note that whatever the PSID-len is, there will always be half of all port ranges involved in this. Now assume that a=0 and PSID-len=5. In this case, excluding WKPs just means dropping the first port range (with PSID=0). Each of the other port ranges (with PSID>0) can equally include 2048 avaliable ports. If we are to have but one method to exclude WKPs, the one in Lw4o6 seems better to me. Regards, Yuchi Chen From: Wojciech Dec Date: 2014-06-03 18:48 To: Cong Liu CC: draft-ietf-softwire-lw4over6; Ole Troan; Yong Cui; Softwires WG Subject: Re: [Softwires] draft-ietf-softwire-lw4over6 excluding Well Known Ports Hi Cong, right, but wouldn't you agree that this example is equivalent to a=5, with whatever PSID-len you choose? The bigger point here is that if this "exclusion" is meant to be configurable on a dhcp server, as in using the S46 Port parameters option then doing so by "dropping" a PSID seems like a duff way to do it, given that the a-bits are already defined specifically for that purpose. Unless, there is some other reason here, I'm of the opionion that having a single way of excluding ports is better than two. Cheers. On 3 June 2014 12:23, Cong Liu <gnocuil@gmail.com> wrote: Hi Woj, Assume a=0 and PSID-len=5, then the ports are divided into [0,2047], [2048,4095], ... Just drop the first piece, and allocate others to clients. That's how a=0 works. a=6 can also work, but I don't think it's a SHOULD for a=6 to solve the WKP issue. Best Regards, Cong 2014-06-03 18:01 GMT+08:00 Wojciech Dec <wdec.ietf@gmail.com>: Thanks. I'm not sure I get your example though. To exclude ports 0-1023, the excluded port "subnet" would be 0x0000/6. Which would be equivalent to a=6... On 3 June 2014 11:31, Ole Troan <ot@cisco.com> wrote: Wojciech, > Could you show a working example of that in action, along with the set of PSIDs containing the usable port ranges? in LW46, ports are provisioned per client. so, I don't understand what you want a working example of. that's just like assigning 192.168.0.10 - 192.168.0.255 in a DHCP pool. in the PSID case you will not assign ports 0000/10 cheers, Ole > > Cheers > > > > > On 3 June 2014 10:51, Ole Troan <ot@cisco.com> wrote: > Woj, > > in the LW46 case, you can still do a=0, and ensure that you don't provision any PSID which results in the well known ports. > > cheers, > Ole > > > > > On 2 June 2014 21:49, Tom Taylor <tom.taylor.stds@gmail.com> wrote: > > There's a difference between setting a=6 and setting aside the lowest PSIDs because they occupy that port space. The value of a determines how ports are assigned to each PSID, but does not affect the usable PSID numbering space. > > > > I think that you should illustrate how you think this would work before we reach a conclusion. > > A setting of a=6 arrives precisely at what the goal is here, exclude ports 0-1024. So if there is a need to have another way of achieving that, by creating some excluded magic PSID value that corresponds to 0-1024, we would like to know why is that relevant and how it is supposed to work in a system where the PSID conveys to the CE the port-range. > > > > Regards. > > > > > > RECOMMENDED is part of the RFC 2119 boilerplate. The (unintentionally) missing term is NOT RECOMMENDED. > > > > Tom > > > > > > On 02/06/2014 3:27 PM, Wojciech Dec wrote: > > Well, I'm referring to the "RECOMMENDED" part. If the recommendation is NOT > > to allocate ports 0-1024, then this effectively recommends that a-bits=6. > > Moreover the meaning of SHOULD vs RECOMMEND should be questioned. The > > latter is not a regular normative term, and arguably if the recommendation > > is for excluding 0-1024 then a=6 looks like the SHOULD. If anyone wants the > > full port set, then a=0 would be an obvious consequence. > > > > > > On 2 June 2014 19:50, Tom Taylor <tom.taylor.stds@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Not sure how you read that, but it can be fixed by putting a comma after > > "SHOULD be 0" and replacing "to allocate" with "thus allocating". > > > > Tom > > > > > > On 02/06/2014 12:14 PM, Wojciech Dec wrote: > > > > Uhm, this appears to mean that the RECOMMENDED a-bits SHOULD be 6. > > > > > > On 26 May 2014 13:24, Ian Farrer <ianfarrer@gmx.com> wrote: > > > > 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 > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Softwires mailing list > > Softwires@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Softwires mailing list > > Softwires@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list Softwires@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
- [Softwires] Working group last call for draft-iet… Suresh Krishnan
- Re: [Softwires] Working group last call for draft… Xing Li
- Re: [Softwires] Working group last call for draft… Ian Farrer
- Re: [Softwires] Working group last call for draft… Ole Troan
- Re: [Softwires] Working group last call for draft… Ole Troan
- [Softwires] WGLC for draft-ietf-softwire-map-dhcp… Tomek Mrugalski
- Re: [Softwires] Working group last call for draft… Ian Farrer
- Re: [Softwires] Working group last call for draft… Ole Troan
- Re: [Softwires] Working group last call for draft… Ian Farrer
- Re: [Softwires] Working group last call for draft… Tom Taylor
- Re: [Softwires] Working group last call for draft… Ole Troan
- Re: [Softwires] Working group last call for draft… Tom Taylor
- Re: [Softwires] Working group last call for draft… Ole Troan
- Re: [Softwires] Working group last call for draft… Ian Farrer
- Re: [Softwires] Working group last call for draft… Rajiv Asati (rajiva)
- Re: [Softwires] [dhcwg] WGLC for draft-ietf-softw… Bernie Volz (volz)
- Re: [Softwires] Working group last call for draft… Ole Troan
- Re: [Softwires] Working group last call for draft… Ian Farrer
- [Softwires] draft-ietf-softwire-lw4over6 excludin… Ian Farrer
- Re: [Softwires] draft-ietf-softwire-lw4over6 excl… Tom Taylor
- Re: [Softwires] draft-ietf-softwire-lw4over6 excl… Wojciech Dec
- Re: [Softwires] draft-ietf-softwire-lw4over6 excl… Tom Taylor
- Re: [Softwires] draft-ietf-softwire-lw4over6 excl… Wojciech Dec
- Re: [Softwires] draft-ietf-softwire-lw4over6 excl… Tom Taylor
- Re: [Softwires] draft-ietf-softwire-lw4over6 excl… Wojciech Dec
- Re: [Softwires] draft-ietf-softwire-lw4over6 excl… Ole Troan
- Re: [Softwires] draft-ietf-softwire-lw4over6 excl… Wojciech Dec
- Re: [Softwires] draft-ietf-softwire-lw4over6 excl… Ole Troan
- Re: [Softwires] draft-ietf-softwire-lw4over6 excl… Wojciech Dec
- Re: [Softwires] draft-ietf-softwire-lw4over6 excl… Ole Troan
- Re: [Softwires] draft-ietf-softwire-lw4over6 excl… Cong Liu
- Re: [Softwires] draft-ietf-softwire-lw4over6 excl… Wojciech Dec
- Re: [Softwires] draft-ietf-softwire-lw4over6 excl… Wojciech Dec
- Re: [Softwires] draft-ietf-softwire-lw4over6 excl… ian.farrer
- Re: [Softwires] draft-ietf-softwire-lw4over6 excl… Yuchi Chen
- Re: [Softwires] draft-ietf-softwire-lw4over6 excl… Wojciech Dec
- Re: [Softwires] draft-ietf-softwire-lw4over6 excl… ian.farrer