Re: [Softwires] PSID format as described in rfc 7597 vs. rfc 7598 Mon, 25 July 2016 19:05 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 720F312D929; Mon, 25 Jul 2016 12:05:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.336
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.336 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key); domainkeys=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4msugGIraG0u; Mon, 25 Jul 2016 12:05:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:1868:2002::144]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5694712D924; Mon, 25 Jul 2016 12:05:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ([IPv6:2001:1868:a000:17::142]) by with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 25 Jul 2016 19:05:18 +0000
Received: from (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 373039CC82; Mon, 25 Jul 2016 12:05:17 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed;; h=subject :mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc:message-id :references:to; s=selector1; bh=sTwh3/qj4L+mGN1p7/8lFbS0eB8=; b= LXZyRgh8idEL/3QT1/Iy2CTiNJvzyH1CjpyE3n6cJrXm5007+vTwh32X1HfibVbf RMRFqsrxFcPlD95K7KOjyUsAitGt/S08fbXPp4ZuK/voKpZYUdM4mpbjrfgLN4pf nHI0lPqMKidm4l6ZG1xZV582BXdE4Ad6lM4M2+JwzeA=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;; h=subject :mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc:message-id :references:to; q=dns; s=selector1; b=j5CEHjJepkMsDmM7Lwd/cNcQQT 1tVKGLwY8sRsCS0ZP3FPv+MVcumjDwVCbUY0xiQ+UVSUkKO1sXVoOsJsrhDqdfL9 oVH6qGCRnENtNSQECW9sW7aZx/k+GMNvtN3UdjuVh4rU3uC6tfh1ueEK9WhD5rNS IawinttSL6jDb4Z7k=
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: otroan) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E0CE09CC81; Mon, 25 Jul 2016 12:05:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [IPv6:::1] (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF7812C16253; Mon, 25 Jul 2016 21:05:22 +0200 (CEST)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\))
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_BAB66452-4D23-4AA2-82DF-FFF271A53D8B"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512
X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2016 21:05:22 +0200
Message-Id: <>
References: <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124)
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Softwires] PSID format as described in rfc 7597 vs. rfc 7598
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: softwires wg discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2016 19:05:20 -0000


> I just want to make sure that I'm not misunderstanding this:
> RFC 7597, section 6 describes the last 16 Bits of the construction of the Ipv6 interface identifier as follows:
>    The PSID field is left-padded with zeros to create a 16-bit field.
> RFC7598 Section 5.1. describes the format for provision the PSID to clients with the following text:
>    o  PSID: 16 bits long.  The PSID value algorithmically identifies a set of ports assigned to a CE. The first k bits on the left of this field contain the PSID binary value.  The remaining (16 - k) bits on the right are padding zeros.
> To me this seems that the two RFCs use two different formats to express the same information in a field with the same name.
> Lets assume an example where the port split ratio is 6 (=k), slicing the IPv4 address up into up 2**6 = 64 slices, each segment having 1024 ports.
> In RFC 7597, to select the third port-range, the parameters become OFFSET 0, PSID-LEN 6, PSID 0x2 (left padded with zeros to 16 bits)
> In RFC 7598, to select the third port-range, the parameters become OFFSET 0, PSID-LEN 6, PSID 0x800 (leftmost k-bits on this field contain the PSID binary value, which is right padded with zeros to fit 16 bits)
> So,
> 1, Is my understanding of the two RFC's PSID formats correct?

I believe so.

> 2, What's the reason for the difference in the formats?

Good question. The 7597 PSID in the IID is mainly there for pretty printing / troubleshooting, and it makes sense to left pad it.
I can only guess about the 7598 format, possibly to keep the PSID field consistent with the other fields (prefix) which are all right padded.

Best regards,