Re: [Softwires] More changes to revision 03.

Ole Trøan <ot@cisco.com> Mon, 30 January 2012 11:41 UTC

Return-Path: <ot@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: softwires@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: softwires@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7490121F86B4 for <softwires@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Jan 2012 03:41:28 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.299
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id o5MKFVL8Tobq for <softwires@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Jan 2012 03:41:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ams-iport-1.cisco.com (ams-iport-1.cisco.com [144.254.224.140]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F9B721F86AA for <softwires@ietf.org>; Mon, 30 Jan 2012 03:41:27 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=ot@cisco.com; l=3225; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1327923687; x=1329133287; h=subject:mime-version:from:in-reply-to:date:cc: content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=F2z74wjgWWVEXUg1KT0JQyYuymPTM/PhGU+HHBrvgSs=; b=RHtklBcK4wF4/xLNUSBZdUG8q5394HcWNl3AvVYS/k4kwirKTASESfyR YDQVqf5kdumMLG7XoyiSRf36jReNXTIHNDk3b0q5t0aLJzRs4QEXcgnoJ Ehb3Bi8qtk+E1L1h8JZoNUp5Pr6gUji3zZLaVQHDPdrGy7sfDIC1Cakta Q=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: ArAFABKBJk+Q/khM/2dsb2JhbABDhDlSqUyBBYFyAQEBAwEMBgEQVgUHBAkCEQQBAQMCIwMCAkYJCAYTIodamj4BjGGRKYEvhw0GAx0EAwQwgxkDFQILAwJkglUzYwSVGoVWjHw
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.71,591,1320624000"; d="scan'208";a="127976423"
Received: from ams-core-3.cisco.com ([144.254.72.76]) by ams-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 30 Jan 2012 11:41:26 +0000
Received: from [173.38.129.125] ([173.38.129.125]) by ams-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id q0UBfP7l006577; Mon, 30 Jan 2012 11:41:26 GMT
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1251.1)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Ole_Tr=F8an?= <ot@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <E1CE3E6E6D4E1C438B0ADC9FFFA345EA1FCAC57D@SZXEML510-MBS.china.huawei.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2012 12:41:25 +0100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <B98B66D2-E194-4214-86C8-E5E9D79087B0@cisco.com>
References: <705AC902-5143-42E5-841B-5B1D3348B628@cisco.com> <E1CE3E6E6D4E1C438B0ADC9FFFA345EA1FCAC523@SZXEML510-MBS.china.huawei.com> <89A006C2-B3FB-4B08-9308-2B81023D9C80@cisco.com> <E1CE3E6E6D4E1C438B0ADC9FFFA345EA1FCAC57D@SZXEML510-MBS.china.huawei.com>
To: Leaf yeh <leaf.y.yeh@huawei.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1251.1)
Cc: softwires WG <softwires@ietf.org>, "map-dt@external.cisco.com team" <map-dt@external.cisco.com>, "fine_sz@huawei.com" <fine_sz@huawei.com>
Subject: Re: [Softwires] More changes to revision 03.
X-BeenThere: softwires@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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, 30 Jan 2012 11:41:28 -0000

Leaf,

OK, I'll get it in the next revision.

cheers,
Ole


On Jan 30, 2012, at 12:38 , Leaf yeh wrote:

> Ole - what's the difference?
>  
> I suggested the following text for the readable .
>  
> Given:
>     End-user IPv6 prefix:   2001:db8:0012:34::/56
>     Basic Mapping Rule:    {2001:db8:00::/40 (Rule IPv6 prefix),
>                         192.0.2.0/24 (Rule IPv4 prefix),
>                         16 (Rule EA-bits length)}
>     PSID offset:           4  (default value as per section 5.1.3)
>  
> We get the IPv4 address, its sharing ratio and port-set:
>  
>     EA bits offset:       40
>     IPv4 suffix bits (p):    Length of IPv4 address (32) - IPv4 prefix length (24) = 8
>     IPv4 address:        192.0.2.18 (0x12)
>   
>   Sharing ratio:         256 (16 - (32 - 24) = 8. 2^8 = 256)
>  
>  
> Cheers,
> Leaf
>  
>  
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ole Trøan [mailto:ot@cisco.com]
> Sent: Monday, January 30, 2012 6:16 PM
> To: Leaf yeh
> Cc: fine_sz@huawei.com; map-dt@external.cisco.com team
> Subject: Re: More changes to revision 03.
>  
> Leaf,
>  
> > Again C&Qs on the examples in the newly updated candidate of MAP-03:
> > 
> > A.     Section 5.2 - Given:
> >    End-user IPv6 prefix:  2001:db8:0012:34::/56
> >    Basic Mapping Rule:    {2001:db8:00::/40 (Rule IPv6 prefix),
> >                           192.0.2.0/24 (Rule IPv4 prefix),
> >                           16 (Rule EA-bits length)}
> >    Sharing ratio:         256 (16 - (32 - 24) = 8. 2^8 = 256)
> >    PSID offset:           4
> > 
> >   We get IPv4 address and port-set:
> >    EA bits offset:       40
> >    IPv4 suffix bits (p): Length of IPv4 address (32) -
> >                          IPv4 prefix length (24) = 8
> > ….
> > 
> > C1. The ‘End-user IPv6 prefix’ shall be express as ‘2001:db8:0012:3400::/56’ as per the section 2.3 of RFC4291;
>  
> fixed.
>  
> > C2. The sharing ratio sounds a calculated result, not a ‘given’ condition;
>  
> what's the difference?
>  
>  
> > 
> > B.     Section 5.3 - Given:
> >       IPv4 destination address: 192.0.2.18
> >       IPv4 destination port:    9030
> >       Forwarding Mapping Rule:  {2001:db8:00::/40 (Rule IPv6 prefix),
> >                                  192.0.2.0/24 (Rule IPv4 prefix),
> >                                  16 (Rule EA-bits length)}
> > 
> >     We get IPv6 address:
> >       IPv4 suffix bits (p): 32 - 24 = 8 (18 (0x12))
> >       PSID length:          8
> >       PSID:                 0x34 (9030 (0x2346))
> >       EA bits:              0x1234
> >       MAP IPv6 address:     2001:db8:0012:3400:00c0:0002:1200:3400
> > 
> > C3. I suppose the default ‘PSID offset: 4’ seems need to express in the ‘given’ conditions;
>  
> OK
>  
> > Q1. Have the draft stated the ‘u’ bits in the Interface-ID should be 0x00?
>  
> it states that it is based on 6052. I think that should be sufficient.
>  
> cheers,
> Ole
>  
>