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

Looks good to me.

Tom

On 26/05/2014 7:24 AM, Ian Farrer 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
>