Re: [Softwires] More changes to revision 03.
"Rajiv Asati (rajiva)" <rajiva@cisco.com> Mon, 30 January 2012 22:26 UTC
Return-Path: <rajiva@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 34EE111E80C7 for <softwires@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Jan 2012 14:26:06 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.194
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.194 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.105, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 9k444nTdVI3q for <softwires@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Jan 2012 14:26:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com [173.37.86.80]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E077911E80C2 for <softwires@ietf.org>; Mon, 30 Jan 2012 14:26:04 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=5486; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1327962365; x=1329171965; h=mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:subject:date: message-id:from:to:cc; bh=sDeBKyja8hmsobNNfT3tvnOQRMCgSC70nG3ehUYykJo=; b=fie3PTpZQVSogIi0Jn5lFZ6KuTLJTyQszvYV1gteZxCb8XmjOhXAM5Fy 3HGl8r9v9o1LV/U3QONKUia08YTYw+L64VpjBW08Fbm5D5eNOqAxrD90g FvdPBdXfmqTzE7jowM01ho7pu4nPLubjYIbiG+xbtZ3tnVYl0w+zF3I/3 U=;
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.71,591,1320624000"; d="scan'208";a="52374108"
Received: from rcdn-core2-6.cisco.com ([173.37.113.193]) by rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com with ESMTP; 30 Jan 2012 22:26:04 +0000
Received: from xbh-rcd-201.cisco.com (xbh-rcd-201.cisco.com [72.163.62.200]) by rcdn-core2-6.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id q0UMQ4wh027800; Mon, 30 Jan 2012 22:26:04 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-111.cisco.com ([72.163.62.153]) by xbh-rcd-201.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Mon, 30 Jan 2012 16:26:04 -0600
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2012 16:26:04 -0600
Message-ID: <067E6CE33034954AAC05C9EC85E2577C073C63F7@XMB-RCD-111.cisco.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: More changes to revision 03.
Thread-Index: AQHM22Vx2lSu+BsFOki9pMX9WA2whZYkrnvg//+FFICAAJk+0IAAdkuQ
From: "Rajiv Asati (rajiva)" <rajiva@cisco.com>
To: Leaf yeh <leaf.y.yeh@huawei.com>, Ole Trøan <ot@cisco.com>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 30 Jan 2012 22:26:04.0779 (UTC) FILETIME=[278583B0:01CCDF9E]
Cc: softwires WG <softwires@ietf.org>, map-dt@external.cisco.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 22:26:07 -0000
> C2. The sharing ratio sounds a calculated result, not a ‘given’ condition; I would very much favor having a sharing ratio as a 'given' variable, instead of a calculated result (and instead of EA-bit length, if needed be) since it is easier to understand, explain and work it out. In fact, most of the examples included in the document show the sharing-ratio being used as a given variable, so we just need to update the rules. Cheers, Rajiv > -----Original Message----- > From: softwires-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:softwires-bounces@ietf.org] On > Behalf Of Leaf yeh > Sent: Monday, January 30, 2012 6:38 AM > To: Ole Trøan > Cc: softwires WG; map-dt@external.cisco.com team; fine_sz@huawei.com > Subject: Re: [Softwires] More changes to revision 03. > > 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 > > > >
- Re: [Softwires] More changes to revision 03. Ole Trøan
- Re: [Softwires] More changes to revision 03. Leaf yeh
- Re: [Softwires] More changes to revision 03. Rajiv Asati (rajiva)
- Re: [Softwires] More changes to revision 03. - Se… Leaf yeh
- Re: [Softwires] More changes to revision 03. - Se… Ole Trøan