Re: [Softwires] draft-ietf-softwire-lw4over6 excluding Well Known Ports
Wojciech Dec <wdec.ietf@gmail.com> Tue, 03 June 2014 10:40 UTC
Return-Path: <wdec.ietf@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 1B8391A01A0 for <softwires@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Jun 2014 03:40:03 -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 UIbvUIkHYWSl for <softwires@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Jun 2014 03:39:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wg0-x232.google.com (mail-wg0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c00::232]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A3A4C1A01B1 for <softwires@ietf.org>; Tue, 3 Jun 2014 03:39:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wg0-f50.google.com with SMTP id x12so6410247wgg.33 for <softwires@ietf.org>; Tue, 03 Jun 2014 03:39:51 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=xnVdeCGgGJTrliv/KPEtfyZhYVrQ/j5R5HreEC3uApU=; b=WTYKpT4oMFaLt4pIwUpbiWDxWJEEcMbqDjOX79XSkJxKbY7EYZLpYU2ErH6Qx+/lDX LcTOdckKWtZASWBeJ8UJmN+wT4wS44pk4Af6aAWMwgTQa3w8njtXRRtAdCAEJRPFFW9V QCjqSNhbq4ZWHZO+SeKg97iD6R8jk7ySJlDxBSRJPOHJ5SkedeOkOH8Y2d9cpS3Y+ueg VShkcI3b9W/xvH2dms80jc94sk37OBvnuQZE1zcpvY1x9uR9Pel0+KtrK9O532Kb1WIt MW2Gnm0AYDouEnBmLqwTI102xds8UatFmct3RWGfnEnD9opQjG3lGVvM2Cp9pFoa946y rOFw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.194.58.79 with SMTP id o15mr59835189wjq.62.1401791991058; Tue, 03 Jun 2014 03:39:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.194.165.71 with HTTP; Tue, 3 Jun 2014 03:39:50 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <605EFD7C-AA23-4619-8CBC-EB35342B55F6@cisco.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> <605EFD7C-AA23-4619-8CBC-EB35342B55F6@cisco.com>
Date: Tue, 03 Jun 2014 12:39:50 +0200
Message-ID: <CAFFjW4geTuPn5km-cjjt7bUcqSJxo0v8dmjhHewOvHhhaOFNbw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Wojciech Dec <wdec.ietf@gmail.com>
To: Ole Troan <ot@cisco.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="047d7ba972daad190d04faec2153"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/softwires/Hma4oH7xN7K5iXAfXb0l9RC8n48
Cc: draft-ietf-softwire-lw4over6@tools.ietf.org, Softwires WG <softwires@ietf.org>, Yong Cui <cuiyong@tsinghua.edu.cn>
Subject: Re: [Softwires] draft-ietf-softwire-lw4over6 excluding Well Known Ports
X-BeenThere: softwires@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Tue, 03 Jun 2014 10:40:03 -0000
How so, could you give an example? On 3 June 2014 12:17, Ole Troan <ot@cisco.com> wrote: > Wojciech, > > > 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... > > sorry, yes, you'd not assign 0000/6. > that's not equivalent to a=6 though. > > cheers, > Ole > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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] 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