Re: [Softwires] PSID format as described in rfc 7597 vs. rfc 7598

Xing Li <xing@cernet.edu.cn> Mon, 25 July 2016 23:59 UTC

Return-Path: <xing@cernet.edu.cn>
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 034F212DA76; Mon, 25 Jul 2016 16:59:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 63wKfPX8FUiY; Mon, 25 Jul 2016 16:59:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tsinghua.edu.cn (smtp29.tsinghua.edu.cn [166.111.204.53]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E525512D1E3; Mon, 25 Jul 2016 16:59:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (unknown [123.114.38.210]) by app1 (Coremail) with SMTP id CsxvpgDHFFDOp5ZX2P0EAA--.6160S3; Tue, 26 Jul 2016 07:59:10 +0800 (CST)
Message-ID: <5796A7CE.30308@cernet.edu.cn>
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2016 07:59:10 +0800
From: Xing Li <xing@cernet.edu.cn>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (Windows/20100228)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: otroan@employees.org
References: <423a5f59a11b4ed289c75c21f2869695@HE102221.emea1.cds.t-internal.com> <19F4B994-F033-4470-BFEE-FA4BE320634D@employees.org>
In-Reply-To: <19F4B994-F033-4470-BFEE-FA4BE320634D@employees.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-CM-TRANSID: CsxvpgDHFFDOp5ZX2P0EAA--.6160S3
X-Coremail-Antispam: 1UD129KBjvJXoWxJr47ZFyxCw1rXF13Aw17Awb_yoW8Cry5pa yftF1qkan09r1Ykw40yw409w1FyF93JF13Wr98Gr1jk390gryvqFsI9F1Yva47Kr18tr1j qr42qw15CF4DAFJanT9S1TB71UUUUUUqnTZGkaVYY2UrUUUUjbIjqfuFe4nvWSU5nxnvy2 9KBjDU0xBIdaVrnRJUUUDGb7Iv0xC_Kw4lb4IE77IF4wAFF20E14v26r1j6r4UM7CY07I2 0VC2zVCF04k26cxKx2IYs7xG6rWj6s0DM7CIcVAFz4kK6r1j6r18M28lY4IEw2IIxxk0rw A2z4x0Y4vE2Ix0cI8IcVAFwI0_Jr0_JF4l84ACjcxK6xIIjxv20xvEc7CjxVAFwI0_Jr0_ Gr1l84ACjcxK6I8E87Iv67AKxVWUJVW8JwA2z4x0Y4vEx4A2jsIEc7CjxVAFwI0_Jr0_Gr 1le2I262IYc4CY6c8Ij28IcVAaY2xG8wAqx4xG64xvF2IEw4CE5I8CrVC2j2WlYx0E2Ix0 cI8IcVAFwI0_Jr0_Jr4lYx0Ex4A2jsIE14v26r1j6r4UMcvjeVCFs4IE7xkEbVWUJVW8Jw ACjcxG0xvEwIxGrwCF04k20xvY0x0EwIxGrwC20s026c02F40E14v26r1j6r18MI8I3I0E 7480Y4vE14v26r106r1rMI8E67AF67kF1VAFwI0_JF0_Jw1lIxkGc2Ij64vIr41lIxAIcV C0I7IYx2IY67AKxVWUJVWUCwCI42IY6xIIjxv20xvEc7CjxVAFwI0_Jr0_Gr1lIxAIcVCF 04k26cxKx2IYs7xG6rW3Jr0E3s1lIxAIcVC2z280aVAFwI0_Jr0_Gr1lIxAIcVC2z280aV CY1x0267AKxVW8JVW8JrUvcSsGvfC2KfnxnUUI43ZEXa7xUUeiwUUUUUU==
X-CM-SenderInfo: p0lqwqxfhu0vvwohv3gofq/
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/softwires/Mk3nwBdANsMyN_7EQLIikUlTv_Y>
Cc: softwires@ietf.org, draft-ietf-softwire-map-dhcp@ietf.org, draft-ietf-softwire-map@ietf.org, normen.kowalewski@telekom.de
Subject: Re: [Softwires] PSID format as described in rfc 7597 vs. rfc 7598
X-BeenThere: softwires@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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, 25 Jul 2016 23:59:23 -0000

otroan@employees.org 写道:
> Normen,
>
>   
>> 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.
>   

I agree with Ole. For your information, our implementation has a 
configuration function to select the format of PSID. Regards, xing

> Best regards,
> Ole
>