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

Could you show a working example of that in action, along with the set of
PSIDs containing the usable port ranges?

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
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>