Re: [Softwires] More changes to revision 03.

Leaf yeh <leaf.y.yeh@huawei.com> Mon, 30 January 2012 11:41 UTC

Return-Path: <leaf.y.yeh@huawei.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 72A9521F86AA for <softwires@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Jan 2012 03:41:29 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.448
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.448 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.150, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 0923kVoywRti for <softwires@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Jan 2012 03:41:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from szxga03-in.huawei.com (szxga03-in.huawei.com [119.145.14.66]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4083221F86B2 for <softwires@ietf.org>; Mon, 30 Jan 2012 03:41:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from huawei.com (szxga03-in [172.24.2.9]) by szxga03-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LYM008P50C8KX@szxga03-in.huawei.com> for softwires@ietf.org; Mon, 30 Jan 2012 19:38:32 +0800 (CST)
Received: from szxrg01-dlp.huawei.com ([172.24.2.119]) by szxga03-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LYM00DPK0C86C@szxga03-in.huawei.com> for softwires@ietf.org; Mon, 30 Jan 2012 19:38:32 +0800 (CST)
Received: from szxeml201-edg.china.huawei.com ([172.24.2.119]) by szxrg01-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.1.9-GA) with ESMTP id AGP85999; Mon, 30 Jan 2012 19:38:32 +0800
Received: from SZXEML407-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.82.67.94) by szxeml201-edg.china.huawei.com (172.24.2.39) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.3; Mon, 30 Jan 2012 19:38:30 +0800
Received: from SZXEML510-MBS.china.huawei.com ([169.254.8.45]) by szxeml407-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.82.67.94]) with mapi id 14.01.0323.003; Mon, 30 Jan 2012 19:38:27 +0800
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2012 11:38:26 +0000
From: Leaf yeh <leaf.y.yeh@huawei.com>
In-reply-to: <89A006C2-B3FB-4B08-9308-2B81023D9C80@cisco.com>
X-Originating-IP: [10.70.39.113]
To: =?utf-8?B?T2xlIFRyw7hhbg==?= <ot@cisco.com>
Message-id: <E1CE3E6E6D4E1C438B0ADC9FFFA345EA1FCAC57D@SZXEML510-MBS.china.huawei.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Boundary_(ID_xkKZUXZCQOO7Ttj3WEN07g)"
Content-language: zh-CN
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Thread-topic: More changes to revision 03.
Thread-index: AQHM22Vx2lSu+BsFOki9pMX9WA2whZYkrnvg//+FFICAAJk+0A==
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
References: <705AC902-5143-42E5-841B-5B1D3348B628@cisco.com> <E1CE3E6E6D4E1C438B0ADC9FFFA345EA1FCAC523@SZXEML510-MBS.china.huawei.com> <89A006C2-B3FB-4B08-9308-2B81023D9C80@cisco.com>
Cc: softwires WG <softwires@ietf.org>, "map-dt@external.cisco.com team" <map-dt@external.cisco.com>, "fine_sz@huawei.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 11:41:29 -0000

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