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

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
>