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

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...

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
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>