Re: [Softwires] ietf-softwire: IPv4 + PSID primary key for lw4over6 binding

Andy Wingo <wingo@igalia.com> Tue, 12 July 2016 12:28 UTC

Return-Path: <wingo@igalia.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 3737B12D10F for <softwires@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Jul 2016 05:28:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.121
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.121 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, SPF_NEUTRAL=0.779] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=pobox.com
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 kipRnIlBfB8b for <softwires@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Jul 2016 05:28:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (pb-sasl1.pobox.com [64.147.108.66]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1EB8812D108 for <softwires@ietf.org>; Tue, 12 Jul 2016 05:28:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-sasl1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BAABC2427D; Tue, 12 Jul 2016 08:28:33 -0400 (EDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=7eTMrV/2bLHmYF0enlgMQCy569k=; b=RbfHEa WBghy6CQNh16Yjw3C1EMIISQECyHrb6YKuVQlokwnQT05pKgs7SfYQAjJg+SPHeo moJ406kgxWPSVYFK/cYxT5fTyVUq9ngxs+T+P+IAmpoUWMb2Caqi9mxuRfqrEF99 GewQ8vxU6OqoBlD71O+aHCeRnmXEhdAgLrSns=
Received: from pb-sasl1.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-sasl1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B2A4F2427C; Tue, 12 Jul 2016 08:28:33 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from rusty (unknown [88.160.190.192]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-sasl1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 17D9E2427B; Tue, 12 Jul 2016 08:28:32 -0400 (EDT)
From: Andy Wingo <wingo@igalia.com>
To: Linhui Sun <lh.sunlinh@gmail.com>
References: <877fcrcfl4.fsf@igalia.com> <CAO_Yprb9bHiAQO0b-q2EC3PXipmN5bjCgqzk85hFRyk8UMOhUA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2016 14:28:30 +0200
In-Reply-To: <CAO_Yprb9bHiAQO0b-q2EC3PXipmN5bjCgqzk85hFRyk8UMOhUA@mail.gmail.com> (Linhui Sun's message of "Tue, 12 Jul 2016 19:40:18 +0800")
Message-ID: <87shvfavm9.fsf@igalia.com>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.5 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 25D97CAA-482C-11E6-BB3A-C1836462E9F6-02397024!pb-sasl1.pobox.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/softwires/j8tR6H92FWAl9ui5rmcdLAYni_Q>
Cc: Softwires WG <softwires@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Softwires] ietf-softwire: IPv4 + PSID primary key for lw4over6 binding
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: Tue, 12 Jul 2016 12:28:36 -0000

Hi Lunhui,

Thank you for your feedback.  I am still developing my YANG instincts
currently.

On Tue 12 Jul 2016 13:40, Linhui Sun <lh.sunlinh@gmail.com> writes:

> [LH]: It seems that you think this would be the situation that an IPv6
> info of lwB4 is corresponding to two or more binding entries. I don't
> know why we need multiple IPv4 addresses for a single lwB4, but IMHO, if
> you do that you can also allocate multiple IPv6 addresses to the lwB4.
> By doing this, we can still have the guarantee that one IPv6 info is
> only mapping to an individual binding entry.

I believe that the use case goes more like this: you have a subscriber
who is allocated a small port set, and this is causing them probems;
they call to complain.  You could move them to an IPv4 address with more
ports per customer (and cause them to renew their lease, etc), or you
could just give them an additional potentially port-restricted
softwire.  This second case would make it useful to associate one B4
with multiple softwires.

I am not an operator however so I don't know how important this would
be.  Perhaps simply causing them to renew their lease is sufficient.

Andy