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

Ole Troan <ot@cisco.com> Tue, 03 June 2014 10:17 UTC

Return-Path: <ot@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: softwires@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: softwires@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 889BE1A018A for <softwires@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Jun 2014 03:17:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.152
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.152 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham
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 oGojDAHPg_7t for <softwires@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Jun 2014 03:17:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from aer-iport-4.cisco.com (aer-iport-4.cisco.com [173.38.203.54]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B6F991A0190 for <softwires@ietf.org>; Tue, 3 Jun 2014 03:17:10 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=6270; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1401790625; x=1403000225; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc:message-id: references:to; bh=9hckuizAGuCCA1RKCVZl3111L9fjH0DyFdTRM0KYxQA=; b=ArLv9B386/1vMx/glKShKFwfdJEBfSfD6bnMNV7tY5wsIby53ulZbwAJ Jp6WXhkTAvc/QgcpsfrRjpF86vLu73YLHRMKXUnQHRecdmsxGBnmC9/x2 kfFFmUJEv8jS9KAN3iLT3CZth5n/wzZX9gwN5CuOKiWCFogK5S8Rqn5Ni o=;
X-Files: signature.asc : 496
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AqMEALOfjVOtJssW/2dsb2JhbABZg1m7fIZoUQGBI3SCJQEBAQMBAQEBawsFCwsOCi4hBjAGEwmIJQMJCA3MCA2FQheMPIFFAQFPB4MrgRUEkVWGNoF4jT2FdIM6Oy+BCg
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.98,964,1392163200"; d="asc'?scan'208";a="68241595"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-3.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 03 Jun 2014 10:17:03 +0000
Received: from dhcp-10-61-110-62.cisco.com (dhcp-10-61-110-62.cisco.com [10.61.110.62]) by aer-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s53AH030032317 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Tue, 3 Jun 2014 10:17:02 GMT
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_DB507E6B-7AF2-406F-AE25-408BA4C3CA2C"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha512"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.2\))
From: Ole Troan <ot@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAFFjW4jAFMe3Zc4FcfXB8CHdHMzns71dP86hRJ7jPiqT738+eg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 03 Jun 2014 12:17:00 +0200
Message-Id: <605EFD7C-AA23-4619-8CBC-EB35342B55F6@cisco.com>
References: <53422B8F.2020109@ericsson.com> <37A243DD-5249-4070-AB19-6DFFCFE17AA7@gmx.com> <DC98AF70-DBF1-48AD-8699-2FC4E645FF40@cisco.com> <C3B32B71-79EE-408F-A92C-D40021DC9A5A@gmx.com> <92E51E75-2914-421F-B222-7478EC3D6A02@cisco.com> <BBFBDEAA-0D2B-4A74-86E4-88824712EA26@gmx.com> <CAFFjW4igsiqS5yNUECerMzpZSkmPaL28sqef1usZdxt87y1jEw@mail.gmail.com> <538CB982.2060502@gmail.com> <CAFFjW4jxY=fjCszomzHyWhYtb+1QE+bN-afp_Qi5_32WxUydJg@mail.gmail.com> <538CD547.8070108@gmail.com> <CAFFjW4hqGQ0-oxTcgtFeWgbZRBj5d+82YWJT5Dfh763PORZCYw@mail.gmail.com> <CEE0FE7C-9204-494D-8229-E055E57FAF85@cisco.com> <CAFFjW4gE2byQ7YYZMQfZ3YksmjF2pGYYMp6=A+G1HhY8WHmqTg@mail.gmail.com> <D1054450-6A7E-4EF8-A3D2-D535C60E70DA@cisco.com> <CAFFjW4jAFMe3Zc4FcfXB8CHdHMzns71dP86hRJ7jPiqT738+eg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Wojciech Dec <wdec.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.2)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/softwires/pGj8EX7mUff6VOIk9IzxNBKFv1A
Cc: draft-ietf-softwire-lw4over6@tools.ietf.org, Softwires WG <softwires@ietf.org>, Yong Cui <cuiyong@tsinghua.edu.cn>
Subject: Re: [Softwires] draft-ietf-softwire-lw4over6 excluding Well Known Ports
X-BeenThere: softwires@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Tue, 03 Jun 2014 10:17:13 -0000

Wojciech,

> 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...

sorry, yes, you'd not assign 0000/6.
that's not equivalent to a=6 though.

cheers,
Ole


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