Re: [Softwires] MAP-E question -- first prefix

Tom Taylor <tom.taylor.stds@gmail.com> Tue, 09 April 2013 22:13 UTC

Return-Path: <tom.taylor.stds@gmail.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 6EE1321F99BA for <softwires@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Apr 2013 15:13:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.048
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.048 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL=0.877, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1]
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 rJ5rn9mjYTvt for <softwires@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Apr 2013 15:13:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ie0-x235.google.com (mail-ie0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c03::235]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EAC7521F99B9 for <softwires@ietf.org>; Tue, 9 Apr 2013 15:13:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ie0-f181.google.com with SMTP id 17so9114896iea.26 for <softwires@ietf.org>; Tue, 09 Apr 2013 15:13:27 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=x-received:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=l3gj2AbeWsSgLPuddQcQau3N/JPmHp3aAiAMOvP1A9E=; b=so6XjtUpu1G+jWOgEr4mBgjuqTMHKMfiTedLLeQtuNLnDVPNjH+rCFn80WhNhZdNmN rpbxl+AhjxepQCWfjoUU9aqRUq1577qrvQfb0Q2r7A6oGqIH+uUNjCZhYUffIEYWwK/f 4gaEZzNYCGpu595qlMtrf3pheh4SHvtzQMd1nYqL81G31tbkvsbhTHMKRR5MulZ+OEIq BcvRSA1SYKAXSRlR1D+6dTDbf6JCvDjC/EaEHy56qkN7kuOoO7y4iWX03Gvs7tr2SjIb SfDfRRlanoqXVQZg51IU8HUUFsqoRfRETMAOxECMsxDqh7hUvxuwYPscuUIfjozlmPzZ 6heg==
X-Received: by 10.42.159.194 with SMTP id m2mr15901236icx.13.1365545607634; Tue, 09 Apr 2013 15:13:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.65] (dsl-173-206-2-115.tor.primus.ca. [173.206.2.115]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id xc3sm24678670igb.10.2013.04.09.15.13.25 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 09 Apr 2013 15:13:26 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <51649285.7050302@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 09 Apr 2013 18:13:25 -0400
From: Tom Taylor <tom.taylor.stds@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130328 Thunderbird/17.0.5
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org>
References: <51633480.8070209@gmail.com> <28533DEA-0DD3-43DD-9CA4-929B0DBA9BDD@employees.org> <5163FBC3.3040602@gmail.com> <409980DC-2EDB-464F-9E12-E69CBF81268D@employees.org>
In-Reply-To: <409980DC-2EDB-464F-9E12-E69CBF81268D@employees.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Softwires <softwires@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Softwires] MAP-E question -- first prefix
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: Tue, 09 Apr 2013 22:13:28 -0000

On 09/04/2013 3:14 PM, Ole Troan wrote:
> Tom,
>
...>
>> I think that captures the intent. However, I see a possible difficulty: differing lengths of the End-user IPv6 prefix for different CEs. We have to add two conditions:
>>
>> -- the configured subnetwork identifier is at least
>>             64 - min (n + o)
>> bits long, where the minimization is taken over all FMRs in the domain
>>
>> -- the subnetwork identifier used with a given calculated End-user IPv6 prefix uses the right-most (64 - (n + o)) bits of the configured subnetwork identifier, where (n + o) is taken from the FMR used for the calculation.
>>
>> Seems simpler just to restrict to the all-zeros value, but please comment.
>
> I can't see how different End-user IPv6 prefix lengths within a domain can work.
>

The End-user IPv6 prefix length obviously has to be the same for all 
nodes using the same BMR, but couldn't, for example, the PSID width 
(i.e., the sharing ratio) vary from one BMR to another?