Re: [Softwires] PSID format as described in rfc 7597 vs. rfc 7598 Tue, 26 July 2016 08:50 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A487A12B036 for <>; Tue, 26 Jul 2016 01:50:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.566
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.566 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB=0.77, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key); domainkeys=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id V7LUsHbvoFsm for <>; Tue, 26 Jul 2016 01:50:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:1868:2002::144]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 23871127058 for <>; Tue, 26 Jul 2016 01:50:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 26 Jul 2016 08:50:31 +0000
Received: from (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 17C759CC7C; Tue, 26 Jul 2016 01:50:31 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed;; h=subject :mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc:message-id :references:to; s=selector1; bh=9T60mGl9DLjpSJDFF2/b+mL6pZE=; b= SIBB0DSDc8TngXAub127Hvr9/EITPThiKOFgRCgDPSEC/7uaSeMbDtNMnRFro/gP VKnTqR+6icu7Arc5iZW/8P/wh6YQouQ/g1h1GYAenuMUT/Uj9TnzynlOhLGC2VBz DndE/NoLNKpfSqai3XySssSHQ/IgfEOkmYOD8OagWZc=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;; h=subject :mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc:message-id :references:to; q=dns; s=selector1; b=mVLxC8WWhZwdLiOcydFpV/EjH5 6CWIk7u1i7IAsqh6lJg0sTm1316wwX5/dJLQwPLRR7XPKn+I01T/LqXPo3g9OgzI lLVfJQxZarQcUGX1zSG4NS7OkCrMmcpH+Nk3wkdhrc36jnbdLfKbvODGAJNzoOeS bBzdyKmp2jHb9mRMs=
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: otroan) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C1F729CC4E; Tue, 26 Jul 2016 01:50:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [IPv6:::1] (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A7CB2C31F32; Tue, 26 Jul 2016 10:50:27 +0200 (CEST)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\))
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_53835F4C-40EA-40E7-961E-8099B5C452AA"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512
X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2016 10:50:26 +0200
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <> <> <>
To: yannis nikolopoulos <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124)
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Softwires] PSID format as described in rfc 7597 vs. rfc 7598
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: softwires wg discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2016 08:50:35 -0000


>>>> 2, What's the reason for the difference in the formats?
>>> Good question. The 7597 PSID in the IID is mainly there for pretty printing / troubleshooting, and it makes sense to left pad it.
>>> I can only guess about the 7598 format, possibly to keep the PSID field consistent with the other fields (prefix) which are all right padded.
> this might create some confusion about the way the lwB4 will construct the IID for the tunnel endpoint (use "2" or "800" for the last 16 bits?)

it shouldn't. in 7596 it states that the IID is created as specified in 7597.
that 7598 uses a different on-the-wire format doesn't change that.
in MAP data packets those bits are again represented in a different bit position.

>> I agree with Ole. For your information, our implementation has a configuration function to select the format of PSID. Regards, xing
> where is this function implemented?

I don't know, but just a point to the IID generation, it must be a consistent method used across the domain (in algorithmic mapping), but in LW46 it could pretty much be anything you like, if you have a way to coordinate that between the BR and CEs.

Best regards,