Re: [Softwires] I-D Action: draft-ietf-softwire-map-12.txt
Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org> Fri, 06 March 2015 19:58 UTC
Return-Path: <otroan@employees.org>
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 C088A1A1BDA for <softwires@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 6 Mar 2015 11:58:21 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.411
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.411 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, J_CHICKENPOX_41=0.6, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=no
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 XP_w3DXe8oV5 for <softwires@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 6 Mar 2015 11:58:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from banjo.employees.org (banjo.employees.org [IPv6:2001:1868:205::19]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 898F41A7003 for <softwires@ietf.org>; Fri, 6 Mar 2015 11:58:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from banjo.employees.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by banjo.employees.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7DC4A61E9; Fri, 6 Mar 2015 11:58:14 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=employees.org; h=subject :mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc:message-id :references:to; s=selector1; bh=R3jxsMO1A2N/GUYi/pfEPd0UXoM=; b= AAEgNnx74LrdQudimXKTuUkwxPPhaDUekX7TBC+WcfuDfHQCU4nf/2xy7s5fKrV0 I1+g0k8DxTHgogGVmBgORJJHMWOQX4QnzQpkVNMhUylFDNgzq/PIgp9ZuSP0aTH5 ebz+3izDUDxKkjG5fvWPBqcZC1ayA29XaKJ0rJ2Nyf8=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=employees.org; h=subject :mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc:message-id :references:to; q=dns; s=selector1; b=CkD9WiqNz5QmHNyCpo9+FHAwqb Jf8CIgogj9ONspyIF0w1KLyQXbLbwVzACdmxU1qxVLUYkvo9UONovzAk3rznk9uR ZStWD8bvmSCP4OrYfrPcuRj4GRo2UoAveMo3bv+9Iyugvm3VaSCvtyKg05i7RRma qjFvWODFGu+GXXbYM=
Received: from gomlefisk.localdomain (77.18.141.216.tmi.telenormobil.no [77.18.141.216]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: otroan) by banjo.employees.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 03512613D; Fri, 6 Mar 2015 11:58:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [IPv6:::1] (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by gomlefisk.localdomain (Postfix) with ESMTP id 369343FF700E; Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58:12 +0100 (CET)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2087\))
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_4CECD758-CDFF-411A-B84E-43B6D9073B16"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha512"
X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail 2.5b5
From: Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org>
In-Reply-To: <54f96531.013c320a.2d94.1638@mx.google.com>
Date: Fri, 06 Mar 2015 20:58:11 +0100
Message-Id: <6543D1BD-B62A-4502-BBA2-9E7242CC1E4E@employees.org>
References: <20141124073912.16300.97956.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <54e056b8.0d886b0a.535d.ffffcb06@mx.google.com> <E56786E3-FE1C-4961-A0A1-408B5BAF0854@employees.org> <54f96531.013c320a.2d94.1638@mx.google.com>
To: Leaf Yeh <leaf.yeh.sdo@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2087)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/softwires/zOkIioIreg9ocN0ESurp2umb3fQ>
Cc: softwires@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Softwires] I-D Action: draft-ietf-softwire-map-12.txt
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: Fri, 06 Mar 2015 19:58:21 -0000
Leaf, > Leaf - In sec. 11 >> “ They cannot >> exist with MAP because each BRs checks that the IPv6 source >> address of a received IPv6 packet is a CE address based on >> Forwarding Mapping Rule. ” > Leaf - but my point was 'each BR (note that we don't need 's' here.) checks that whether the IPv6 source address of a received IPv6 packet is a CE address based on Basic Mapping Rule, not Forwarding Mapping Rule.', right? > > I withdraw the above question, cause I suppose we don't have BMR (which is for CE) at BR after more times reading of sec.8.1 in the draft . > > > But I might get more nits in the Appendix. > > #8. In Example 4 of Appendix A, page 26, > " IPv6 address of MAP CE: 2001:db8:0012:3400:0000:c000:0201:0000 > " (the last line) > > I suppose it should be “IPv6 address of MAP CE: 2001:db8:0012:3400:0000:c000:0212:0000” sorry, I can’t see what the difference between the two? > #9. In Example 4 of Appendix A, page 26, > " … > EA bits offset: 0 > … > PSID start: 0 > … ” > I don’t think these offset is 0, cause it means the 1st bit of IPv6 address/prefix. I prefer to replace the above ‘0’ to be ‘n/a’. right, there isn’t a PSID in example 4. that’s what n/a, null, 0, 0 is meant to indicate. we could have dropped including anything about the PSID in the example, but we did to contrast it with the address sharing case. > #10. In Example 5 of Appendix A, page 27, > " Note that the IPv4 address and PSID is not derived from the IPv6 > prefix assigned to the CE, but provisioned separately using > e.g., DHCP. " > > I guess we don't need this special note here, cause we use DHCPv6 options to provision the Rules, including OPTION_S46_RULE & OPTION_S46_PORTPARAMS as the same manner as example 1 & 4. OTOH, IPv4 address can be directly read from the Rules, and don't need the further calculation as the same as Example 4, but we need OPTION_S46_PORTPARAMS for PSID. again, we wanted to be explicit with regards to the PSID and point out how it contrasts with the other examples. > #11. In Example 5 of Appendix A, page 27, > " Basic Mapping Rule: {2001:db8:0012:3400::/56 (Rule IPv6 prefix), > 192.0.2.18/32 (Rule IPv4 prefix), > 0 (Rule EA-bits length)} > PSID length: 8. (From DHCP. Sharing ratio of 256) > PSID offset: 6 (Default) > PSID : 0x34 (From DHCP.)" > > I guess we don’t the above words of 'from DHCP', cause all the parameters in BMR are got from DHCPv6 options. ref, previous mail. > > > #12. In Example 5 of Appendix A, page 27, > " EA bits offset: 0" > > Again, I prefer the above to be " EA bits offset: n/a" > > > #13. In Appendix B, > " o It SHOULD be possible to exclude subsets of the complete port > numbering space from assignment. Most operators would exclude the > system ports (0-1023). A conservative operator might exclude all > but the transient ports (49152-65535). > ... > o i ranges from ceil(N / (R * M)) to trunc(65536/(R * M)) - 1, where > ceil is the operation of rounding up to the nearest integer and N > is the number of ports (e.g., 1024) excluded from the lower end of > the range." > > I guess we could use another parameter 'L' (which could be divisible by R*M) instead of 65536 to exclude the upper end of port-range, while keep to meet those requirement mentioned in Appendix B. Right? probably, but I don’t want to invent any new algorithm at this point. ;-) > #14. Fig.9 in Appendix B looks the same as Fig. 2 in Sec. 5.1, could we replace 'A' in Fig.2 to be 'i', and replace 'M' in Fig.2 to be 'j’? I don’t think you can do that. Xing can you confirm? looking through Appendix B it would seem that would require quite a lot of changes to how M, R, i and j are used. the purpose of Appendix B was to give a different freestanding angle to the port mapping algorithm. cheers, Ole
- [Softwires] I-D Action: draft-ietf-softwire-map-1… internet-drafts
- Re: [Softwires] I-D Action: draft-ietf-softwire-m… Leaf Yeh
- Re: [Softwires] I-D Action: draft-ietf-softwire-m… Ole Troan
- Re: [Softwires] I-D Action: draft-ietf-softwire-m… Ted Lemon
- Re: [Softwires] I-D Action: draft-ietf-softwire-m… Ole Troan
- Re: [Softwires] I-D Action: draft-ietf-softwire-m… Leaf Yeh
- Re: [Softwires] I-D Action: draft-ietf-softwire-m… Leaf Yeh
- Re: [Softwires] I-D Action: draft-ietf-softwire-m… Leaf Yeh
- Re: [Softwires] I-D Action: draft-ietf-softwire-m… Ole Troan
- Re: [Softwires] I-D Action: draft-ietf-softwire-m… Ole Troan
- Re: [Softwires] I-D Action: draft-ietf-softwire-m… Ole Troan
- Re: [Softwires] I-D Action: draft-ietf-softwire-m… Xing Li
- Re: [Softwires] I-D Action: draft-ietf-softwire-m… Leaf Yeh
- Re: [Softwires] I-D Action: draft-ietf-softwire-m… Leaf Yeh
- Re: [Softwires] I-D Action: draft-ietf-softwire-m… Leaf Yeh
- Re: [Softwires] I-D Action: draft-ietf-softwire-m… Ole Troan