Ole - what's the difference?
I suggested the following text for the readable .
Given:
End-user IPv6 prefix: 2001:db8:0012:34::/56
Basic Mapping Rule: {2001:db8:00::/40 (Rule IPv6 prefix),
192.0.2.0/24 (Rule IPv4 prefix),
16 (Rule EA-bits length)}
PSID offset: 4 (default value as per section 5.1.3)
We get the IPv4 address, its sharing ratio and port-set:
EA bits offset: 40
IPv4 suffix bits (p): Length of IPv4 address (32) - IPv4 prefix length
(24) = 8
IPv4 address: 192.0.2.18 (0x12)
Sharing ratio: 256 (16 - (32 - 24) = 8. 2^8 = 256)
Cheers,
Leaf
-----Original Message-----
From: Ole Trøan [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, January 30, 2012 6:16 PM
To: Leaf yeh
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected] team
Subject: Re: More changes to revision 03.
Leaf,
> Again C&Qs on the examples in the newly updated candidate of MAP-03:
>
> A. Section 5.2 - Given:
> End-user IPv6 prefix: 2001:db8:0012:34::/56
> Basic Mapping Rule: {2001:db8:00::/40 (Rule IPv6 prefix),
> 192.0.2.0/24 (Rule IPv4 prefix),
> 16 (Rule EA-bits length)}
> Sharing ratio: 256 (16 - (32 - 24) = 8. 2^8 = 256)
> PSID offset: 4
>
> We get IPv4 address and port-set:
> EA bits offset: 40
> IPv4 suffix bits (p): Length of IPv4 address (32) -
> IPv4 prefix length (24) = 8
> ….
>
> C1. The ‘End-user IPv6 prefix’ shall be express as ‘2001:db8:0012:3400::/56’
> as per the section 2.3 of RFC4291;
fixed.
> C2. The sharing ratio sounds a calculated result, not a ‘given’ condition;
what's the difference?
>
> B. Section 5.3 - Given:
> IPv4 destination address: 192.0.2.18
> IPv4 destination port: 9030
> Forwarding Mapping Rule: {2001:db8:00::/40 (Rule IPv6 prefix),
> 192.0.2.0/24 (Rule IPv4 prefix),
> 16 (Rule EA-bits length)}
>
> We get IPv6 address:
> IPv4 suffix bits (p): 32 - 24 = 8 (18 (0x12))
> PSID length: 8
> PSID: 0x34 (9030 (0x2346))
> EA bits: 0x1234
> MAP IPv6 address: 2001:db8:0012:3400:00c0:0002:1200:3400
>
> C3. I suppose the default ‘PSID offset: 4’ seems need to express in the
> ‘given’ conditions;
OK
> Q1. Have the draft stated the ‘u’ bits in the Interface-ID should be 0x00?
it states that it is based on 6052. I think that should be sufficient.
cheers,
Ole
_______________________________________________
Softwires mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
