Hi Rémi, I have explained my views (which is shared by other WG members) about this point in this mailing list. Below a pointer to that discussion:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/softwires/current/msg02873.html Cheers, Med > -----Message d'origine----- > De : Rémi Després [mailto:[email protected]] > Envoyé : mercredi 7 mars 2012 17:29 > À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed OLNC/NAD/TIP > Cc : Ole Trøan; Softwires WG > Objet : Re: [Softwires] Port-set algorithm of MAP - what is > it? Why so complex? > > Hi Med, > > I am, as you remember, well aware of these rules. > > But the fact is that, with the fixed PSID offset = 4 of 4rd-u > (which could easily also apply to MAP), we have the following: > R-4: sharing ratios are from 1 to 2048 (PSID length limited > to 11 for odd-even pairs always be in port sets) => OK > R-7: ports 0-1023 are excluded for sharing ratios 2 to 2048 => OK > R-8: well-known ports can be assigned to CEs with sharing > ratio 1 => OK > > So far, this seems to me so completely sufficient. > > Yet, if some ISP has a deployment plan where it is > convincingly necessary to have more flexibility, that is of > course worth discussing. > But if there is none, time has come IMHO to simplify what can > be simplified. > > Cheers, > RD > > > Le 2012-03-07 à 16:59, <[email protected]> a écrit : > > > Hi Rémi, all, > > > > During the MAP discussion, we identified the following requirements: > > > > R-4: MAP must allow service providers to define their > own address > > sharing ratio. MAP MUST NOT in particular > restrict by design > > the possible address sharing ratio; ideally 1:1 and 1:65536 > > should be supported. The mapping must at least support a > > sharing ratio of 64, 1024 ports per end-user. > > > > R-7: The MAP solution should support excluding the well > known ports > > 0-1023. > > > > R-8: It MUST be possible to assign well known ports to a CE. > > > > The offset has been proposed as a flexible means to meet > the requirements above. > > > > Cheers, > > Med > > > > > >> -----Message d'origine----- > >> De : [email protected] > >> [mailto:[email protected]] De la part de Rémi Després > >> Envoyé : mercredi 7 mars 2012 16:32 > >> À : Ole Trøan > >> Cc : Softwires WG > >> Objet : Re: [Softwires] Port-set algorithm of MAP - what is > >> it? Why so complex? > > > >>> > >>> my personal preference is for fixed offset, and that the > >> only way to assign system ports is by assigning a full IPv4 > >> address. the design team reached a compromise on allowing the > >> algorithm to be tunable though. > >> > >> A compromise between what and what? > >> Since there is no MAP-discussion archive, it's hard to guess > >> what the issue has been. > >> Since we both believe no parameter is needed, can we consider > >> this is the WG provisional as long as no significant use case > >> is provided? > > _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
