Le 2012-03-08 à 15:51, <[email protected]> <[email protected]> a écrit :
> 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 Thanks. Please see my answer to Maoke: - A Rule parameter to request "WKP Assignability" is IMHO an approach worth considering (=> no PSID offset instead of the default offset). Cheers, RD > 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
