On 2013/01/25, at 5:08, Tom Taylor <[email protected]> wrote:
> This caught my eye too. Why repeat the PSID? > Does anyone have the reason of it must not? cheers, --satoru > On 24/01/2013 11:27 AM, Ole Troan wrote: >> hi, >> >> can we please keep discussion on the list. not via the issue tracker? >> >> does anyone else have an opinion? >> (if I don't hear anything from anyone else, I'll default to keep current >> text.) >> >> cheers, >> Ole >> >> On Jan 24, 2013, at 17:23 , softwire issue tracker >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> #19: IPv4 address superfluous in MAP-E Interface IDs >>> >>> Changes (by [email protected]): >>> >>> * priority: trivial => major >>> * status: closed => reopened >>> * resolution: wontfix => >>> >>> >>> Comment: >>> >>> Value of having the PSID in MAP-E IIDs for maintenance isn't clear at all: >>> - PSID length isn't determined in IIDs (there can be an unknown number of >>> trailing zeroes) >>> - all PSID bits are already readable in the first 64 bits >>> >>> Suggestion to close the issue: >>> - keep IPv4 addresses in IIDs (they contains some bits that aren't in the >>> first 64 bits) >>> - don't keep the PSID in IIDs (insufficiently justified complexity) >>> > ... > _______________________________________________ > Softwires mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
