On 1/24/13 6:56 PM, "Satoru Matsushima" <[email protected]> wrote:
>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? I guess the question should be the converse, why should it be duplicated, not why it shouldn¹t be. I had direct discussions with Ole and other authors a long time ago, but I fail to see the rationale on why it is repeated. > >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 _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
