Hi, the IPv4 and PSID in the IID are particularly useful in cases of address independence (ie 1:1). As said previously, the benefit is primarily in the ability an operational facilitation, where an operator can easily see/observe what IPv4 and PSID is being used by a given customer. This is easier than to look at the v6 prefix and use some magic decoder ring. In addition, it has the desirable characteristic of creating an IID.
+1 Thus to keeping the IPv4 and PSID, likely in a fixed length (16 bit) field format. Regards, Woj. On 24 January 2013 16:27, Ole Troan <[email protected]> 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) > > > > -- > > > -------------------------+------------------------------------------------- > > Reporter: | Owner: draft-ietf-softwire- > > [email protected] | [email protected] > > Type: defect | Status: reopened > > Priority: major | Milestone: > > Component: map-e | Version: > > Severity: Candidate | Resolution: > > WG Document | > > Keywords: | > > > -------------------------+------------------------------------------------- > > > > Ticket URL: < > http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/softwire/trac/ticket/19#comment:4> > > softwire <http://tools.ietf.org/softwire/> > > > > _______________________________________________ > Softwires mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires >
_______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
