Senthil, [...]
>> The draft says that: >> (a) The PSID is: >> +--+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ >> |PL| 8 16 24 32 40 48 56 | >> +--+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ >> |64| u | IPv4 address | PSID | 0 | >> +--+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ > > I believe this figure is misleading by placing the IPv4 address in a fixed > location. Figure 3 and Figure 7 > In the draft shows that the IID is not in a fixed location. Also, the text > surrounding the above figure 8, says > "The Interface identifier format of a MAP node is based on the format > specified in section 2.2 of [RFC6052], with the added PSID field if > present, as shown in figure Figure 8." > > > But RFC 6052 doesn¹t have the IPv4 address in a fixed location as per > section 2.2. So I think this figure is misleading. perhaps we should just remove the RFC6052 reference then? with a 48 bits of PSID + IPv4 address. I don't mind if it is just IPv4 address, but then someone need to drive that discussion. > | n bits | o bits | s bits | 128-n-o-s bits | > +--------------------+-----------+---------+------------+----------+ > | Rule IPv6 prefix | EA bits |subnet ID| interface ID | > +--------------------+-----------+---------+-----------------------+ > > >> (b) "If the End-user IPv6 prefix length is larger than 64, the most >> significant parts of the interface identifier is overwritten by the >> prefix." >> >> This is particularly unclear: > > True. >> - What happens to the u octet? > > I guess that needs to be made clear in the draft. We struggled with that > in our implementation. if we remove the 6052 reference, there is no u-octet. >> - And to the IPv4 address if the prefix is longer than /68? >> - ... >> >> Of course, if a use case is provided where MAP-E would be actually used >> with an IID shorter than 64 bits, it should be discussed. But: >> - There is no such use case so far. >> - Looking for one doesn't seem useful. > > I would like to see the IPv4 address be present from bits 96-127, no need > for the PSID to be repeated again. That would allow us to go upto /96 and > being consistent with RFC 6052 which allows one to configure a prefix of > upto /96. just put the IPv4 address in the bottom bits, and allow it to be overwritten by the prefix. it is just there for 'pretty printing' anyway. cheers, Ole _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
