Hi,

  Keeping PSID in IIDs seems repeated from the aspect of 128-bit IPv6 
address, but from the aspect of 64-bit IIDs, IPv4 address and PSID 
guarantee IIDs to be universally unique. 

  So, +1 Keeping the IPv4 and PSID in IIDs.

BRs
Linda Wang




Wojciech Dec <[email protected]> 
发件人:  [email protected]
2013-01-28 21:51

收件人
Ole Troan <[email protected]>
抄送
"[email protected] WG" <[email protected]>, [email protected]
主题
Re: [Softwires] [softwire] #19: IPv4 address superfluous in MAP-E 
Interface IDs






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


_______________________________________________
Softwires mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires

Reply via email to