+1 in keeping both. -----Original Message----- From: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Date: Monday, January 28, 2013 9:38 PM To: Wojciech Dec <[email protected]> Cc: Softwires-wg list <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Subject: [Softwires] 答复: Re: [softwire] #19: IPv4 address superfluous in MAP-E Interface IDs
> >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] 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] <mailto:trac%[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
