Tom, [...]
>> I don't at all see why moving the port mapping algorithm out of the >> document would make things simpler. it would make it a lot more >> complex. then you'd end up with having to support many different port >> algorithms. >> >> > My first reaction to that is to say: unless we fix a at 4, you're going to be > stuck with implementing the a = 0 case anyway, so you might as well use that > and exclude the lowest values of PSID if you want to keep things simple. The > WG really needs to have an opinion on which direction to go here. a premise of MAP is to not put any dependency on the IPv6 addressing plan of the ISP. excluding e.g. PSID = 0, would require the ISP to not delegate that prefix to the end-user. that's a dependency we do not want. I'm fine with fixing a to 4. if an end user needs well known ports, give her a full address. > Thinking in terms of the broader picture, I still wonder if the port mapping > algorithm should be documented separately with MAP having a normative > dependency on it, just so the algorithm is reusable amongst all A+P variants. that is really water under the bridge at this stage. we have been there and tried that. that's how we started with MAP as the base document, and separate MAP-E and MAP-T documents. cheers, Ole _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
