Below, with [PTT].
On 30/01/2013 7:47 AM, Ole Troan wrote:
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.
[PTT] OK, that statement is in 5.1 now, but I didn't understand it. I'll
look at the original text again.
I'm fine with fixing a to 4. if an end user needs well known ports,
give her a full address.
[PTT] I have no opinion on the value of a. Agreed about needing a full
address to get system ports.
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
