On 30/01/2013 9:56 AM, Rémi Després wrote:
Le 2013-01-30 13:47, Ole Troan <[email protected]> :
Tom,
[...]
[Ole said:]
I'm fine with fixing a to 4.
if an end user needs well known ports, give her a full address.
[Rémi said:]
An alternative is possible that
- permits ISPs that want it to assign well-known ports to some privileged users
without necessarily giving them full IPv4 addresses;
- uses a trivially simple algorithm.
That which has been chosen for 4rd can be used for MAP-E as well. It uses for
this an option to be used if well-nown ports must be assignable.
It is specified in two sentences, in
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-softwire-4rd-04#page-15, at the end of
the first paragraph.
Its complete picture representation is in a part of Figure 5:
(by default) (If WKPs authorized)
: : : :
+---+----+---------+ +----+-------------+
Ports in |> 0|PSID|any value| OR |PSID| any value |
the CE port set +---+----+---------+ +----+-------------+
: 4 : 12 : : 16 :
...
OK, this explains the bit about system ports in the text, when a = 0.
The one objection I see to that is again the matter of address
dependency -- the system ports are available only for the first few
PSIDs, the PSIDs appear as part of the MAP endpoint prefix, so the
prefix value becomes constrained.
Since devices requiring system ports are likely to be servers, the full
address solution makes sense on another level too.
Tom Taylor
_______________________________________________
Softwires mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
