2013-01-30  16:52, Tom Taylor <[email protected]> :

> 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.

Agreed, it does make sense, and I believe that many ISPs may make this choice. 
(I personally argued in this direction long ago.)

But there has been a firm requirement in the WG that, even for shared 
addresses, one of the CE could have the well-known ports. 
The WKPs-authorized option has been added to 4rd to satisfy this requirement. 
I don't think this requirement has disappeared.

A copy of this mail is addressed to Maoke who was involved in this discussion.

Regards,
RD


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

Reply via email to