Fixing port offset to 4 rather than 6 means that an operator needs about
6% more public IPv4 addresses to serve the same population. I'm not sure
of the cost tradeoff, but what % of BR capacity is likely to be lost if
the PSID does not sit on a nibble boundary?
Tom
On 06/02/2013 4:48 AM, Ole Troan wrote:
with this update to the MAP-E revision:
- reorganized the architecture section to make it cleared what applies to
shared addresses vs full ipv4 / prefix
- fixed port offset to 4 (removed port parameters from the base spec)
- simplified the interface-id text, removed 6052 reference
...
_______________________________________________
Softwires mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
