Ole, Tom,
I would suggest fixing port offset to 6 rather than 4, since 0-1023 are
the system/reserved ports that should be avoided by default. This also
allows increasing the IP address sharing efficiency, suffice to say, as
Tom already noted.
Pls see RFC6335.
Of course, the default value can be changed per deployment needs.
> of the cost tradeoff, but what % of BR capacity is likely to be lost if
> the PSID does not sit on a nibble boundary?
HmmmŠnot sure I follow the Q. Why would BR capacity (performance?) be lost?
Cheers,
Rajiv
-----Original Message-----
From: Tom Taylor <[email protected]>
Date: Wednesday, February 13, 2013 12:20 PM
To: Ole Troan <[email protected]>
Cc: Softwires-wg list <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [Softwires] I-D Action: draft-ietf-softwire-map-04.txt
>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
_______________________________________________
Softwires mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
