Dear Tom, Thanks for bringing this up. I think Suresh's proposal (as is described in your mail) is fair enough. IMHO, for Lightweight 4 over 6 contiguous is enough (a = 0). While for MAP-E, considering PSID is required for the construction of IPv6 prefix, arbitrary value is necessary for that use.
Best Regards, Qi > > Thanks, Woj. I think I started off in the wrong direction, and should focus > specifically on Suresh's proposal: GMA for both Light-Weight 4 over 6 and > MAP-E, with default a=0 for the former and a=6 for the latter. > > When a=0, the GMA algorithm does degenerate to assigning ports as a single > contiguous range per CPE. Min_port for a given PSID is given by the formula > PSID * range size, or, in the notation of MAP-E section 5.1, PSID * 2^m. > Max_port is given by Min_port + range size - 1. > > With MAP-E, range size is inferred indirectly from the combination of the > IPv4 prefix length in the Basic Map Rule and the number of EA bits. This > information is not available for Light-Weight 4 over 6. Hence I believe the > proposal to use GMA with a=0 for the latter amounts to explicit provisioning > of PSID and range size to both the BR and the CPE. > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Softwires mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
