Hi, This one slipped my mind….
>From a discussion with Ole during the MAP dhcp last call, there was a >discussion about the exclusion of provisioning WKPs to CPEs - >http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/softwires/current/msg06010.html In previous versions, the lw4o6 used to reference sun-dhc-port-set-option, which also stated that the WKPs should not be assigned. This advice got lost when changing to reference map-dhcp for PSID format. Here’s a wording change proposal to resolve this: Section 5.1 Original text (last sentence, para 7): "For lw4o6, the number of a-bits SHOULD be 0." Proposed change: "For lw4o6, the number of a-bits SHOULD be 0 to allocate a single contiguous port set to each lwB4. Unless a lwB4 is being allocated a full IPv4 address, it is RECOMMENDED that PSIDs containing the well-known ports (0-1023) are not allocated to lwB4s.” Please let me know if you are OK with the proposed change. cheers, Ian > >> Good spot on the WKP exclusion. Before the lw4o6 draft was updated to >> reference map-dhcp for configuration, the port configuration was described >> in sun-dhc-port-set-option, which also stated that the WKPs should not be >> assigned. This advice got lost when changing to reference map-dhcp. I’ll >> make a suggested text update for the lw4o6 draft to fix this. Does that work >> for you? > > yes, that would be good. > > cheers, > Ole > _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list Softwires@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
