Looks good to me.
Tom
On 26/05/2014 7:24 AM, Ian Farrer wrote:
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
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
_______________________________________________
Softwires mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
