Uhm, this appears to mean that the RECOMMENDED a-bits SHOULD be 6.
On 26 May 2014 13:24, Ian Farrer <[email protected]> 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
