There's a difference between setting a=6 and setting aside the lowest
PSIDs because they occupy that port space. The value of a determines how
ports are assigned to each PSID, but does not affect the usable PSID
numbering space.
RECOMMENDED is part of the RFC 2119 boilerplate. The (unintentionally)
missing term is NOT RECOMMENDED.
Tom
On 02/06/2014 3:27 PM, Wojciech Dec wrote:
Well, I'm referring to the "RECOMMENDED" part. If the recommendation is NOT
to allocate ports 0-1024, then this effectively recommends that a-bits=6.
Moreover the meaning of SHOULD vs RECOMMEND should be questioned. The
latter is not a regular normative term, and arguably if the recommendation
is for excluding 0-1024 then a=6 looks like the SHOULD. If anyone wants the
full port set, then a=0 would be an obvious consequence.
On 2 June 2014 19:50, Tom Taylor <[email protected]> wrote:
Not sure how you read that, but it can be fixed by putting a comma after
"SHOULD be 0" and replacing "to allocate" with "thus allocating".
Tom
On 02/06/2014 12:14 PM, Wojciech Dec wrote:
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
_______________________________________________
Softwires mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
