On 2 June 2014 21:49, Tom Taylor <[email protected]> wrote: > 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. >
I think that you should illustrate how you think this would work before we reach a conclusion. A setting of a=6 arrives precisely at what the goal is here, exclude ports 0-1024. So if there is a need to have another way of achieving that, by creating some excluded magic PSID value that corresponds to 0-1024, we would like to know why is that relevant and how it is supposed to work in a system where the PSID conveys to the CE the port-range. Regards. > > 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
