Woj, in the LW46 case, you can still do a=0, and ensure that you don't provision any PSID which results in the well known ports.
cheers, Ole > > 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 > > > >
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
