Hi Woj, Assume a=0 and PSID-len=5, then the ports are divided into [0,2047], [2048,4095], ... Just drop the first piece, and allocate others to clients. That's how a=0 works.
a=6 can also work, but I don't think it's a SHOULD for a=6 to solve the WKP issue. Best Regards, Cong 2014-06-03 18:01 GMT+08:00 Wojciech Dec <[email protected]>: > Thanks. I'm not sure I get your example though. To exclude ports 0-1023, > the excluded port "subnet" would be 0x0000/6. Which would be equivalent to > a=6... > > > > > > On 3 June 2014 11:31, Ole Troan <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Wojciech, >> >> > Could you show a working example of that in action, along with the set >> of PSIDs containing the usable port ranges? >> >> in LW46, ports are provisioned per client. so, I don't understand what >> you want a working example of. that's just like assigning 192.168.0.10 - >> 192.168.0.255 in a DHCP pool. in the PSID case you will not assign ports >> 0000/10 >> >> cheers, >> Ole >> >> >> > >> > Cheers >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > On 3 June 2014 10:51, Ole Troan <[email protected]> wrote: >> > 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 >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > >> > >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > Softwires mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires > >
_______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
