How so, could you give an example?
On 3 June 2014 12:17, Ole Troan <[email protected]> wrote: > Wojciech, > > > 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... > > sorry, yes, you'd not assign 0000/6. > that's not equivalent to a=6 though. > > cheers, > Ole > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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
