Subject: [Softwires] I-D Action: draft-ietf-softwire-map-04.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2013 01:39:49 -0800

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
 This draft is a work item of the Softwires Working Group of the IETF.

	Title           : Mapping of Address and Port with Encapsulation (MAP)
	Author(s)       : Ole Troan
                          Wojciech Dec
                          Xing Li
                          Congxiao Bao
                          Satoru Matsushima
                          Tetsuya Murakami
	Filename        : draft-ietf-softwire-map-04.txt
	Pages           : 29
	Date            : 2013-02-06

Abstract:
   This document describes a mechanism for transporting IPv4 packets
   across an IPv6 network using IP encapsulation, and a generic
   mechanism for mapping between IPv6 addresses and IPv4 addresses and
   transport layer ports.

The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-softwire-map

There's also a htmlized version available at:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-softwire-map-04

A diff from the previous version is available at:
http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-softwire-map-04

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

---

From: Ole Troan <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2013 10:48:58 +0100

with this update to the MAP-E revision:
 - reorganized the architecture section to make it cleared what applies to shared addresses vs full ipv4 / prefix
 - fixed port offset to 4 (removed port parameters from the base spec)
 - simplified the interface-id text, removed 6052 reference

greatly appreciate Tom's help in reviewing the document and proposing changes for this revision.

this document is in my view now ready for a WGLC.

Best regards,
Ole

On Feb 6, 2013, at 10:39 , [email-masked] wrote:

> _______________________________________________
> Softwires mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires

---

From: Tom Taylor <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2013 12:20:31 -0500

Fixing port offset to 4 rather than 6 means that an operator needs about 
6% more public IPv4 addresses to serve the same population. I'm not sure 
of the cost tradeoff, but what % of BR capacity is likely to be lost if 
the PSID does not sit on a nibble boundary?

Tom

>   - simplified the interface-id text, removed 6052 reference
...

---

From: "Rajiv Asati (rajiva)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2013 22:14:15 +0000

Ole, Tom, 

I would suggest fixing port offset to 6 rather than 4, since 0-1023 are
the system/reserved ports that should be avoided by default. This also
allows increasing the IP address sharing efficiency, suffice to say, as
Tom already noted. 

	Pls see RFC6335.

Of course, the default value can be changed per deployment needs.

> the PSID does not sit on a nibble boundary?

HmmmŠnot sure I follow the Q. Why would BR capacity (performance?) be lost?

Cheers,
Rajiv

-----Original Message-----
From: Tom Taylor <[email-masked]>
Date: Wednesday, February 13, 2013 12:20 PM
To: Ole Troan <[email-masked]>
Cc: Softwires-wg list <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [Softwires] I-D Action: draft-ietf-softwire-map-04.txt

>>   - reorganized the architecture section to make it cleared what
>>applies to shared addresses vs full ipv4 / prefix