Subject: [Softwires] I-D Action: draft-ietf-softwire-map-deployment-01.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2013 04:08:14 -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 (MAP) - Deployment Considerations
	Author(s)       : Qiong Sun
                          Maoke Chen
                          Gang Chen
                          Tina Tsou
                          Simon Perreault
	Filename        : draft-ietf-softwire-map-deployment-01.txt
	Pages           : 32
	Date            : 2013-02-25

Abstract:
   This document describes when and how an operator uses the technique
   of Mapping of Address and Port (MAP) for the IPv4 residual deployment
   in the IPv6-dominant domain.

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

There's also a htmlized version available at:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-softwire-map-deployment-01

A diff from the previous version is available at:
http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-softwire-map-deployment-01

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

---

From: Maoke <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 12:17:58 +0900

hi all,

a text mistake is discovered (by Masakazu Asama-san, the developer of
ASAMAP MAP implementation, thanks a lot to Asama-san!). the erratum must be
included in the next revision:

 4.2.5 PSID Consideration
   ...
   (para 2 reads)
   The default PSID offset is chosen as 4 in [I-D.ietf-softwire-map] and
   full-zero PSID is not permitted to use, which excludes the use of
   port range 0~4096. Operator may adjust the value based on actual
   usage, policy, and service model.
   ...

where the *full-zero PSID is not permitted to use* is incorrect. the fact
is, port range 0~4096 doesn't corresponds to the PSID = 0x000, but the
offset-bits = 0x0. i.e., no matter how much the PSID value is, the
full-zero offset-bits (the first 4 bits of port number, as default) is
excluded from using. full-zero PSID is NO problem here.

please the co-authors, and others too, do the double-check on the
understanding.

cheers,
maoke

2013/2/25 <[email-masked]>

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

---

From: Qiong <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2013 22:34:07 +0800

Hi Maoke, Masakazu Asama-san,

Thanks a lot for your comment! Right, we must correct it in the next
version.

To WG:

This new version is updated to reflect the discussion result in the last
IETF meeting, covering MAP-E, MAP-T and 4rd-u.

The major changes are as follows:
1) Move the difference between MAP-E, MAP-T and 4rd into one section, so
hopefully the rest of the draft can be applied to these three.
2) Split references to Normative and Informative, as requested by Mark last
time
3) Change the PSID consideration, as raised in the mailing list (still
needs to be updated)
4) Update some references which have become RFC or WG item
5) Lots of editorial changes and cleaning

Currently, the title of this draft is still MAP only, as we have not found
a good term to call MAP-E, MAP-T and 4rd-u. So we would like to get advice
from the working group to address this problem.

Your review and comments are more than welcome. Thanks in advance !

Best wishes
Qiong

-- 
==============================================
Qiong Sun
China Telecom Beijing Research Institude

Open source code:
lightweight 4over6: *http://sourceforge.net/projects/laft6/*
PCP-natcoord:* http://sourceforge.net/projects/pcpportsetdemo/ *
===============================================