On Mon, Feb 02, 2004 at 11:18:14AM +0100, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote: > I think (but I hope David Perkins can give definite answer) that the > warning is given because it is used as an index object.
OK, this might be the reason for the message. > An unsigned32 includes value zero, which we prefer not to be valid > value for an index. If people do want to allow for zero, then they > better be explicit about that. I think 0 makes sense for the default route as explained by Mike. Otherwise, if the idea is indeed to exclude 0, then the range should be (1..4294967295) - this makes it quite clear that just 0 was removed from the set of possible values. /js -- Juergen Schoenwaelder International University Bremen <http://www.eecs.iu-bremen.de/> P.O. Box 750 561, 28725 Bremen, Germany -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
