> > 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. > I understand that zero makes sense. I did not say we should remove it. I said that by specifying the range (and including zero) that that way we are explicit to state that we do want it included.
By the way I like Mike's proposal to make it (0..2040), which would line up with the max size of an InetAddress (255 octets). Bert > /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 --------------------------------------------------------------------
