On 2019-04-01 19:29, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
Hi,
The request was for a combined type that contains both an ip address
*and* a prefix length in one value. Hence the name
"ip-address-and-prefix-length" :)
Right you are, though I'm open to other names but let's first agree on
use case / need :)
I know that this type is convenient, esp. if you use it for manual
input, but I wonder if it really is good practice to squeeze two
values into one.
Dunno how "manual" has any bearing. This is IMHO just about natural data
modeling.
You say it's two values but when one can't be used without the other,
are they so separated? You can't configure an interface with just an
address or just a subnet mask. You need both - they belong together.
Similarly, in a routing table you have prefixes, which consist of an
address and a length - it got its own data type yet you could apply your
argument to it and say they should be separated. It's just that *that*
data type forbids bits to be set in the mask portion of the address,
which is correct for the routing table use case, but means it can't be
used to describe an interface address and mask.
kll
/martin
"Acee Lindem (acee)" <[email protected]> wrote:
Ok, now I'm confused. I see that the ietf-inet-type model already has the types
ipv4-prefix and ipv6-prefix. How are these any different???
Thanks,
Acee
On 4/1/19, 12:31 PM, "Acee Lindem (acee)" <[email protected]> wrote:
I believe the "address-" could be omitted from the type identifiers. At least within
the routing area, "ipv4-prefix" is unambiguous.
Thanks,
Acee
On 4/1/19, 12:14 PM, "netmod on behalf of Juergen Schoenwaelder" <[email protected] on behalf of [email protected]> wrote:
This is the right time for this and I would call these
ip-address-prefix, ipv4-address-prefix and ipv6-address
prefix.
/js
On Mon, Apr 01, 2019 at 04:38:34PM +0200, Kristian Larsson wrote:
> Hello,
>
> seeing that 6991 is up for a refresh I wonder if this would be the
time to
> suggest the addition of a type for address-and-prefix-length, for
example
> like 192.0.2.1/24?
>
> I find that it's the most natural way express the address and
prefix-length
> to configure on an interface or for some other use. We currently
have an
> ip-prefix type which allows CIDR style prefixes but since all bits
to the
> right of the mask is to be 0 it is only possible to use for
describing the
> IP prefix / network address itself - not the address of a host in
that
> network.
>
> I actually wish the interface-ip modules would have used a combined
leaf for
> these settings rather than the dual-leaf approach it currently has,
but I
> suppose that ship has sailed :/
>
> Regardless, can we add such a type? Is this the document and time to
do it?
> :)
>
> Kind regard,
> Kristian.
>
> _______________________________________________
> netmod mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
--
Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
Fax: +49 421 200 3103 <https://www.jacobs-university.de/>
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
