Hi Acee, Having re-read the thread, I think that "ip-address-prefix" is going to be confusing, since I had incorrectly assumed that the type being defined was an IP prefix, but as you have pointed out there is already a type for that.
I think that we need to choose this name very carefully or otherwise I suspect that folks will accidentally use the wrong type. So having the type as "ip-address-and-prefix-length" or "ip-addr-and-prefix-len" now seems like a clearer choice to me. I think that I also now agree with Martin that this is really merging two values into one leaf. Where is this type going to be used? Is it only used for configuring host address/prefix? Or are there other uses cases as well? Thanks, Rob > -----Original Message----- > From: Acee Lindem (acee) <[email protected]> > Sent: 02 April 2019 16:52 > To: Rob Wilton (rwilton) <[email protected]>; Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail- > f.com>; [email protected] > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [netmod] 6991bis: address-with-prefix-length > > Hi Rob, > > On 4/2/19, 11:37 AM, "netmod on behalf of Rob Wilton (rwilton)" <netmod- > [email protected] on behalf of [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: netmod <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Martin > Bjorklund > > Sent: 02 April 2019 13:47 > > To: [email protected] > > Cc: [email protected] > > Subject: Re: [netmod] 6991bis: address-with-prefix-length > > > > Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email protected]> wrote: > > > If you go back ~20 messages, my proposal was ip-address-prefix, > > > ipv4-address-prefix, and ipv6-address-prefix. > > > > Do we agree that this type really specifies two values in one? If so I > think > the > > "and" is useful. > > Isn't an "IP prefix" made up of an "IP address" and a "prefix length"? > > This was my confusion as well since the ipv4-prefix and ipv6-prefix types > (ietf-inet-types) have been used when they probably shouldn't have been. > Note that they both have the constraint of not allowing the host bits to be > set > should they should be used in situations like interface address assignment. > > Excerpted from RFC6991 ipv4-type definition (note the last sentence): > description > "The ipv4-prefix type represents an IPv4 address prefix. > The prefix length is given by the number following the > slash character and must be less than or equal to 32. > > A prefix length value of n corresponds to an IP address > mask that has n contiguous 1-bits from the most > significant bit (MSB) and all other bits set to 0. > > The canonical format of an IPv4 prefix has all bits of > the IPv4 address set to zero that are not part of the > IPv4 prefix."; > > So, I think that the names above are probably right, or otherwise if you > want the "and" then perhaps it should be "ip-address-and-prefix-length" - > which seems clunky? > > I think the original suggestion of ipxx-address-prefix would be ok. > > Thanks, > Acee > > Thanks, > Rob > > > > > > Also note that the current text in RFC 6991 says: > > > > The ipv4-prefix type represents an IPv4 address prefix. > > > > so having a type ipv4-address-prefix for something that is not (only) an > > "ipv4 address prefix" is imo confusing. > > > > > > /martin > > > > > > > > > > > > > > /js > > > > > > On Tue, Apr 02, 2019 at 11:13:09AM +0000, tom petch wrote: > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > From: "Jeff Tantsura" <[email protected]> > > > > To: <[email protected]>; "Kristian Larsson" <[email protected]> > > > > Sent: Monday, April 01, 2019 11:09 PM > > > > > > > > What Kristian has proposed makes sense, in favor. > > > > > > > > <tp> > > > > > > > > Yes, I support this idea and we should be able to come up with a > > > > more user-friendly name; address-prefix or address-length ? > > > > > > > > Tom Petch > > > > > > > > p.s. > > > > > > > > identifier = (ALPHA / "_") > > > > *(ALPHA / DIGIT / "_" / "-" / ".") > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > Jeff > > > > On Apr 1, 2019, 1:09 PM -0700, Kristian Larsson > > > > <[email protected]>, wrote: > > > > > Hello Mahesh, > > > > > > > > > > On 2019-04-01 21:40, Mahesh Jethanandani wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 1, 2019, at 10:29 AM, Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail- > f.com> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > Agree. The combination makes sense for CLI, but for modeling the > > > > address and prefix should be separate. > > > > > > > > > > Okay, then why do we have an ip-prefix data type at all? With the > > > > > same line of argument you apply, it should be split up. > > > > > > > > > > So you're the third person bringing up CLI. I don't get this at > > > > > all. I don't see how CLI are different from everything else. This > > > > > is about > > > > data > > > > > modeling and data modeling is about expressing the world in a data > > > > > modeling language. It's like painting a picture but instead of a > > > > > brush you have a schema language like YANG. What do you see? > > > > > Express it. It doesn't matter if the purpose is a CLI, a web page > > > > > or just exposing it via NETCONF for another system to consume. > > > > > > > > > > I think address-and-prefix-length is natural. JUNOS uses this > format. > > > > XR > > > > > uses this format (for IPv6 at least). Nokia SROS uses this format. > > > > > > > > > > We have written a bunch of models where the lack of this IMHO > > > > > makes > > > > them > > > > > less elegant. I'd like for there to be an IETF standard data type > > > > > to make those models more elegant. > > > > > > > > > > Kind regards, > > > > > Kristian. > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > 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 > > > > > > -- > > > 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 > > _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
