Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 10:41:11AM +0200, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: > > > > > > > > I am not in favour of adding this type. Having ip-prefix next to > > > > ip-address-and-prefix is confusing. > > > > > > Confusing or not, they are NOT interchangeable and actually do different > > > things, which is why both are needed. There's plenty of precedence to > > > > I actually agree with you. It is a historical accident that these > > two different things got mixed up (and some vendors contributed to > > this). I would argue that > > > > - IP prefix is a set of IP addresses, and as such can be thought of > > as a single entity. > > > > - IP address and subnet mask/prefix are two separate things, the > > latter being an instruction for routing to *other* destination > > addresses. > > I think we should be pragmatic. There are other common types that are > in fact constructed out of simpler types, date-and-time is a prime > example of a type constructed out of a date value and a time value.
I think that date-and-time represents one thing - a single point in time. > It > is sometimes convenient to treat something that is in fact constructed > as an atomic value. Convenient for users that enter these values, perhaps. But not as convenient for a program (or a filter) that needs one of the combined values. For example, suppose I want to find all entries with a given prefix; that is non-trivial with a combined ip-address-and-prefix type. /martin _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
