+1

It also would be nice if we could loosen the YANG migration rules so we could 
change leaves from ipv4-prefix to ipv4-address-and-length (or whatever we 
decide to call it) to handle the cases where the former has been used 
incorrectly. However, this is a separate issue. 

Acee



On 4/18/19, 9:26 AM, "netmod on behalf of Lou Berger" <[email protected] 
on behalf of [email protected]> wrote:

    Having worked with UIs that have the behavior of accepting an 
    address/prefix-len and mapping it to a prefix, (i.e., network/prefix-len 
    and zeroing out the non-significant bits)  - some users really like it 
    as they don't have to do the transformation from address to network, 
    notably for odd length prefixes, while other users hate it as the system 
    shows/does something different than what they entered.
    
    In the end the current definition is what it is.  If we want something 
    different we can define it. I personally think an address/prefix-len 
    would be useful, and would leave ip-prefix as is.  (again just an 
    individual's opinion.)
    
    Lou
    
    On 4/18/2019 6:53 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
    > On Thu, 18 Apr 2019, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
    >
    >> On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 11:43:05AM +0200, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
    >>
    >>> 2001:db8::/64 and 2001:db8::1/64 are NOT the same if you use them.
    >> Why are they not the same if you define a prefix?
    > Because they're not. One of them is a valid prefix, the other one isn't.
    >
    >> +17.4 is not an integer, so this is an error (not because of the + but
    >> because of the . followed by additional digits). +17 is I think a valid
    >> integer value but the + will be dropped in the canonical representation.
    > Yes, but 2001:db8::1/64 isn't valid prefix (because the host portion of
    > the prefix isn't 0) so why should it be "rounded" when 17.4 shouldn't be
    > rounded if an integer input is expected?
    >
    
    _______________________________________________
    netmod mailing list
    [email protected]
    https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
    

_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod

Reply via email to