On 2019-04-25 23:51, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 11:20:57PM +0200, Kristian Larsson wrote:
On 2019-04-18 13:12, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 12:53:22PM +0200, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
On Thu, 18 Apr 2019, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 11:43:05AM +0200, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
+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?
The non-prefix bits are irrelevant for the prefix and the canonical
format has the non-prefix bits all set to zero. I understand that you
prefer 2001:db8::1/64 to be an error but RFC 6021 and RFC 6991
consider this as valid input that can be safely interpreted to mean
2001:db8::0/64.
Vice versa, if an implementation does treat 2001:db8::1/64 as a syntax
error, is that implementation incorrect?
I think so. The types do not require that non-prefix bits are zero
when a value is received. However, a server must report the canonical
value, in this case 2001:db8::/64.
Cisco NSO treats 2001:db8::1/64 as a syntax error for a leaf of type
ip-prefix (or ip6-prefix).
It would be interesting to hear Martins opinion on this.
Kind regards,
Kristian.
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
