On Mon, 2019-04-29 at 14:02 +0000, Rob Wilton (rwilton) wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email protected]>
> > Sent: 29 April 2019 14:46
> > To: Rob Wilton (rwilton) <[email protected]>
> > Cc: Acee Lindem (acee) <[email protected]>; [email protected]
> > Subject: Re: [netmod] 6021 ipv4-prefix
> > 
> > On Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 01:33:22PM +0000, Rob Wilton (rwilton) wrote:
> > > But I'm not convinced that allowing ipv4-prefix values in the non-
> > > canonical
> > format is necessarily the right thing to do.  If we were defining these as a
> > new
> > type today then would we make the same choice of typedef definition?
> > > 
> > > Or is a significant part of your proposal/reasoning to ensure backwards
> > compatibility with what we have today?
> > 
> > I am trying to clarify what the existing definition says since there
> > apparently
> > have been different interpretations.
> 
> Given the definition of ipv6-prefix already contains:
> 
>       " The IPv6 address should have all bits that do not belong
>        to the prefix set to zero."
> 
> I think that a better solution might be to add the equivalent text to the
> ipv4-prefix definition:
> 
>       " The IPv4 address should have all bits that do not belong
>        to the prefix set to zero."

But this still essentially permits the client to send a value with those bits
set, and the server has to be prepared to handle it.

If the goal is to get rid of the difference between ipv4- and ipv6-prefix, which
makes sense, then I prefer to remove this sentence from ipv6-prefix.

Lada

> 
> Thanks,
> Rob
> 
> 
> > /js
> > 
> > --
> > 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
-- 
Ladislav Lhotka
Head, CZ.NIC Labs
PGP Key ID: 0xB8F92B08A9F76C67

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

Reply via email to