IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Cbor] changes to draft-ietf-cbor-network-addresses-01.txt

Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> Mon, 08 March 2021 07:53 UTC

Return-Path: <cabo@tzi.org>
X-Original-To: cbor@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: cbor@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 100CE3A273D for <cbor@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 7 Mar 2021 23:53:06 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.92
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.92 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4dVedcnQauKM for <cbor@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 7 Mar 2021 23:53:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de (gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de [134.102.50.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 229973A2739 for <cbor@ietf.org>; Sun, 7 Mar 2021 23:53:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.217.152] (p5089a828.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [80.137.168.40]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4Dv9Yn0GpzzyTN; Mon, 8 Mar 2021 08:53:01 +0100 (CET)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 14.0 \(3654.60.0.2.21\))
From: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
In-Reply-To: <30430.1615160268@localhost>
Date: Mon, 08 Mar 2021 08:53:00 +0100
Cc: cbor@ietf.org, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <EDD97469-5F4F-4182-A81C-ABAE2D86F075@tzi.org>
References: <161266446471.542.2418789735601546566@ietfa.amsl.com> <a15c4d67-e67f-c210-0477-29564c2b67e0@gmail.com> <30430.1615160268@localhost>
To: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3654.60.0.2.21)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cbor/fee6NHUEs-RB3tIv_T-eaZgrO8k>
Subject: Re: [Cbor] changes to draft-ietf-cbor-network-addresses-01.txt
X-BeenThere: cbor@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Concise Binary Object Representation \(CBOR\)" <cbor.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/cbor>, <mailto:cbor-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/cbor/>
List-Post: <mailto:cbor@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:cbor-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cbor>, <mailto:cbor-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 08 Mar 2021 07:53:06 -0000

I think prefixes and addresses are completely separate use cases.

There is rarely a point in suppressing trailing zeroes in an address.
We shouldn’t burden implementations to cater to this 0.4 % case (probably less in practice).

Prefixes are different, and they should indeed always be tail-cut.
(They are usually /64 or shorter, so there is a real win.)

We could imagine an alternate world where IIDs are carefully chosen so that actual addresses have as many trailing zeroes as possible.
But that’s not what happens today.  If we were to compress inner zero runs (as in “::”), we’d need to give the byte position where that happens (the length would be implied by the length of the remaining byte string).
I’m not proposing we cater to that.

Grüße, Carsten

(The /24 IPv4 example in the draft is wrong.)

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email