Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ipv6-rfc2096-update-06.txt
"C. M. Heard" <heard@pobox.com> Mon, 02 February 2004 00:42 UTC
Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA20439 for <ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Sun, 1 Feb 2004 19:42:52 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AnSAR-0002nq-F1 for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 01 Feb 2004 19:42:25 -0500
Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i120gN0f010767 for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 1 Feb 2004 19:42:23 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AnSAR-0002na-Aj for ipv6-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 01 Feb 2004 19:42:23 -0500
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA20269 for <ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org>; Sun, 1 Feb 2004 19:42:20 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AnSAP-0000XE-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 01 Feb 2004 19:42:21 -0500
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AnS8x-00009j-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 01 Feb 2004 19:40:52 -0500
Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AnS7O-0007ke-01 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 01 Feb 2004 19:39:14 -0500
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AnRtx-0005uM-65; Sun, 01 Feb 2004 19:25:21 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AnMbV-00039D-0W for ipv6@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 01 Feb 2004 13:45:57 -0500
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA07146 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Sun, 1 Feb 2004 13:45:52 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AnMbS-0007iW-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Sun, 01 Feb 2004 13:45:54 -0500
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AnMaZ-0007e0-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Sun, 01 Feb 2004 13:45:00 -0500
Received: from shell4.bayarea.net ([209.128.82.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AnMZn-0007Z1-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Sun, 01 Feb 2004 13:44:12 -0500
Received: from localhost (heard@localhost) by shell4.bayarea.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i11Ihwk14067; Sun, 1 Feb 2004 10:43:59 -0800
X-Authentication-Warning: shell4.bayarea.net: heard owned process doing -bs
Date: Sun, 01 Feb 2004 10:43:57 -0800
From: "C. M. Heard" <heard@pobox.com>
X-Sender: heard@shell4.bayarea.net
To: Brian Haberman <brian@innovationslab.net>
cc: ipv6@ietf.org, "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com>
Subject: Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ipv6-rfc2096-update-06.txt
In-Reply-To: <200401301650.LAA26852@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.10.10402010944030.30075-100000@shell4.bayarea.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII"
Sender: ipv6-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: ipv6-admin@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Id: IP Version 6 Working Group (ipv6) <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60
On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 Internet-Drafts@ietf.org wrote: > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line > Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the IP > Version 6 Working Group Working Group of the IETF. > > Title : IP Forwarding Table MIB > Author(s) : M. Wasserman, B. Haberman > Filename : draft-ietf-ipv6-rfc2096-update-06.txt > Pages : 36 > Date : 2004-1-29 Brian, The following change from the previous version caught my attention: 28 Jan 2004 Added range of (0..128) to inetCidrRoutePfxLen The corresponding object definition now reads: inetCidrRoutePfxLen OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX InetAddressPrefixLength (0..128) MAX-ACCESS not-accessible STATUS current DESCRIPTION "Indicates the number of leading one bits which form the mask to be logical-ANDed with the destination address before being compared to the value in the inetCidrRouteDest field. The values for the index objects inetCidrRouteDest and inetCidrRoutePfxLen must be consistent. When the value of inetCidrRouteDest is x, then the bitwise logical-AND of x with the value of the mask formed from the corresponding index object inetCidrRoutePfxLen MUST be equal to x. If not, then the index pair is not consistent and an inconsistentName error must be returned on SET or CREATE requests." ::= { inetCidrRouteEntry 3 } There are two things (IMHO) that are wrong with this definition: 1.) RFC 3291 and its successor draft-ietf-ops-rfc3291bis-03.txt both go to great lengths to tell MIB authors not to sub-type InetAddressType and InetAddress objects: The InetAddressType and InetAddress objects SHOULD NOT be sub-typed in object definitions. Sub-typing binds the MIB module to specific address formats, which may cause serious problems if new address formats need to be introduced. Note that it is possible to write compliance statements in order to express that only a subset of the defined address types must be implemented to be compliant. Since the same kinds of problems can be introduces by sub-typing InetAddressPrefixLength, it seems to me that if we are consistent in our usage we should not sub-type InetAddressPrefixLength objects, either. I've raised this issue on the mreview (Mib Doctors) mailing list; archives are at http://ops.ietf.org/lists/mreview/ for those who wish to review the discussion. If the reason why inetCidrRoutePfxLen got a range restriction was to silence warning from SNICng or some other MIB compiler then a better solution would be to use the range (0..2040), which will accomodate an address length up to 255 octets. Since InetAddress objects already have a size restriction of 255 octets, this does not impose any additional arbitrary limitations other than those already imposed by the InetAddress TC itself. Another possibility, of course, is to remove the range restriction, since it is not required by the SMI (in this case compiler warning != illegal practice). 2.) The following problem is one that neither I (nor, apparently, any other reviewers) noticed up to now: inetCidrRoutePfxLen allows the value zero, but the object definition does not specify what the value zero means. Note that RFC 3291 requires that if the value zero is allowed, then its meaning must be specified in the object definition: The value zero is object-specific and must be defined as part of the description of any object which uses this syntax. Examples of the usage of zero might include situations where the Internet network address prefix is unknown or does not apply. To me, the meaning when inetCidrRoutePfxLen is set to zero is clear: the corresponding row represents a default route. But that might not be true for everyone, and it would be good to spell this out in the DESCRIPTION clause, as RFC 3291 requires. Thanks and regards, Mike Heard -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
- I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ipv6-rfc2096-update-06.txt Internet-Drafts
- Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ipv6-rfc2096-update-06.… C. M. Heard
- Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ipv6-rfc2096-update-06.… Brian Haberman
- Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ipv6-rfc2096-update-06.… Juergen Schoenwaelder
- Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ipv6-rfc2096-update-06.… Juergen Schoenwaelder
- Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ipv6-rfc2096-update-06.… Juergen Schoenwaelder
- RE: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ipv6-rfc2096-update-06.… Wijnen, Bert (Bert)
- RE: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ipv6-rfc2096-update-06.… Wijnen, Bert (Bert)
- RE: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ipv6-rfc2096-update-06.… Wijnen, Bert (Bert)
- RE: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ipv6-rfc2096-update-06.… C. M. Heard
- RE: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ipv6-rfc2096-update-06.… shawn.routhier
- Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ipv6-rfc2096-update-06.… Brian Haberman
- Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ipv6-rfc2096-update-06.… C. M. Heard
- problem with inetCidrRouteDest/inetCidrRoutePfxLe… C. M. Heard
- Re: problem with inetCidrRouteDest/inetCidrRouteP… Brian Haberman
- Re: problem with inetCidrRouteDest/inetCidrRouteP… Juergen Schoenwaelder
- RE: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ipv6-rfc2096-update-06.… shawn.routhier