Re: [Lsr] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing-extensions-20: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[Benjamin Kaduk <[e-mail]>]

On Sun, Dec 16, 2018 at 11:53:59PM -0600, Benjamin Kaduk wrote:
> Sorry for the slow reply -- you caught me right as I was leaving for
> vacation.
> 
> On Wed, Dec 05, 2018 at 09:53:20AM +0100, Peter Psenak wrote:
> > 
> > On 05/12/18 04:44 , Benjamin Kaduk wrote:
> 
> > >
> > > I'm also not entirely sure how to construct the prefix range just given
> > > this format description.  Suppose I have an IPv4 prefix of 18.18/16 and a
> > > range size of 4; my prefix length is 16 and the address prefix is encoded
> > > as 0x120120000.  Am I then representing the four prefixes 18.18/16,
> > > 18.19/16, 18.20/16, and 18.21/16?
> > 
> > yes.
> > 
> > > Or am I constrained to be a subset of
> > > 18.18/18 (in which case I don't know what the actual distinct prefixes
> > > would be)?  The examples in Section 6 suggests the former, but I would suggest
> > > stating this explictly, here.
> > >
> > 
> > I would thing that the example in section 16 is clear enough.
> 
> I generally prefer to describe the normative behavior in actual text
> description instead of relying on examples to clarify the expected
> behavior.  That said, this is a non-blocking comment, so feel free to
> retain the current text.  If you did want to add something, I would
> propose the strawman:
> 
> OLD:
>    The range represents the contiguous set of prefixes with the same
>    prefix length as specified by the Prefix Length field.  The set
>    starts with the prefix that is specified by the Address Prefix field.
>    The number of prefixes in the range is equal to the Range size.
> 
> NEW:
>    The range represents the contiguous set of prefixes with the same
>    prefix length as specified by the Prefix Length field.  The set
>    starts with the prefix that is specified by the Address Prefix field and
>    continues with the subsequent prefixes of the same length, forming a
>    contiguous block of addresses.  Since the Range Size is not restricted to a
>    power of two, this new block of addresses may not be describable using a
>    single address prefix/length.  The number of prefixes in the range is
>    equal to the Range size.

Ah, now I see the text proposed in response to Suresh's comments; that text
works for me, too.

-Benjamin