Re: [netmod] 6021 ipv4-prefix

Mikael Abrahamsson <> Wed, 01 May 2019 08:55 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 33CB6120074 for <>; Wed, 1 May 2019 01:55:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.301
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.301 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZtYtgmq06OVq for <>; Wed, 1 May 2019 01:55:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:801::f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 49179120041 for <>; Wed, 1 May 2019 01:55:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by (Postfix, from userid 501) id 809D8AF; Wed, 1 May 2019 10:55:38 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;; s=mail; t=1556700938; bh=vdKZoq6fhvu+5YBvKHaBm8PbA+MqVBiR9XzAR4HclqA=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=LZSOTG2r98r9w+5QnS/eNJ5cXQWX7p05QZeRbmmuhFudq91dPaV+dCjgcw6fJTHcV iQm0+NzT14lyDdYM3Gjy9831hWpG9ltmSyzY8Ut4AlHZ6IwYcpwwJd8FkFLt+nhJLi VNaGlC/ETCewYuKQ5XpmEAsgoqrGx3e4A4wE8jTU=
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D66C9F; Wed, 1 May 2019 10:55:38 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Wed, 01 May 2019 10:55:38 +0200
From: Mikael Abrahamsson <>
To: Juergen Schoenwaelder <>
cc: "Rob Wilton (rwilton)" <>, "" <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (DEB 67 2015-01-07)
Organization: People's Front Against WWW
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [netmod] 6021 ipv4-prefix
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: NETMOD WG list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 01 May 2019 08:55:45 -0000

On Tue, 30 Apr 2019, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:

> On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 10:46:34AM +0200, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
>> On Tue, 30 Apr 2019, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
>>> I think we go in circles in this thread and I will stop explaining
>>> things again and again. I suggest people look at the next revision
>>> and if anything remains unclear, people can send concrete edit
>>> proposals.
>> You don't have to explain it. Let me try in a different way.
>> "For most types, there is a single canonical representation of the
>>    type's values."
>> Is it generally ok that the canonical value potentially represents a
>> different bit field/value than what the client sent?
> Yes. I explained that the canonicalization of IPv6 addresses is much
> more involved than clearing some unused bits in an IPv6 prefix.

The canonicalization of IPv6 addresses doesn't change the resulting 128 
bit pattern. Canonicalization of IPv6-prefix *does* change the bit 
pattern. Also, it doesn't say in whether the server should 
accept bit-fields that do not adhere to the canonical representation or 

So while you seem to think I am not reading your text, it seems to me 
you're not reading what I am saying either. You're not responding to the 
points I am trying to make anyway.

This talks about *values*. If you drop bits in IPv6-prefix, then it's not 
the same *value* anymore.

So should be changed 
in future revisions to avoid confusion.

> We are not 'fixing' anything. The canonical format is nothing new. The
> text aims at explaining things better. Yes, there are many more types
> that have a canonical representation. Read the other email messages in
> this thread or simply search for 'canonical' in the type definitions.
> I think the descriptions are actually all quite clear (but then I am
> biased of course).

There are lots of implications that are *not* clear in

Mikael Abrahamsson    email: