Re: [netmod] 6021 ipv4-prefix

"Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com> Thu, 18 April 2019 13:35 UTC

Return-Path: <acee@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: netmod@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: netmod@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B00312014D for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 18 Apr 2019 06:35:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.501
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.501 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_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com header.b=R1Bf0ZaH; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com header.b=H028oP86
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 QwQvimafkFCM for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 18 Apr 2019 06:35:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-6.cisco.com (alln-iport-6.cisco.com [173.37.142.93]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 72CA01200C7 for <netmod@ietf.org>; Thu, 18 Apr 2019 06:35:01 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2974; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1555594501; x=1556804101; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=tEPm/NCQKzz5kIMpbySq0/PeN1C114CJjm+QVZ4gsTg=; b=R1Bf0ZaHWuDqbcHAZnR1rX5c2INqqUQAFa88hO/pcuRxP65KAnPI9xHo A00X7N8AvA8ZZ1kOgBF4krs+4juA5wM4BHtxWrpzlOrxicfeCAA320er6 u1GYpAC/SVWrrCjFkTcgQ9c+SW4uMLbuzulXXs6PPbxl0PX6pbOv8UN2E c=;
IronPort-PHdr: =?us-ascii?q?9a23=3Ak6FpyxfDEKuisqyXDR4evyAIlGMj4e+mNxMJ6p?= =?us-ascii?q?chl7NFe7ii+JKnJkHE+PFxlwKUD57D5adCjOzb++D7VGoM7IzJkUhKcYcEFl?= =?us-ascii?q?cejNkO2QkpAcqLE0r+effhYiESF8VZX1gj9Ha+YgBY?=
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0AGAAD+e7hc/51dJa1lGQEBAQEBAQE?= =?us-ascii?q?BAQEBAQcBAQEBAQGBUQQBAQEBAQsBgT1QA2hVIAQLKIQOg0cDhFKKQoJXlxy?= =?us-ascii?q?BLoF7DgEBGAsKg3pGAheGAiM0CQ4BAwEBBAEBAgECbRwMhUsBAQQBASERDAE?= =?us-ascii?q?BLAsBDwIBCA4KAgImAgICJQsVEAIEAQ0FgyIBgWkDHAEOnWsCihRxgS+CeQE?= =?us-ascii?q?BBYR/GIINAwaBCycBi0kXgX+BOB+CTD6CYQEBgWEXgnMxgiaKdII6mR4JAoI?= =?us-ascii?q?GkiQblQeLeJQsAgQCBAUCDgEBBYFPOIFWcBU7KgGCQYIOg2+FFIU/coEpj0k?= =?us-ascii?q?BAQ?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.60,366,1549929600"; d="scan'208";a="263774748"
Received: from rcdn-core-6.cisco.com ([173.37.93.157]) by alln-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 18 Apr 2019 13:35:00 +0000
Received: from XCH-RCD-017.cisco.com (xch-rcd-017.cisco.com [173.37.102.27]) by rcdn-core-6.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id x3IDZ0wg005489 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Thu, 18 Apr 2019 13:35:00 GMT
Received: from xhs-aln-002.cisco.com (173.37.135.119) by XCH-RCD-017.cisco.com (173.37.102.27) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3; Thu, 18 Apr 2019 08:34:59 -0500
Received: from xhs-aln-003.cisco.com (173.37.135.120) by xhs-aln-002.cisco.com (173.37.135.119) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3; Thu, 18 Apr 2019 08:34:58 -0500
Received: from NAM02-SN1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (173.37.151.57) by xhs-aln-003.cisco.com (173.37.135.120) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3 via Frontend Transport; Thu, 18 Apr 2019 08:34:57 -0500
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector1-cisco-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=tEPm/NCQKzz5kIMpbySq0/PeN1C114CJjm+QVZ4gsTg=; b=H028oP86ioZ1LxG9+xbI6Ue/qrS2it8as0mNRUmkbJWL+tVJ/lXsyf+mRoZQNKdgO5JzTWKx0OniqWrLEHdxrMTTCT9wwKOzW+K+CsUThj9yixKfdq5pdXH45QJjkX0/wQGW23iJ3+Af4mtgycKunSt/ntXm8XcgGO2z8Cj/PjM=
Received: from BN6PR1101MB2226.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (10.174.112.11) by BN6PR1101MB2131.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (10.174.112.136) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.1813.12; Thu, 18 Apr 2019 13:34:56 +0000
Received: from BN6PR1101MB2226.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::9105:38a0:c6b:f455]) by BN6PR1101MB2226.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::9105:38a0:c6b:f455%7]) with mapi id 15.20.1771.026; Thu, 18 Apr 2019 13:34:56 +0000
From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>
To: Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>, Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>, Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>
CC: "netmod@ietf.org" <netmod@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [netmod] 6021 ipv4-prefix
Thread-Index: AdT0l4zGpLjvUofYRmmSWqlDWwoAHABHw8uAAAHDNYAAA12WgAABgE0AAAD0FQAABNz+gP//wyyA
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2019 13:34:56 +0000
Message-ID: <63E6D5D7-1EF1-4C72-B956-7B3C1BF32789@cisco.com>
References: <003301d4f498$4f593640$ee0ba2c0$@gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1904180906360.3490@uplift.swm.pp.se> <20190418080643.gcdi5x4dtn64adwc@anna.jacobs.jacobs-university.de> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1904181128480.3490@uplift.swm.pp.se> <20190418102604.y5wyqflcudiywj2i@anna.jacobs.jacobs-university.de> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1904181251000.3490@uplift.swm.pp.se> <5e98661c-dbec-42dd-82da-5410418709a3@labn.net>
In-Reply-To: <5e98661c-dbec-42dd-82da-5410418709a3@labn.net>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=acee@cisco.com;
x-originating-ip: [2001:420:c0c8:1002::367]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: c852d936-08c8-4f39-0b8a-08d6c402a5c0
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(2390118)(7020095)(4652040)(8989299)(4534185)(4627221)(201703031133081)(201702281549075)(8990200)(5600141)(711020)(4605104)(2017052603328)(7193020); SRVR:BN6PR1101MB2131;
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: BN6PR1101MB2131:
x-ms-exchange-purlcount: 1
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <BN6PR1101MB2131D8EE844863920E0B8488C2260@BN6PR1101MB2131.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
x-forefront-prvs: 0011612A55
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009020)(366004)(376002)(396003)(346002)(39860400002)(136003)(199004)(189003)(71190400001)(476003)(486006)(83716004)(14454004)(6246003)(71200400001)(305945005)(7736002)(53936002)(478600001)(82746002)(6306002)(6512007)(966005)(46003)(256004)(4326008)(6506007)(53546011)(25786009)(102836004)(81166006)(81156014)(36756003)(97736004)(86362001)(8936002)(6116002)(68736007)(76176011)(33656002)(229853002)(110136005)(8676002)(99286004)(2906002)(93886005)(6486002)(446003)(186003)(2616005)(5660300002)(11346002)(6436002)(316002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:BN6PR1101MB2131; H:BN6PR1101MB2226.namprd11.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; LANG:en; PTR:InfoNoRecords; A:1; MX:1;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: cisco.com does not designate permitted sender hosts)
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: feZhCX1EwjraDfdUsrYf5pnrd2zUfJCqMtayrABs3zHufzhhUSIc3v0uevJo/6+TmnXPvLtm9vnAtx3YS9Y2125Mlne+iiAlYdEratLmP1sTtp9BbURcq3FCwtfNqeNOvyYPyqBDQCv4N3IhRQGYA44R0Ei/F3SccxXzp90PuOH65dlVe5UEJN+3mnSkBK5AlhlDUftysTeTcQWzR8pahNnqro3t0x5Dx6sDoscR4bE2/zSDbLEKt/ulfy7G3sZ+SfYjR19uSvHGtKyQ423otdnTducTTqmV4IwNLYJzTT/k7x9F3PIArlRfWsZiKLDA565x9qQ4xhEHJjWM37S2RWn/1v9KmUpojzeix5C9mp1IM5VwdOPFo9fmjeCtu6fpKfLfG+VP3g6pq0uKQuXK6a0e8Od1dGcLLoWQoLcZ7pc=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <6018FFF8D42AE242AF2EF80781E3384E@namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: c852d936-08c8-4f39-0b8a-08d6c402a5c0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 18 Apr 2019 13:34:56.6857 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 5ae1af62-9505-4097-a69a-c1553ef7840e
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BN6PR1101MB2131
X-OriginatorOrg: cisco.com
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 173.37.102.27, xch-rcd-017.cisco.com
X-Outbound-Node: rcdn-core-6.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/8vceVgUAYEgKd9VnrwcVtG8p478>
Subject: Re: [netmod] 6021 ipv4-prefix
X-BeenThere: netmod@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: NETMOD WG list <netmod.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/netmod>, <mailto:netmod-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/netmod/>
List-Post: <mailto:netmod@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:netmod-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod>, <mailto:netmod-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2019 13:35:03 -0000

+1

It also would be nice if we could loosen the YANG migration rules so we could change leaves from ipv4-prefix to ipv4-address-and-length (or whatever we decide to call it) to handle the cases where the former has been used incorrectly. However, this is a separate issue. 

Acee



On 4/18/19, 9:26 AM, "netmod on behalf of Lou Berger" <netmod-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of lberger@labn.net> wrote:

    Having worked with UIs that have the behavior of accepting an 
    address/prefix-len and mapping it to a prefix, (i.e., network/prefix-len 
    and zeroing out the non-significant bits)  - some users really like it 
    as they don't have to do the transformation from address to network, 
    notably for odd length prefixes, while other users hate it as the system 
    shows/does something different than what they entered.
    
    In the end the current definition is what it is.  If we want something 
    different we can define it. I personally think an address/prefix-len 
    would be useful, and would leave ip-prefix as is.  (again just an 
    individual's opinion.)
    
    Lou
    
    On 4/18/2019 6:53 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
    > On Thu, 18 Apr 2019, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
    >
    >> On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 11:43:05AM +0200, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
    >>
    >>> 2001:db8::/64 and 2001:db8::1/64 are NOT the same if you use them.
    >> Why are they not the same if you define a prefix?
    > Because they're not. One of them is a valid prefix, the other one isn't.
    >
    >> +17.4 is not an integer, so this is an error (not because of the + but
    >> because of the . followed by additional digits). +17 is I think a valid
    >> integer value but the + will be dropped in the canonical representation.
    > Yes, but 2001:db8::1/64 isn't valid prefix (because the host portion of
    > the prefix isn't 0) so why should it be "rounded" when 17.4 shouldn't be
    > rounded if an integer input is expected?
    >
    
    _______________________________________________
    netmod mailing list
    netmod@ietf.org
    https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod