Re: [netmod] 6021 ipv4-prefix

[Juergen Schoenwaelder <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 11:20:57PM +0200, Kristian Larsson wrote:
> 
> 
> On 2019-04-18 13:12, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 12:53:22PM +0200, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
> > > On Thu, 18 Apr 2019, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 11:43:05AM +0200, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
> > > > +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?
> > 
> > The non-prefix bits are irrelevant for the prefix and the canonical
> > format has the non-prefix bits all set to zero. I understand that you
> > prefer 2001:db8::1/64 to be an error but RFC 6021 and RFC 6991
> > consider this as valid input that can be safely interpreted to mean
> > 2001:db8::0/64.
> 
> Vice versa, if an implementation does treat 2001:db8::1/64 as a syntax
> error, is that implementation incorrect?
>

I think so. The types do not require that non-prefix bits are zero
when a value is received. However, a server must report the canonical
value, in this case 2001:db8::/64.

/js

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
Phone: [phone]         Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
Fax:   [phone]         <https://www.jacobs-university.de/>