IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [netmod] 6021 ipv4-prefix

"Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com> Fri, 26 April 2019 11:16 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 7AA4A12002E for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 26 Apr 2019 04:16:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.5
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.5 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, URIBL_BLOCKED=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=BzeitaYB; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com header.b=cA3MMykc
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 g5lXS9eg4KmH for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 26 Apr 2019 04:16:45 -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 3BBCF120021 for <netmod@ietf.org>; Fri, 26 Apr 2019 04:16:45 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=3010; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1556277405; x=1557487005; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=JZWZ0PjHGv+wDDZRQb7KK+i0mWNRo/3ikvoo/6cwdZ4=; b=BzeitaYBAAcGDtDQ6C8RrPaPNqwGwxENjS2yNu5PT+OhVP7KaNYG6dXX TQorzkkBH0YPN42pn+2jvxWSVd0b7wjh3OraYiqMN522PWwYPdLw1J0Uz x5aGgRcaF4GIoCczRNBdJTCEjLmq858vosYAbBJ1Pk7sAZsNk+6wASYU7 I=;
IronPort-PHdr: 9a23:kfEm+RFGG2LXveQhvWByEp1GYnJ96bzpIg4Y7IYmgLtSc6Oluo7vJ1Hb+e4w0Q3SRYuO7fVChqKWqK3mVWEaqbe5+HEZON0ETBoZkYMTlg0kDtSCDBjyJ/PnRyc7B89FElRi+iLzPA==
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0AJAACC58Jc/51dJa1mGQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQcBAQEBAQGBUgMBAQEBAQsBgT1QA2hVIAQLKAqEBYNHA48JgleJO41jgS6BJANUDgEBGAsKg3pGAheGGyM1CA4BAwEBBAEBAgECbRwMhUoBAQEDAQEBEBERDAEBLAsBDwIBCBgCAiYCAgIfBgsVEAIEAQ0FIoMAAYFpAw0PAQ6jXAKBNYhfcYEvgnkBAQWCR4I+DQuCDgMGgQsnAYtIF4F/gTgfgkw+ghpHAQGBYReCczGCJo00mHo4CQKCCI5ig0sblRmMB4gHjDkCBAIEBQIOAQEFgVABNoFWcBU7KgGCQYIPg2+FFIU/coEpj24BgSABAQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.60,397,1549929600"; d="scan'208";a="267556873"
Received: from rcdn-core-6.cisco.com ([173.37.93.157]) by alln-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 26 Apr 2019 11:16:43 +0000
Received: from XCH-ALN-005.cisco.com (xch-aln-005.cisco.com [173.36.7.15]) by rcdn-core-6.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id x3QBGhES010424 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Fri, 26 Apr 2019 11:16:43 GMT
Received: from xhs-rcd-003.cisco.com (173.37.227.248) by XCH-ALN-005.cisco.com (173.36.7.15) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3; Fri, 26 Apr 2019 06:16:42 -0500
Received: from xhs-rcd-002.cisco.com (173.37.227.247) by xhs-rcd-003.cisco.com (173.37.227.248) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3; Fri, 26 Apr 2019 06:16:42 -0500
Received: from NAM02-CY1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (72.163.14.9) by xhs-rcd-002.cisco.com (173.37.227.247) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3 via Frontend Transport; Fri, 26 Apr 2019 06:16:42 -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=JZWZ0PjHGv+wDDZRQb7KK+i0mWNRo/3ikvoo/6cwdZ4=; b=cA3MMykcsr8xZpYdATHZp2oHCV/8mZ7LCzuqMaN+ErK7cvB62f/IP1Se0MGcLsgfLGg5M8IdA/4v5sSGchQdpcT60/U5iSuzI2IyIx8T+ZBbq+o/hUgNLcx18iQ+VVwxXvamcXBQCF4m4IQymMWZdF5LbIsSv7c//ev6v6WzzC4=
Received: from BN6PR1101MB2226.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (10.174.112.11) by BN6PR1101MB2353.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (10.173.200.151) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.1835.12; Fri, 26 Apr 2019 11:16:41 +0000
Received: from BN6PR1101MB2226.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::2db0:8c4c:1fe3:d1e1]) by BN6PR1101MB2226.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::2db0:8c4c:1fe3:d1e1%9]) with mapi id 15.20.1835.010; Fri, 26 Apr 2019 11:16:41 +0000
From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>
To: Jeff Tantsura <jefftant.ietf@gmail.com>, Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>
CC: "netmod@ietf.org" <netmod@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [netmod] 6021 ipv4-prefix
Thread-Index: AdT0l4zGpLjvUofYRmmSWqlDWwoAHABHw8uAAAHDNYAAA12WgAABgE0AAAD0FQAABNz+gAGC6OqAAAL9eQA=
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2019 11:16:41 +0000
Message-ID: <0DFE8AA6-9E73-4FAE-8F11-213C5584D52F@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> <C1E0D539-FDE7-4BB3-8456-FADE4BF97F6C@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <C1E0D539-FDE7-4BB3-8456-FADE4BF97F6C@gmail.com>
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: [173.38.117.82]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 4fe5d886-6390-4481-8eda-08d6ca38a87f
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(2390118)(7020095)(4652040)(8989299)(4534185)(4627221)(201703031133081)(201702281549075)(8990200)(5600141)(711020)(4605104)(2017052603328)(7193020); SRVR:BN6PR1101MB2353;
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: BN6PR1101MB2353:
x-ms-exchange-purlcount: 1
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <BN6PR1101MB23534D802D8080857908877EC23E0@BN6PR1101MB2353.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
x-forefront-prvs: 001968DD50
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009020)(346002)(39860400002)(136003)(376002)(366004)(396003)(199004)(189003)(316002)(93886005)(7736002)(256004)(110136005)(102836004)(305945005)(71190400001)(91956017)(2616005)(11346002)(76176011)(186003)(53546011)(486006)(36756003)(71200400001)(68736007)(4326008)(476003)(446003)(83716004)(76116006)(66066001)(86362001)(25786009)(14454004)(229853002)(966005)(66946007)(6486002)(6116002)(6512007)(478600001)(33656002)(97736004)(6306002)(8676002)(81156014)(6246003)(66556008)(66476007)(6436002)(73956011)(64756008)(81166006)(66446008)(26005)(6506007)(8936002)(99286004)(53936002)(2906002)(5660300002)(82746002)(3846002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:BN6PR1101MB2353; 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: RyUTTVbud6uf0ESikrzWVYV77Lit5qHEB3mn7AkO7F5jocsfuDJS1Id8yb32ngNhCclxyQeli0sQmoizLk/bpSyu0Nj+FDHwEwQ3FXCLq1XUWv/MTr6PnXunoyg0FEVbwj/cg+OsnJ5DJZ16e+ig+PzDwFdYCzXRuvxSEDJvan6f5sD/qW8ew5WxNmXytepx3pQfyG//GS/eEpNBCoJ9G2iJnTlhSofFX/i/aQAYjYHZUtiElC+MuvbC+fsbzEhGCrHAZ8gZZ27RDIzjSSRSDMbxblFJYc2YssQjBxAsfSlhgvUULzbmjfW/Potn58VbDb4pojJo/9+pw7zUNVKSYqYbbsph9bGVrEL8TmxMUQrLrr4VqJmu54I/JQK3CFc2tHEm8cb0sX4ZRmmCCyW/MMEVHazx7EdPpzYNJf/MAJM=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <04CAC29EA91BF141898D404530F7421F@namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 4fe5d886-6390-4481-8eda-08d6ca38a87f
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 26 Apr 2019 11:16:41.2814 (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: BN6PR1101MB2353
X-OriginatorOrg: cisco.com
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 173.36.7.15, xch-aln-005.cisco.com
X-Outbound-Node: rcdn-core-6.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/BLM9SmgP6LC8q2lCHmd_N3HZ5VA>
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: Fri, 26 Apr 2019 11:16:47 -0000

Agreed. 

Thanks,
Acee

On 4/26/19, 1:52 AM, "netmod on behalf of Jeff Tantsura" <netmod-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of jefftant.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:

    +1
    
    Cheers,
    Jeff
    
    > On Apr 18, 2019, at 6:12 AM, Lou Berger <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
    
    _______________________________________________
    netmod mailing list
    netmod@ietf.org
    https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email