Re: [netmod] 6021 ipv4-prefix

[Juergen Schoenwaelder <[e-mail]>]

On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 12:56:57PM +0200, Kristian Larsson wrote:
> 
> I'm having trouble unifying the following:
> - Juergen says RFC6021 and 6991 consider 2001:db8::1/64 to be valid input
> that can safely be interpreted to mean 2001:db8::/64
> - NSO instead treats 2001:db8::1/64 as a syntax error
> 
> If 6021+6991 says it is valid input, then NSO must accept it, no?
>
> Or does 6021+6991 say such a value MAY be treated as valid input? And if it
> does accept it, it must then store or at least always return it in the
> canonical format?

I do not find anything in 6021+6991 that says 2001:db8::1/64 is
illegal input. If it were illegal, we would not need the definition of
the canonical format that is in 6021+6991. Apparently text could have
been more explicit but if you connect the bits and pieces, I think the
conclusion must be that 2001:db8::1/64 is allowed input, i.e., you do
not have to clear the bits that are irrelevant but the server will do
this since it has to return the value in canonical format.

/js

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