Re: [netmod] 6991bis: address-with-prefix-length

Michael Rehder <Michael.Rehder@Amdocs.com> Mon, 01 April 2019 17:54 UTC

Return-Path: <Michael.Rehder@amdocs.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 C2C211203F2 for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 Apr 2019 10:54:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.689
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.689 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (body has been altered)" header.d=amdocs.onmicrosoft.com
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 c7XIWJPSc0Wi for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 Apr 2019 10:54:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from indmail02.amdocs.com (indmail02.amdocs.com [202.91.135.133]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 98DD0120187 for <netmod@ietf.org>; Mon, 1 Apr 2019 10:54:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from unknown (HELO INPNQEXCHCAS02.corp.amdocs.com) ([10.20.40.7]) by indmail02.corp.amdocs.com with ESMTP; 01 Apr 2019 23:09:55 +0530
Received: from INPNQEXCHCAS01.corp.amdocs.com (10.20.40.231) by INPNQEXCHCAS02.corp.amdocs.com (10.20.40.232) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384) id 15.1.1531.3; Mon, 1 Apr 2019 23:23:59 +0530
Received: from INPNQEXCHEDGE02.corp.amdocs.com (10.19.112.168) by INPNQEXCHCAS01.corp.amdocs.com (10.20.40.231) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384) id 15.1.1531.3 via Frontend Transport; Mon, 1 Apr 2019 23:23:59 +0530
Received: from EUR04-VI1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (10.20.25.68) by emm.amdocs.com (10.20.25.76) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384) id 15.1.1531.3; Mon, 1 Apr 2019 23:23:58 +0530
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=Amdocs.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector1-amdocs-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=CQQjcvYoLLxK5sWHdz1STZTnFkezSQdtlZZXcCCk4zo=; b=ADeSB3MfKQn+tyJedokFHv36Vewx47wofyvAcb0yW9o6uyF99O+O0t4ZLOyZNhQB+Of0kYgrYU47eafVkHYVllHV+tNP2X1Ew7nd3+gHkoHzityZ1WTscG+5Xrq+myGa6QV3bILY/zCT5Dl5SlaAvQQvrWyh23fvX25YRvH1NEk=
Received: from AM0PR06MB4083.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com (52.133.57.154) by AM0PR06MB4035.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com (52.133.52.142) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.1730.18; Mon, 1 Apr 2019 17:53:56 +0000
Received: from AM0PR06MB4083.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::290a:e8e5:2d22:6a0f]) by AM0PR06MB4083.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::290a:e8e5:2d22:6a0f%3]) with mapi id 15.20.1750.017; Mon, 1 Apr 2019 17:53:56 +0000
From: Michael Rehder <Michael.Rehder@Amdocs.com>
To: "netmod@ietf.org" <netmod@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: 6991bis: address-with-prefix-length
Thread-Index: AdTosYjylcpBC/maRr6LoEbsZjHDyg==
Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2019 17:53:56 +0000
Message-ID: <AM0PR06MB4083C2D7B820D01C50C1F7CDE7550@AM0PR06MB4083.eurprd06.prod.outlook.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=Michael.Rehder@Amdocs.com;
x-originating-ip: [192.95.160.116]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 923dd3c8-928c-4ee3-9bed-08d6b6cb031d
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(2390118)(7020095)(4652040)(8989299)(5600139)(711020)(4605104)(4534185)(4627221)(201703031133081)(201702281549075)(8990200)(2017052603328)(7193020); SRVR:AM0PR06MB4035;
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: AM0PR06MB4035:
x-ms-exchange-purlcount: 2
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <AM0PR06MB4035E22F28175686ABE40986E7550@AM0PR06MB4035.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com>
x-forefront-prvs: 0994F5E0C5
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009020)(136003)(396003)(366004)(346002)(376002)(39860400002)(54094003)(189003)(199004)(13464003)(2351001)(966005)(53546011)(97736004)(478600001)(8936002)(6916009)(81166006)(256004)(14454004)(66066001)(2906002)(305945005)(9686003)(476003)(8676002)(229853002)(72206003)(7736002)(6306002)(5640700003)(55016002)(186003)(71200400001)(6506007)(6436002)(86362001)(99286004)(74316002)(486006)(3846002)(6116002)(53936002)(1730700003)(105586002)(52536014)(102836004)(26005)(5660300002)(6246003)(106356001)(71190400001)(68736007)(7696005)(33656002)(316002)(2501003)(81156014)(25786009); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:AM0PR06MB4035; H:AM0PR06MB4083.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; LANG:en; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; A:1;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: Amdocs.com does not designate permitted sender hosts)
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: TThAXXXPySpws5okWyUcm9jFfR+Co06uDxoljduxtUyONphLXN5Ut5e87MTor/t1cdvQzEsY9Cxtu/65P5GroOBprhujPILcA7muv7jiBHK5pdrUYxO0l0c4yKVzfBZl0i0HXIH+CEMgrL2zLROd6BiYszDIclpSFcvlLzgEebod6qOWwptr6lgfmgUi3j/2qUIkgaum2P6ffVGW0Qr37k4yCrnoOMy6VQin7mJEliBLAnKhBuvlbNhcj9sdMSoTvlKyD+5nSJ2XszZ6Fp+liQ9uFSvh7ldHU112KPkRWIENw3ghnjBA5+E/YhyItnc19hf6rLErJFunvNxFclKXjR87ey5PYwLNwQzfQja244sx7nyWhz0rplr1kYF18/egGk0PFklE2v90YKlcb6ve6xLBM+OImSnD1h4g48iIzE0=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 923dd3c8-928c-4ee3-9bed-08d6b6cb031d
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 01 Apr 2019 17:53:56.5031 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: c8eca3ca-1276-46d5-9d9d-a0f2a028920f
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: AM0PR06MB4035
X-OriginatorOrg: amdocs.com
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/Tg7OQDgQkXbzsbBU4CEmxhtrwC4>
Subject: Re: [netmod] 6991bis: address-with-prefix-length
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: Mon, 01 Apr 2019 17:54:10 -0000

Some systems require a "canonical" prefix, in that there cannot be bits past the mask length.
Like
  192.168.1.1/24
is not legal due to the ".1" for the last octet, which should be ".0".

The ietf-inet-types definition says this but does not enforce it.
Such enforcement exceeds regexp capability (as far as I know).
Note also that the ietf pattern regexp are not anchored so
" junk192.168.1.1"
and
"    192.168.1.1   "
Are accepted. I don't know why they are unanchored. This makes them unusable in my view.

As a result I've written my own regxp and a somewhat elaborate MUST clause for canonical format check but a specific type would be better.
Another perspective is to ensure there is some way to avoid using MUST to simply constrain type.
Has that ever been discussed?

Thanks
Mike

> -----Original Message-----
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Message: 1
> Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2019 16:38:34 +0200
> From: Kristian Larsson <kristian@spritelink.net>
> To: netmod@ietf.org
> Subject: [netmod] 6991bis: address-with-prefix-length
> Message-ID: <10d3413c-df96-6e7d-df82-5542bb02348d@spritelink.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
> 
> Hello,
> 
> seeing that 6991 is up for a refresh I wonder if this would be the time to
> suggest the addition of a type for address-and-prefix-length, for example like
> 192.0.2.1/24?
> 
> I find that it's the most natural way express the address and prefix-length to
> configure on an interface or for some other use. We currently have an ip-prefix
> type which allows CIDR style prefixes but since all bits to the right of the mask
> is to be 0 it is only possible to use for describing the IP prefix / network address
> itself - not the address of a host in that network.
> 
> I actually wish the interface-ip modules would have used a combined leaf for
> these settings rather than the dual-leaf approach it currently has, but I suppose
> that ship has sailed :/
> 
> Regardless, can we add such a type? Is this the document and time to do it? :)
> 
> Kind regard,
>     Kristian.
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 2
> Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2019 18:13:21 +0200
> From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>
> To: Kristian Larsson <kristian@spritelink.net>
> Cc: <netmod@ietf.org>
> Subject: Re: [netmod] 6991bis: address-with-prefix-length
> Message-ID:
> 	<20190401161321.seiodlfsmjjvjcp5@anna.jacobs.jacobs-university.de>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
> 
> This is the right time for this and I would call these ip-address-prefix, ipv4-
> address-prefix and ipv6-address prefix.
> 
> /js
> 
> On Mon, Apr 01, 2019 at 04:38:34PM +0200, Kristian Larsson wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > seeing that 6991 is up for a refresh I wonder if this would be the
> > time to suggest the addition of a type for address-and-prefix-length,
> > for example like 192.0.2.1/24?
> >
> > I find that it's the most natural way express the address and
> > prefix-length to configure on an interface or for some other use. We
> > currently have an ip-prefix type which allows CIDR style prefixes but
> > since all bits to the right of the mask is to be 0 it is only possible
> > to use for describing the IP prefix / network address itself - not the
> > address of a host in that network.
> >
> > I actually wish the interface-ip modules would have used a combined
> > leaf for these settings rather than the dual-leaf approach it
> > currently has, but I suppose that ship has sailed :/
> >
> > Regardless, can we add such a type? Is this the document and time to do it?
> > :)
> >
> > Kind regard,
> >    Kristian.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > netmod mailing list
> > netmod@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
> 
> --
> Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
> Phone: +49 421 200 3587         Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
> Fax:   +49 421 200 3103         <https://www.jacobs-university.de/>
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 3
> Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2019 16:31:12 +0000
> From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>
> To: Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>de>,
> 	"Kristian Larsson" <kristian@spritelink.net>
> Cc: "netmod@ietf.org" <netmod@ietf.org>
> Subject: Re: [netmod] 6991bis: address-with-prefix-length
> Message-ID: <F1537180-6BF3-40C7-BCFA-3AAE0290AE9D@cisco.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
> 
> I believe the "address-" could be omitted from the type identifiers. At least
> within the routing area, "ipv4-prefix" is unambiguous.
> Thanks,
> Acee
> 
> ?On 4/1/19, 12:14 PM, "netmod on behalf of Juergen Schoenwaelder"
> <netmod-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-
> university.de> wrote:
> 
>     This is the right time for this and I would call these
>     ip-address-prefix, ipv4-address-prefix and ipv6-address
>     prefix.
> 
>     /js
> 
>     On Mon, Apr 01, 2019 at 04:38:34PM +0200, Kristian Larsson wrote:
>     > Hello,
>     >
>     > seeing that 6991 is up for a refresh I wonder if this would be the time to
>     > suggest the addition of a type for address-and-prefix-length, for example
>     > like 192.0.2.1/24?
>     >
>     > I find that it's the most natural way express the address and prefix-length
>     > to configure on an interface or for some other use. We currently have an
>     > ip-prefix type which allows CIDR style prefixes but since all bits to the
>     > right of the mask is to be 0 it is only possible to use for describing the
>     > IP prefix / network address itself - not the address of a host in that
>     > network.
>     >
>     > I actually wish the interface-ip modules would have used a combined leaf
> for
>     > these settings rather than the dual-leaf approach it currently has, but I
>     > suppose that ship has sailed :/
>     >
>     > Regardless, can we add such a type? Is this the document and time to do it?
>     > :)
>     >
>     > Kind regard,
>     >    Kristian.
>     >
>     > _______________________________________________
>     > netmod mailing list
>     > netmod@ietf.org
>     > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
> 
>     --
>     Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
>     Phone: +49 421 200 3587         Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
>     Fax:   +49 421 200 3103         <https://www.jacobs-university.de/>
> 
>     _______________________________________________
>     netmod mailing list
>     netmod@ietf.org
>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 4
> Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2019 17:23:37 +0000
> From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>
> To: Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>de>,
> 	"Kristian Larsson" <kristian@spritelink.net>
> Cc: "netmod@ietf.org" <netmod@ietf.org>
> Subject: Re: [netmod] 6991bis: address-with-prefix-length
> Message-ID: <A0F7987F-AA67-4A63-8FEE-3B74B5B47CF1@cisco.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
> 
> Ok, now I'm confused. I see that the ietf-inet-type model already has the types
> ipv4-prefix and ipv6-prefix. How are these any different???
> Thanks,
> Acee
> 
> ?On 4/1/19, 12:31 PM, "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com> wrote:
> 
>     I believe the "address-" could be omitted from the type identifiers. At least
> within the routing area, "ipv4-prefix" is unambiguous.
>     Thanks,
>     Acee
> 
>     On 4/1/19, 12:14 PM, "netmod on behalf of Juergen Schoenwaelder"
> <netmod-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-
> university.de> wrote:
> 
>         This is the right time for this and I would call these
>         ip-address-prefix, ipv4-address-prefix and ipv6-address
>         prefix.
> 
>         /js
> 
>         On Mon, Apr 01, 2019 at 04:38:34PM +0200, Kristian Larsson wrote:
>         > Hello,
>         >
>         > seeing that 6991 is up for a refresh I wonder if this would be the time to
>         > suggest the addition of a type for address-and-prefix-length, for example
>         > like 192.0.2.1/24?
>         >
>         > I find that it's the most natural way express the address and prefix-
> length
>         > to configure on an interface or for some other use. We currently have an
>         > ip-prefix type which allows CIDR style prefixes but since all bits to the
>         > right of the mask is to be 0 it is only possible to use for describing the
>         > IP prefix / network address itself - not the address of a host in that
>         > network.
>         >
>         > I actually wish the interface-ip modules would have used a combined
> leaf for
>         > these settings rather than the dual-leaf approach it currently has, but I
>         > suppose that ship has sailed :/
>         >
>         > Regardless, can we add such a type? Is this the document and time to do
> it?
>         > :)
>         >
>         > Kind regard,
>         >    Kristian.
>         >
>         > _______________________________________________
>         > netmod mailing list
>         > netmod@ietf.org
>         > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
> 
>         --
>         Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
>         Phone: +49 421 200 3587         Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
>         Fax:   +49 421 200 3103         <https://www.jacobs-university.de/>
> 
>         _______________________________________________
>         netmod mailing list
>         netmod@ietf.org
>         https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Subject: Digest Footer
> 
> _______________________________________________
> netmod mailing list
> netmod@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> End of netmod Digest, Vol 133, Issue 2
> **************************************
This email and the information contained herein is proprietary and confidential and subject to the Amdocs Email Terms of Service, which you may review at https://www.amdocs.com/about/email-terms-of-service <https://www.amdocs.com/about/email-terms-of-service>