Re: [netmod] 6021 ipv4-prefix

[Mikael Abrahamsson <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, 18 Apr 2019, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:

> The values 2001:db8::1/64 and 2001:db8::/64 are both legal inputs but
> they result in the same value. In situations where multiple inputs
> resolve to the same value, we define a canonical representation. And
> in the case of ipv6-prefix, the canonical representation is
> 2001:db8::/64. Hence, if you configure 2001:db8::1/64, then the server
> will accept that input report the value back as 2001:db8::/64. The
> main reason for having canonical formats is to make comparisons easy
> and predictable. Think about xpath expressions - without a predictable
> canonical representations, they would become rather complex since they
> would have to deal with several different representations.

Yes, I perfectly understand the IPv6 compression canonical format, since 
it results in two bit fields expressed in ASCII can be string compared.

However, from a networking point of view 2001:db8::/64 and 2001:db8::1/64 
are NOT the same, and I believe all systems I have interacted with would 
throw an error if I tried to commect 2001:db8::1/64 when the system 
expected the last 64 bits to be zeroed.

2001:db8::/64 2001:db8:0::/64 is the same thing when you use ut fir 
configuration, after the configuration has been applied in the system. 
They're two different (correct) representations of the same configuration 
item. I fully understand why the canonical format is needed here and how 
it's supposed to be used.

2001:db8::/64 and 2001:db8::1/64 are NOT the same if you use them.

https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6020#section-9.1

"   For most types, there is a single canonical representation of the
    type's values.  Some types allow multiple lexical representations of
    the same value, for example, the positive integer "17" can be
    represented as "+17" or "17".  Implementations MUST support all
    lexical representations specified in this document."

I don't know what the word "lexical" representation means here. Let's take 
another example.

If I commit "+17.4" into an integer, should I expect the netconf server to 
round this down to 17 and commit that? This is effectively the same thing 
as the above example. When I tried this just now, I got that 17.4 is not a 
valid integer from the software I am using. Is this software doing the 
wrong thing?

-- 
Mikael Abrahamsson    email: [e-mail]