Re: [netmod] 6021 ipv4-prefix

Ladislav Lhotka <lhotka@nic.cz> Mon, 29 April 2019 14:24 UTC

Return-Path: <lhotka@nic.cz>
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 8A790120318 for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 29 Apr 2019 07:24:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.999 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, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=nic.cz
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 ZC_ZbUjN_QHZ for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 29 Apr 2019 07:24:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.nic.cz (mail.nic.cz [217.31.204.67]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DFF21120137 for <netmod@ietf.org>; Mon, 29 Apr 2019 07:24:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from birdie (unknown [IPv6:2001:718:1a02:1::380]) by mail.nic.cz (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C4847630D2 for <netmod@ietf.org>; Mon, 29 Apr 2019 16:24:25 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=nic.cz; s=default; t=1556547865; bh=yGuxJSRezi44fJbmAqWNVXxR30CwDLHWbU3o/k6fIMk=; h=From:To:Date; b=Hi+JNhmZKDPlZmuMDnIkMtA9NiV8LaJXf0Di1CAxygE+R94/gLbSQCngfljcnTdpt 2MTa/bHrEeLVXKn3175jEpcgPUGRCbjUL7jV6q+g1jNnxOAM6S1TR111jA8cpVFyQJ PZBrkAzQm69maL3ZMSAh0mUhniA6JBav+rZlfVXY=
Message-ID: <0c4265d31adbf208a680f76216cc4bc42c766eae.camel@nic.cz>
From: Ladislav Lhotka <lhotka@nic.cz>
To: netmod@ietf.org
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2019 16:24:26 +0200
In-Reply-To: <b404565930694fd8af93326b5e754a2b@XCH-RCD-007.cisco.com>
References: <20190426111829.6wkml53a72swxt4b@anna.jacobs.jacobs-university.de> <56a9b51c-d143-6436-7ebe-8db5f66b2fff@spritelink.net> <20190426153623.wpb4owuqsdfjc5q5@anna.jacobs.jacobs-university.de> <B2FAF932-0BD9-42BF-BBCA-38A37F6B33C9@cisco.com> <20190426173014.klub4kxbzucgfmyc@anna.jacobs.jacobs-university.de> <f582ccc854ae446291d6020822fae9dd@XCH-RCD-007.cisco.com> <20190429100213.vukmmbdsz5zlw6w5@anna.jacobs.jacobs-university.de> <bbf252aaca86418ca80b3bf04a910aff@XCH-RCD-007.cisco.com> <20190429103451.yink4bdvvmlh7ohe@anna.jacobs.jacobs-university.de> <c03aa9a27ed544c5be88fd0750d782e3@XCH-RCD-007.cisco.com> <20190429134615.f32zkbia6fqwk3to@anna.jacobs.jacobs-university.de> <b404565930694fd8af93326b5e754a2b@XCH-RCD-007.cisco.com>
Organization: CZ.NIC
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
User-Agent: Evolution 3.32.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.99.2 at mail
X-Virus-Status: Clean
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/pYPQxE0tRR_Cduj7ZNIwYZoJzuo>
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: Mon, 29 Apr 2019 14:24:33 -0000

On Mon, 2019-04-29 at 14:02 +0000, Rob Wilton (rwilton) wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>
> > Sent: 29 April 2019 14:46
> > To: Rob Wilton (rwilton) <rwilton@cisco.com>
> > Cc: Acee Lindem (acee) <acee@cisco.com>om>; netmod@ietf.org
> > Subject: Re: [netmod] 6021 ipv4-prefix
> > 
> > On Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 01:33:22PM +0000, Rob Wilton (rwilton) wrote:
> > > But I'm not convinced that allowing ipv4-prefix values in the non-
> > > canonical
> > format is necessarily the right thing to do.  If we were defining these as a
> > new
> > type today then would we make the same choice of typedef definition?
> > > 
> > > Or is a significant part of your proposal/reasoning to ensure backwards
> > compatibility with what we have today?
> > 
> > I am trying to clarify what the existing definition says since there
> > apparently
> > have been different interpretations.
> 
> Given the definition of ipv6-prefix already contains:
> 
>       " The IPv6 address should have all bits that do not belong
>        to the prefix set to zero."
> 
> I think that a better solution might be to add the equivalent text to the
> ipv4-prefix definition:
> 
>       " The IPv4 address should have all bits that do not belong
>        to the prefix set to zero."

But this still essentially permits the client to send a value with those bits
set, and the server has to be prepared to handle it.

If the goal is to get rid of the difference between ipv4- and ipv6-prefix, which
makes sense, then I prefer to remove this sentence from ipv6-prefix.

Lada

> 
> Thanks,
> Rob
> 
> 
> > /js
> > 
> > --
> > 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
-- 
Ladislav Lhotka
Head, CZ.NIC Labs
PGP Key ID: 0xB8F92B08A9F76C67