IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [netmod] 6021 ipv4-prefix

Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net> Thu, 18 April 2019 13:24 UTC

Return-Path: <lberger@labn.net>
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 275031200B2 for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 18 Apr 2019 06:24:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (768-bit key) header.d=labn.net
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 Yaq-MXK1uF-p for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 18 Apr 2019 06:24:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gproxy8-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com (gproxy8-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com [67.222.33.93]) (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 2AFCD12008A for <netmod@ietf.org>; Thu, 18 Apr 2019 06:24:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cmgw12.unifiedlayer.com (unknown [10.9.0.12]) by gproxy8.mail.unifiedlayer.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A981D1AE4D0 for <netmod@ietf.org>; Thu, 18 Apr 2019 07:12:38 -0600 (MDT)
Received: from box313.bluehost.com ([69.89.31.113]) by cmsmtp with ESMTP id H6qEhiO5Pmds9H6qEhNeDg; Thu, 18 Apr 2019 07:12:38 -0600
X-Authority-Reason: nr=8
X-Authority-Analysis: $(_cmae_reason
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=labn.net; s=default; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version :Date:Message-ID:From:References:Cc:To:Subject:Sender:Reply-To:Content-ID: Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc :Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe: List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=baipiUmtt6STHXSUWKnsrCV/VaJXcnra/u3WSkJfBeo=; b=JkJCplM7nIj7GvH/+yW0B2QvXb UHs80onWR/Q70qgJwsn5SgSbRxWXlv5wztme+PAZ5H8hD4x0kxRNPa5quK7iErVoeprYolix8wTx1 qdUU7gZ+pIo+4bA5FBpmrVWHY;
Received: from pool-72-66-11-201.washdc.fios.verizon.net ([72.66.11.201]:51774 helo=[IPv6:::1]) by box313.bluehost.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.91) (envelope-from <lberger@labn.net>) id 1hH6qE-004GGA-BX; Thu, 18 Apr 2019 07:12:38 -0600
To: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>, Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>
Cc: netmod@ietf.org
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>
From: Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>
Message-ID: <5e98661c-dbec-42dd-82da-5410418709a3@labn.net>
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2019 09:12:37 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.3.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1904181251000.3490@uplift.swm.pp.se>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-US
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - box313.bluehost.com
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - labn.net
X-BWhitelist: no
X-Source-IP: 72.66.11.201
X-Source-L: No
X-Exim-ID: 1hH6qE-004GGA-BX
X-Source:
X-Source-Args:
X-Source-Dir:
X-Source-Sender: pool-72-66-11-201.washdc.fios.verizon.net ([IPv6:::1]) [72.66.11.201]:51774
X-Source-Auth: lberger@labn.net
X-Email-Count: 3
X-Source-Cap: bGFibm1vYmk7bGFibm1vYmk7Ym94MzEzLmJsdWVob3N0LmNvbQ==
X-Local-Domain: yes
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/xxL6vToOfccyLSSbh3ebYrNDVC4>
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: Thu, 18 Apr 2019 13:24:21 -0000

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?
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email