Destination Prefix Extension

Yakov Rekhter <yakov@cisco.com> Wed, 22 November 1995 15:12 UTC

Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id ab12192; 22 Nov 95 10:12 EST
Received: from guelah.nexen.com by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa12186; 22 Nov 95 10:12 EST
Received: from maelstrom.nexen.com (maelstrom.nexen.com [204.249.97.5]) by guelah.nexen.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA19889; Wed, 22 Nov 1995 09:44:52 -0500
Received: (from root@localhost) by maelstrom.nexen.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA04412 for rolc-out; Wed, 22 Nov 1995 09:56:13 -0500
Received: from guelah.nexen.com (guelah.nexen.com [204.249.96.19]) by maelstrom.nexen.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA04403 for <rolc@nexen.com>; Wed, 22 Nov 1995 09:56:10 -0500
Received: from hubbub.cisco.com (hubbub.cisco.com [198.92.30.32]) by guelah.nexen.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA19861 for <rolc@nexen.com>; Wed, 22 Nov 1995 09:42:35 -0500
Received: from puli.cisco.com (puli.cisco.com [171.69.1.174]) by hubbub.cisco.com (8.6.12/CISCO.GATE.1.1) with SMTP id GAA29208 for rolc@nexen.com; Wed, 22 Nov 1995 06:53:06 -0800
Message-Id: <199511221453.GAA29208@hubbub.cisco.com>
To: rolc@nexen.com
Subject: Destination Prefix Extension
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 95 06:53:05 PST
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Yakov Rekhter <yakov@cisco.com>
X-Orig-Sender: owner-rolc@nexen.com
Precedence: bulk
X-Info: Submissions to rolc@nexen.com
X-Info: [Un]Subscribe requests to rolc-request@nexen.com
X-Info: Archives for rolc via ftp://ietf.cnri.reston.va.us/ietf-mail-archive/rolc/

Folks, 

Could someone give a good technical reason(s) to express Destination
Prefix Extension as mask (rather than a length of a prefix) ?

Yakov.

P.S. Expressing it as a prefix length would (a) avoid the need to
check for non-contiguous mask, (b) enable to use the same
option for multiple network layer protocols (e.g. IPv4 and IPv6),
(c) provide more compact encoding, and (d) be more consistent with
the notion of "address prefixes".