Agreed. 

Thanks,
Acee

On 4/26/19, 1:52 AM, "netmod on behalf of Jeff Tantsura" 
<netmod-boun...@ietf.org on behalf of jefftant.i...@gmail.com> wrote:

    +1
    
    Cheers,
    Jeff
    
    > On Apr 18, 2019, at 6:12 AM, Lou Berger <lber...@labn.net> wrote:
    > 
    > 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?
    >> 
    > 
    > _______________________________________________
    > netmod mailing list
    > netmod@ietf.org
    > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
    
    _______________________________________________
    netmod mailing list
    netmod@ietf.org
    https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
    

_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod

Reply via email to