> -----Original Message-----
> From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de>
> Sent: 29 April 2019 14:46
> To: Rob Wilton (rwilton) <rwil...@cisco.com>
> Cc: Acee Lindem (acee) <a...@cisco.com>; 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."
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
