Hi Lada, > -----Original Message----- > From: netmod <netmod-boun...@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Ladislav Lhotka > Sent: 29 April 2019 15:24 > To: netmod@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [netmod] 6021 ipv4-prefix > > On Mon, 2019-04-29 at 14:02 +0000, Rob Wilton (rwilton) wrote: > > > -----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." > > 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.
My aim with this text is to: - encourage clients to use canonical format, since that seems to cause the least problems. - align the v4 and v6 definitions. - retain the existing flexibility for servers to choose what they support, noting that any change in behaviour here will be non-backwards compatible. Thanks, Rob > > 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 > > _______________________________________________ > 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
