Subject: RE: [ipcdn] use of ipv4z (zoned local) addresses across Docsis MI Bs?

From: "Woundy, Richard" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2003 09:09:09 -0600

Folks,

I think I understand the case for omitting ipv4z from the IPCDN MIB
compliance statements:
- there is no native support for zoned IP addresses in the DOCSIS
environment, and
- omitting ipv4z makes it easier to build and test products for compliance
to these MIB.

What is the case for making ipv4z support mandatory???

-- Rich

-----Original Message-----
From: Wilson Sawyer [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Sunday, September 14, 2003 11:58 AM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: [ipcdn] use of ipv4z (zoned local) addresses across Docsis
MIBs?

Bert Wijnen and Joergen Schoenwaelder made the point that I may have
unintentionally excluded the ipv4z address type (see RFC 3291) from an
ipv4-only compliance statement for the Docsis subscriber-management MIB.

The use of InetAddressType calls for consistency across the Docsis MIBs.
I ask that the other MIB authors, in particular, look into this and post
your thoughts to the list.

At present, the subscriber management MIB permits the representation of
any InetAddressType, but its compliance statement only requires ipv4. It
does not require support for ipv4z. I'm inclined to believe that ipv4z
addresses, while they might be a legitimate part of a docsis
environment, shouldn't be required for basic compliance. But consistency
with other Docsis MIBs, as well as the general opinion of the WG, are
more important than my inclinations.

- Wilson Sawyer

_______________________________________________
IPCDN mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipcdn

_______________________________________________
IPCDN mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipcdn

---

From: Jim Forster <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2003 13:21:12 -0400

Rich,

What's the typical/expected usage of these addresses?  I could speculate but
would rather ask.

  -- Jim