Subject: Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ipv6-rfc2096-update-06.txt

From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2004 11:28:55 +0100

On Mon, Feb 02, 2004 at 11:18:14AM +0100, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote:
 
> I think (but I hope David Perkins can give definite answer) that the 
> warning is given because it is used as an index object.

OK, this might be the reason for the message.

> An unsigned32 includes value zero, which we prefer not to be valid
> value for an index. If people do want to allow for zero, then they
> better be explicit about that.

I think 0 makes sense for the default route as explained by Mike.
Otherwise, if the idea is indeed to exclude 0, then the range should 
be (1..4294967295) - this makes it quite clear that just 0 was removed
from the set of possible values.

/js

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder		    International University Bremen
<http://www.eecs.iu-bremen.de/>	    P.O. Box 750 561, 28725 Bremen, Germany

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email-masked]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2004 11:18:14 +0100

> > The range was added based on a comment from Bert.  I similar change
> > was made in the IP MIB update (2011bis).  
> 
> I believe there is no problem with not having a range restriction 
> since the type is an Unsigned32 which should nicely fit into an OID
> subidentifier.
> 

Dave?

Bert