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

From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2004 13:05:17 +0100

On Mon, Feb 02, 2004 at 11:39:30AM +0100, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote:
> > 
> > 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.
> > 
> I understand that zero makes sense. I did not say we should remove it.
> I said that by specifying the range (and including zero) that that way
> we are explicit to state that we do want it included.

I am not sure I like the direction to specify ranges which just repeat
what is there anyway. See below...

> By the way I like Mike's proposal to make it (0..2040), which would
> line up with the max size of an InetAddress (255 octets).

This makes indeed sense. One can ask whether this range should not be
added to the InetPrefixLength TC itself so that the range is already
bound to the TC. Of course, applying to your logic above, you would 
repeat the range (0..2040) anyway just to be explicit that zero is 
included...

So what do we do?

a) Add the range (0..2040) to the InetPrefixLength TC? (Now is the right
   time to do this.)

b) Add the range (0..2040) just to the objects in question that use the
   InetPrefixLength TC?

c) Do both?

I think I prefer a) at the moment.

/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 11:39:30 +0100

> > 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.
> 

Bert