ietf-mxcomp
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: TECH-OMISSION (-protocol): Partial IPs with CIDRs allowed?

2004-09-08 09:39:35

Hmmm... so "64/8" would be valid ?

I'm not very comfortable with that.

n8
 


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ietf-mxcomp(_at_)mail(_dot_)imc(_dot_)org
[mailto:owner-ietf-mxcomp(_at_)mail(_dot_)imc(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of Meng Weng 
Wong
Sent: Tuesday, September 07, 2004 7:02 PM
To: Max Kanat-Alexander
Cc: ietf-mxcomp(_at_)imc(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: TECH-OMISSION (-protocol): Partial IPs with CIDRs allowed?



On Tue, Sep 07, 2004 at 05:47:22PM -0700, Max Kanat-Alexander wrote:
| 
|       Is it OK to write 1.2.3/24, or MUST I write 1.2.3.0/24? It would
be
| easier for implementation if the second form was required.
| 
|       My apologies if this has already been mentioned or discussed
elsewhere.
| 

I have the feeling that people are going to write the first
form, so we might as well require implementations to support
it.  As long as it's not ambiguous, lazy is okay.

Similarly "ipv4" and "ipv6" being synonyms for "ip4" and
"ip6", and "a:1.2.3.4" being interpreted as "ip4:1.2.3.4".
That seems to happen rather often.