Subject: Re: [netmod] LL review of draft-bjorklund-netmod-ip-cfg-00

From: Martin Bjorklund <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2011 18:34:12 +0200 (CEST)

Hi,

It seems we need the data model to be able to represent non-contiguous
masks, so I will add that as described below.

Is this applicable to ipv6 as well...?

/martin

Martin Bjorklund <[email-masked]> wrote:
> "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]> wrote:
> > So where does this lead?  I think...
> > 
> > If the "contiguous" requirement is merely a SHOULD, then the configuration
> > model needs to be able to represent discontiguous ones as well, since
> > they are merely discouraged, but not forbidden by the base specifications.
> > Otherwise, vendors whose equipment supports the possibility of being
> > configured with discontiguous masks will need to resort to proprietary
> > models, defeating the purpose of a standard.
> 
> Yes, but if the usage of non-contiguous masks are rare, this might
> still be ok.
> 
> This said, if the WG believes we should support this case, we can do:
> 
>          choice subnet {
>            leaf prefix-length {
>              type uint8 {
>                range "0..32";
>              }
>            }
>            leaf netmask {
>              type inet:ipv4-address;
>            }
>          }
> 
> And if we want to be even more advanced, we can do:
> 
>          choice subnet {
>            leaf prefix-length {
>              type uint8 {
>                range "0..32";
>              }
>            }
>            leaf netmask {
>              if-feature non-contiguous-netmasks;
>              type inet:ipv4-address;
>            }
>          }
> 
> 
> 
> /martin
> _______________________________________________
> netmod mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
>