[e2e] Addressing format...network and mask

[Joe Touch]

Alok Dube wrote:

>>
>>Alok Dube wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>>why do I have to stick to "bit boundaries"?
>>>>>
>>>>>they are meant for routers to lookup faster
>>>>
>>>>They are the definition of Internet routes as well.
>>>
>>>
>>>yes....but its the prefix we care about...the masks are just there to
>>>make the FT guys happy.
>>
>>The prefix is determined by the mask.
> 
> i guess you mean the "prefix range is determined by the mask"
> 
> now i say that i pass the range and not the mask...(the mask field in the
> protocol update gives the last Ip of that segement and not the mask).

Yes, as noted before, they are equivalent when bit-boundary aligned.

>>>so given that as working, i could still pass start IP and end IP of
>>>the range.
>>>
>>>its still backward compatible...incase one was to propogate subnets,
>>>one could still use the 1st and last made from the mask and build the
>>>tree...
>>
>>You can't send your routes outside your subsystem, and they would need
>>to propagate back through to the core Internet interchanges.
> 
> so i set a bit in the protocol updates which says if whats being passed is
> the range or the mask...

And change the forwarding algorithm in the core of the Internet. This 
isn't a local change, unless you advertise bitmasks of aggregates of 
your ranges to the outside world, or limit your system to ranges that 
are equivalent to individual bitmasks.

Joe