RE: Subranging InetAddressPrefixLength

["Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com>]

> > I think that Shawn put it in cause I mentioned a WARNING from SMICng
> > that states that a range must be specified. we discussed a bit if 128
> > makes sense or if maybe a larger value (I can think of 1K, 32K, 64K,
> > 4billion) makes sense. The response from Shawn was that if the 
> > length of an IP address gets longer than the 128 for IPv6, that
> > many more changes will be needed.  So I am kind of OK with128.
> 
> I think SMICng's warning is odd here an no range should be added.
> 
Same comments as on IPv6MIB list:

I think (but I hope David Perkins can give definite answer) that the 
warning is given because it is used as an index object.
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.

Dave?

Bert

> /js
>