[cifs-protocol] 115102913315679 [MS-ADTS] 126.96.36.199.2.2.1 Subnet Object address range
jeffm at microsoft.com
Thu Oct 29 16:24:30 UTC 2015
Thank you Sree! [Sreekanth to BCC]
My name is Jeff, and I would like to work with you on this issue.
I will research the question, and let you know as soon as I have more information.
Jeff McCashland | Senior Escalation Engineer | Microsoft Protocol Open Specifications Team
Phone: +1 (425) 703-8300 x38300 | Hours: 9am-5pm | Time zone: (UTC-08:00) Pacific Time (US and Canada)
Local country phone number found here: http://support.microsoft.com/globalenglish | Extension 1138300
We value your feedback. My manager is Nam Su Kang (nkang), +1 (980) 776-7499
From: Sreekanth Nadendla
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2015 5:22 PM
To: Douglas Bagnall <douglas.bagnall at catalyst.net.nz>
Cc: cifs-protocol at lists.samba.org; MSSolve Case Email <casemail at microsoft.com>
Subject: 115102913315679 [MS-ADTS] 188.8.131.52.2.2.1 Subnet Object address range
Dochelp in Bcc
Casemail in Cc
Thank you for your inquiry about MS-ADTS specification. We have created incident 115102913315679 for investigating this issue. One of the Open specifications team member will contact you shortly.
Microsoft Windows Open specifications
From: Douglas Bagnall [mailto:douglas.bagnall at catalyst.net.nz]
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2015 5:48 PM
To: Interoperability Documentation Help
Cc: cifs-protocol at lists.samba.org
Subject: MS-ADTS 184.108.40.206.2.2.1 Subnet Object address range
I just wish to clarify my interpretation of MS-ADTS 220.127.116.11.2.2.1 (v20150630).
According to that document (and a small amount of testing against Windows 2012), a subnet IP range can't start with a leading zero. But with IPv6 it is possible create subnets with implicit leading zeros.
For example, "::ff00/120" and "0::ff00/120" refer to the same address range, but only the latter is forbidden. (right?)
Can I thus infer that no attempt is made to canonicalise an IPv6 subnet name, and collisions are only avoided by DN uniqueness? That is, could I simultaneously have subnets called "2001:DA8::/48" and "2001:DA8:0::/48" which evaluate to the same address range?
Also (as I understand point 6) it says the address part of an IPv4 CIDR can't exactly equal the implied mask. For example, "255.128.0.0/9" is not allowed because the "/9" implies a mask of "255.128.0.0". Just for clarity can you confirm that there is no analogous constraint on IPv6?
More information about the cifs-protocol