I thought the discussion was only about ipv4?
/martin Jürgen Schönwälder <j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote: > On Thu, Apr 14, 2022 at 03:23:31PM +0200, Martin Björklund wrote: > > Hi, > > > > First of all, I agree that if we were to design this from scratch, I > > think we should have a type for just an ip address, and use a second > > leaf for the zone (or interface). > > > > The notation 'fe80::4d9:ff04:4fa6:7980%en0' is widely supported in > application space. The IPv6 working group has a recurring debate on > the usage of zoned IPv6 address in URLs [1], where the debate is about > the question whether the % needs to be escaped or not. I do not know > where the latest iteration stopped, but details can be found in RFC > 6874 and draft-carpenter-6man-rfc6874bis-03. > > Philip Homburg's RIPE Labs note [2] might also be an interesting > read. According to this, getaddrinfo() actually deals with zoned > addresses (and hence even data model implementation that pass data to > getaddrinfo() to obtain socket addresses may do the right thing.) > > My view is that down in the network layer models, you often know the > interface by context and ipv6-address-no-zone is sufficient. If you go > to application space, you really want "ipv6-address-with-zone" by > default in order to support link-local addresses. > > /js > > [1] http://[fe80::4d9:ff04:4fa6:7980%en0]/ > > [2] > https://labs.ripe.net/author/philip_homburg/whats-the-deal-with-ipv6-link-local-addresses/ > > -- > Jürgen Schönwälder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH > Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany > Fax: +49 421 200 3103 <https://www.jacobs-university.de/> _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list netmod@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
