> >> The code below would be straightforward if the "/64" prefix were
> >> accepted by getaddrinfo.
> >>
> >> Besides, I don't think the textual representation should be defined
> to
> >> make only Basic Socket API functions straightforward. IMHO, the
> order
> >> should be logical on its own
>>
>> The code below would be straightforward if the "/64" prefix were
>> accepted by getaddrinfo.
>>
>> Besides, I don't think the textual representation should be defined
to
>> make only Basic Socket API functions straightforward. IMHO, the
order
>> should be logical on its own. The prefi
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2005 2:59 AM
To: Steve Cipolli
Cc: ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Ordering of % and / in RFC 4007
>>>>> On Wed, 6 Apr 2005 10:09:22 -0400,
>>>>> "Steve Cipolli&quo
>
> The code below would be straightforward if the "/64" prefix were
> accepted by getaddrinfo.
>
> Besides, I don't think the textual representation should be defined to
> make only Basic Socket API functions straightforward. IMHO, the order
> should be logical on its own. The prefix is cle
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2005 2:59 AM
To: Steve Cipolli
Cc: ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Ordering of % and / in RFC 4007
>>>>> On Wed, 6 Apr 2005 10:09:22 -0400,
>>>>> "Steve Cipolli&quo
> On Wed, 6 Apr 2005 10:09:22 -0400,
> "Steve Cipolli" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Can someone explain the rational for why RFC 4007 mandates the scope
> zone index before the prefix in the textual representation?
(snip)
> Section 11.7 says its important to put the scope zone index fi
Can someone explain the rational for why RFC 4007 mandates the scope
zone index before the prefix in the textual representation?
It appears to be the reverse of what I would expect. A prefix is
assocaited with the IP address itself (in6_addr), while the scope zone
index is associated with the
