IIRC it's exactly because ipv6 addresses use ':' (and "::") as chunk separators. If you decide to change unformat_vnet_uri please test ipv6 cases carefully.
D. -----Original Message----- From: vpp-dev@lists.fd.io <vpp-dev@lists.fd.io> On Behalf Of Florin Coras Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2021 1:05 AM To: 江 晓明 <jiangxiaom...@outlook.com> Cc: vpp-dev@lists.fd.io Subject: Re: [vpp-dev] unformat_vnet_uri not implemented following RFC 3986 Hi, That unformat function and the associated session layer apis (e.g., vnet_connect_uri) are mainly used for testing and their production use is discouraged. Provided that functionality is not lost, if anybody wants to do the work, I don’t see why we wouldn’t want to make the unformat function rfc compliant. At this point I can’t remember why we settled on the use of “/“ but I suspect it may have to do with easier parsing of ipv6 ips. Regards, Florin > On May 26, 2021, at 8:04 PM, jiangxiaom...@outlook.com wrote: > > Hi Florin: > Currently unformat_vnet_uri not implemented following RFC 3986. The > syntax `tcp://10.0.0.1/500` should be `tcp://10.0.0.1:500` in rfc 3986. > I noticed in there is a comment for `unformat_vent_uri` in > `src/vnet/session/application_interface.c`, > ``` > /** > * unformat a vnet URI > * > * transport-proto://[hostname]ip46-addr:port > * eg. tcp://ip46-addr:port > * tls://[testtsl.fd.io]ip46-addr:port > * > ... > ``` > Does it mean `unformat_vnet_uri` will be refactored following rfc in future? > > >
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#19488): https://lists.fd.io/g/vpp-dev/message/19488 Mute This Topic: https://lists.fd.io/mt/83117335/21656 Group Owner: vpp-dev+ow...@lists.fd.io Unsubscribe: https://lists.fd.io/g/vpp-dev/unsub [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
