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/> _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list Lsr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
