On Thu, Apr 14, 2022 at 8:01 AM Acee Lindem (acee) <acee= 40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
> While RFC 4001 really didn't need to extend the zone index to IPv4, the > conversation also pertains to IPv6 address types. At least RFC 4001 got it > right by not making the zone index part of the default types and defining > ipv4z and ipv6z. > > So is this a correct summary: - zone index is not used in IPv4 at all - zone index is not configured by a client in IPv6 at all - zone index is assigned by the system (as needed) to IPv6 link-local addresses I want to add a server option in our code to always reject (or alter) an edit that contains a zone index. I need to know the consensus on whether it is OK to ignore a zone index from a client. Nothing in RFC 6241 suggests that this is OK for <edit-config>. Thanks, > Acee > > Andy > On 4/14/22, 10:04 AM, "Lsr on behalf of Martin Björklund" < > lsr-boun...@ietf.org on behalf of mbj+i...@4668.se> wrote: > > 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/> > > _______________________________________________ > Lsr mailing list > Lsr@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr > > _______________________________________________ > netmod mailing list > net...@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod >
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list Lsr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
