Johan van Selst:
> Wietse Venema wrote:
> > If we generalize address wild-card patterns beyond DNSXL lookups,
> > then we have to support IPv6. There, a printable address form has
> > up to eight numeric fields separated by ':'.
>
> There is another issue with the notation of IPv6 addresses if the
> proposed syntax is generalised for other uses. In a context where port
> numbers are used, the IPv6 address is generally placed in square
> brackets, followed by a colon and port number. Using square brackets
> for IP enumeration in the same context might confuse some people.
The [] around the address can be used both with IPv4 and IPv6. I
agree, though, that Postfix makes the [] non-optional in contexts
that use "maptype:mapname" for lookup tables.
These [] surround the entire IP address, while the wild-card []
surround an individual field within an address. The result is that
there would be two levels of [].
> This could (for example) lead to constructions such as
> [2001:610:1108:[10,11]::[135-13f]]:[25,587]
Did you mean to write:
[2001:610:1108:[10,11]::[135-13f]:[25,587]]
which is the result of placing [] around the following pattern:
2001:610:1108:[10,11]::[135-13f]:[25,587]
> Of course this notation can be explained; but choosing some other
> notation might avoid future confusion. Not allowing this construction
> in a context with port numbers would take care of this as well.
The <> are not yet used, and I suppose we could use those. They
might confuse people older than me who grew up with Tenex where
the <> were used to indicate the directory portion of a pathname.
Wietse
