RE: IPv6 Zone Identifiers Considered Hateful

"Worley, Dale R (Dale)" <dworley@avaya.com> Thu, 22 March 2012 16:48 UTC

Return-Path: <dworley@avaya.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 477C221F8629 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 22 Mar 2012 09:48:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.908
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.908 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.309, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vNB2ofcbD4z3 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 22 Mar 2012 09:48:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from p-us1-iereast-outbound.us1.avaya.com (p-us1-iereast-outbound.us1.avaya.com [135.11.29.13]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B0C0921F8631 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Mar 2012 09:48:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av8EAC1Xa0+HCzI1/2dsb2JhbABEtzuBB4IJAQEBAQIBEig/BQsCAQgNAQchECERJQEBBA4FCBqHYwWcVpwyiW2GFGMElAqHZIUghHmDAw
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.73,630,1325480400"; d="scan'208";a="824164"
Received: from unknown (HELO p-us1-erheast.us1.avaya.com) ([135.11.50.53]) by p-us1-iereast-outbound.us1.avaya.com with ESMTP; 22 Mar 2012 12:48:25 -0400
Received: from dc-us1hcex2.us1.avaya.com (HELO DC-US1HCEX2.global.avaya.com) ([135.11.52.21]) by p-us1-erheast-out.us1.avaya.com with ESMTP; 22 Mar 2012 12:32:48 -0400
Received: from DC-US1MBEX4.global.avaya.com ([169.254.2.202]) by DC-US1HCEX2.global.avaya.com ([::1]) with mapi; Thu, 22 Mar 2012 12:48:25 -0400
From: "Worley, Dale R (Dale)" <dworley@avaya.com>
To: Craig Finseth <snark17@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2012 12:48:25 -0400
Subject: RE: IPv6 Zone Identifiers Considered Hateful
Thread-Topic: IPv6 Zone Identifiers Considered Hateful
Thread-Index: Ac0Hn2xTG52tqXhYR5G1ErCJrjO76AAqtKW9
Message-ID: <CD5674C3CD99574EBA7432465FC13C1B22726A099F@DC-US1MBEX4.global.avaya.com>
References: <82A794CE-B328-475F-9300-1B6BE628F7E3@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com> <CD5674C3CD99574EBA7432465FC13C1B22726A0994@DC-US1MBEX4.global.avaya.com> <CAGHVWBgnF49UYSaL3awXf4Y+wxvmUTFi9xYRVCZ8WL1nFZp1Aw@mail.gmail.com> <CD5674C3CD99574EBA7432465FC13C1B22726A0996@DC-US1MBEX4.global.avaya.com>, <CAGHVWBh=vKnc343ux6YFRkL=G+rH8Up2fGKDNiDSPbxMwyQvtA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAGHVWBh=vKnc343ux6YFRkL=G+rH8Up2fGKDNiDSPbxMwyQvtA@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: Sabahattin Gucukoglu <mail-dated-1334746550.15c4ac@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com>, "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2012 16:48:27 -0000

> From: Craig Finseth [snark17@gmail.com]
> 
> > Actually, it's globally *unique*, because it contains the MAC address.
> > The problem is that it's not *routable*, even within the context of a
> > single host.  And unless you give an application on the host guidance,
> > it depends on host-context routing to get its output packets to the
> > correct wire.  It's hard to remain aware that host-context routing is
> > important, because it's almost always work.
> 
> Well, it's globally unique to a host, not to an interface: the host
> (in general) uses the same link-local address on all interfaces.
> Thus, you can't tell from the address which interface it refers to.

But remember we're talking about the address given to "ping" -- it's
not the address of *this* host, but the address of some host that is
on some network on which this host has an interface.  So the fact that
this host uses the same link-local address on all interfaces, while
true, is not important.  What's important is that given the link-local
address of *some other host*, there is no algorithmic way to determine
which of this host's interfaces is needed to access it.

In regard to URIs:

People have spoken about the annoyance of using "%" to introduce the
zone identifier, and the fact that "%" is special in URIs and would
need escaping, etc.  But (1) it's unlikely anyone will write URIs with
zone identifiers, since they'd only be usable on a single host, and
(2) the syntax of RFC 3986 ("Uniform Resource Identifier (URI):
Generic Syntax") does not provide for specifying zone identifers on
IPv6 addresses.  Indeed, it says "This syntax does not support IPv6
scoped addressing zone identifiers."

Dale