[IPv6]Re: draft-carpenter-6man-zone-ui: Call for Adoption

[David Farmer <[e-mail]>]

On Wed, May 29, 2024 at 3:58 PM Brian E Carpenter <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> On 29-May-24 16:44, David Farmer wrote:
> > Even with all its problems, and there are many, RFC4007 is remarkably
> effective. The primary thing missing is a viable solution for IPv6
> link-local literals in a URI, especially in a web browser. Earlier in this
> thread, you said, "This approach does not resolve the issue of how browsers
> should support link-local addresses." Where instead, I believe a properly
> clarified and required "default" zone will resolve many of the issues of
> how browsers should support link-local addresses.
> >
> > So, I guess my question is: What use cases that don't currently work
> does this actually fix? Most applications seem to get what they need out of
> RFC4007, except for how browsers should support link-local addresses.
>
> Well, I can give you one example today, in a quite well-known program.
> When I run Wireshark on Windows, here's the list of interfaces it offers me:
>
>   Ethernet 4
>   Adapter for loopback traffic capture
>   Local Area Connection* 10
>   Local Area Connection* 9
>   Local Area Connection* 8
>   Local Area Connection* 2
>   Local Area Connection* 1
>   Wi-Fi
>   Ethernet 7
>   Ethernet 6
>
> When I ask Windows via ipconfig what interfaces are present, here are the
> names it gives me:
>
> Wireless LAN adapter Wi-Fi:
> Wireless LAN adapter Local Area Connection* 1:
> Wireless LAN adapter Local Area Connection* 2:
> Ethernet adapter Ethernet 7:
> Ethernet adapter Ethernet 4:
> Ethernet adapter Ethernet 6:
>
> When I'm connected to both WiFi and Ethernet, they are known as "24" and
> "7" in RFC4007 terminology. "7", by the way, is not "Ethernet adapter
> Ethernet 7", it's actually "Ethernet adapter Ethernet 4". It's immensely
> confusing that Wireshark doesn't use the same interface identifiers as the
> IPv6 address format.
>
> If I want to apply a Wireshark display filter for link-local traffic
> to/from a specific address, I obviously want to use RFC4007 format:
>
> ipv6.addr == fe80::2e3a:fdff:fed6:dde7%7
>
> but I can't, because Wireshark doesn't allow it.
>
> In any case, I repeat that the zone-ui draft is orthogonal to updating RFC
> 4007, and addresses a whole different set of implementers. IMHO we should
> do both.
>
>      Brian
>

Maybe it's just me, but I still don't see how the draft will fix that
problem with WireShark. But I don't think I want to stand in the way of
adoption, so I don't oppose it.

Thanks.

-- 
===============================================
David Farmer               Email:[e-mail]
Networking & Telecommunication Services
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota
2218 University Ave SE        Phone: [phone]
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029   Cell: 612-812-9952
===============================================