Re: [netmod] [Lsr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-lsr-ospfv3-extended-lsa-yang-10.txt

[Martin Björklund <[e-mail]>]

I thought the discussion was only about ipv4?


/martin


Jürgen Schönwälder <[e-mail]> 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: [phone]         Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
> Fax:   [phone]         <https://www.jacobs-university.de/>