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

[Jürgen Schönwälder <[e-mail]>]

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/>