Re: [v6ops] IPv6 link-local and URLs @ IETF119

[George Michaelson <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, Mar 19, 2024 at 4:01 PM Lorenzo Colitti
<lorenzo=[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> FWIW I don't think it makes sense to put scoped addresses in URLs, because the scope portion cannot be known in advance.
>
> So it basically requires that the user who types in the URL to somehow figure out what interface needs to be used and what its scope ID is. The set of users that is capable of doing this is vanishingly small. I certainly don't - while I use linux which uses the interface name, I never remember that my wlan interface is called wlp0s20f3. My ethernet interface name is even worse, it's enxx<mac address>. I also don't necessarily know whether the device is on wifi or ethernet.
>
> There's a simple solution to this problem: if the user types in a link-local address the browser should open the connection on the default network interface, just like what it would do with any other connection. This will address the common "I need to configure my home router" use case. It wouldn't address the "I need to configure a home router on this other interface that isn't the default interface", but I think that is super rare.
>

i think I agree. I think Lorenzo identified my primary use case. I
expect to do this to reach assets like my home router, my home PVR, my
home printer and filestore which are specific local link agnostic,
mostly.

If I arrive at a place where I need to know to specify a specific
link, I guess I'd like a syntax to do it, but I suspect I will almost
never arrive at that point.

Would it be harmful to syntactically wire down an awkward "you need to
drop to shell, ip a | grep or ifconfig -a | grep and then come back"
element? I think it still beneficial, but I now think its [scope%] ie
optional not mandatory

G