Subject: RE: Ordering of % and / in RFC 4007

From: "Steve Cipolli" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2005 17:20:06 -0400

>> 
>> The code below would be straightforward if the "/64" prefix were 
>> accepted by getaddrinfo.
>> 
>> Besides, I don't think the textual representation should be defined
to 
>> make only Basic Socket API functions straightforward.  IMHO, the
order 
>> should be logical on its own.  The prefix is clearly more tightly 
>> related to the IP address (in6_addr) and the scope zone index is 
>> clearly (by virtual of the fact that scope_id is in sockaddr_in6) 
>> related to the transport address.  So the textual representation as
it 
>> stands now mixes IP address and Transport address information.
>> 
>> --Stephen
>
>	No they are both properties that can be associated with a
>	address.  If anything the scope ties closer than the prefix
>	as a link-local address or prefix is meanless w/o the scope.
I'm not sure what you mean by "address" above.  My argument is that the
prefix is associated with IP addresses (represented by struct in6_addr
in the API) and the scope is associated with transport addresses
(represented by struct sockaddr_in6 in the API).  They are both
"addresses", but they are different layer addresses.  If I map what
textual representation to what data structure it has effect on:
	[ipaddr%scope/prefix]:port is mapped into
[in6_addr%sockaddr_in6/in6_addr]:sockaddr_in6
>From my view the the textual representation and the Basic socket API
structures are inconsistent. 

>
>	Mark
>--
>Mark Andrews, ISC
>1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
>PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742                 INTERNET: [email-masked]

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email-masked]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Mark Andrews <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 09 Apr 2005 10:05:17 +1000

> structures are inconsistent. 

	You are assuming you can have a prefix without a scope.  This is
	a false assumption.  All prefixes have scope even if it is only
	global scope.