[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4B1DC794.5020406@hp.com>
Date: Mon, 07 Dec 2009 22:27:16 -0500
From: Brian Haley <brian.haley@...com>
To: Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@...cle.com>
CC: Linux Network Developers <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Jeff Layton <jlayton@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: IPv6: presentation format for zero scope ID
Chuck Lever wrote:
> I recently added some functions to sunrpc.ko that behave like
> getnameinfo(AI_NUMERICHOST) does in user space.
>
> One of the functions, rpc_ntop6(), sticks a scope ID on the end of link-
> and site-local IPv6 addresses. It does not try to map the scope ID to a
> device name.
Site-local addresses have been deprecated...
> It has been pointed out, however, that glibc's getnameinfo(3) skips
> appending a device name if the scope ID is zero. Should rpc_ntop6()
> display or ignore zero scope IDs?
A zero scope id implies it's not set, so I would ignore it. Things like
*bind() and *connect() already do this.
> Would it be better if it also
> converted scope IDs to device names?
*nix typically uses %eth0, Windows uses %1, so I guess if it's for
display purposes I'd do the same thing all the tools use - %name.
This isn't being put in a packet, is it?
> I'm not familiar enough with the IETF mandates regarding presentation
> address format, or the idiosyncrasies of the Linux IPv6 implementation,
> to know what is the desired behavior here. Any guidance appreciated.
The URI spec (RFC 3986) doesn't cover scope id's, so it winds-up being
implementor's choice.
-Brian
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists