[10179] in www-talk@info.cern.ch
Re: URL parsing and IPv6 addresses
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Donald E. Eastlake 3rd)
Tue Aug 6 08:51:55 1996
Date: Tue, 6 Aug 1996 08:46:16 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Donald E. Eastlake 3rd" <dee@cybercash.com>
To: Kim <bookwyrm@agii.solluna.org>
Cc: www-talk@w3.org
In-Reply-To: <199608060326.XAA27231@agii.solluna.org>
Resent-From: www-talk@w3.org
How about just putting square brakets around the address. I thought IPv4,
and presumably IPv6, raw addresses were supposed to bge noted that way.
so you would have, for example, http://[::83F7:6C0E]:8080/ or
http://[::83F7:6C0E:8080]/
Donald
On Mon, 5 Aug 1996, Kim wrote:
> Date: Mon, 5 Aug 1996 23:26:55 -0400 (EDT)
> From: Kim <bookwyrm@agii.solluna.org>
> To: www-talk@w3.org
> Subject: URL parsing and IPv6 addresses
>
> Greetings,
>
> In the course of adding some experimental IPv6 support to my system,
> include the WWW software on my system, I ran across an issue in parsing
> IPv6 addresses and URLs, and am looking for documents, if existing, to
> resolve the issue.
>
> The issue being in short that in a reference to a HTTP server running
> on port 8080, one might use "http://www.solluna.org:8080/" or
> "http://131.247.108.14:8080/" The colon being used to separate the port
> number from the address. However, from RFC 1884 describing IPv6 addresses,
> IPv6 addresses such as, quote:
>
> > 1080:0:0:0:8:800:200C:417A a unicast address
> > FF01:0:0:0:0:0:0:43 a multicast address
> > 0:0:0:0:0:0:0:1 the loopback address
> > 0:0:0:0:0:0:0:0 the unspecified addresses
> >
> > may be represented as:
> >
> > 1080::8:800:200C:417A a unicast address
> > FF01::43 a multicast address
> > ::1 the loopback address
> > :: the unspecified addresses
>
> This brings about the ambiguity that a reference to
> "http://::83F7:6C0E:8080/" does not seem to be immediately clear as to if
> it refers to port 8080 on the server reachable at IPv6 address ::83F7:6C0E,
> or if it refers to a default port at ::83F7:6C0E:8080.
>
> Technically, for ::83F7:6C0E:8080 at least, I believe it falls into a
> reserved address range and might be deduced from that. Addresses such as
> 1000:5::AB:1234:8080 become much more ambiguous, I think.
>
> If there is a document addressing this issue, I would be most grateful
> for a reference to it, but I have been unable to find references so far.
>
> My initial inclination is to use a second '::' to indicate the port, as
> in "http://::83F7:6C0E::8080/" This appears to be unambiguous except
> a case where there is only one '::' sequence, and it appears at the end,
> as in "83F7:6C0E::8080" - my inclination is to represent this as
> "83F7:6C0E:::8080" or "83F7:6C0E::::8080". However, if this problem has
> already been addressed, then I just wish pointers to the approved
> representation that I might write code to it.
>
> Thank you,
> Kim
>
>
=====================================================================
Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1 508-287-4877(tel) dee@cybercash.com
318 Acton Street +1 508-371-7148(fax) dee@world.std.com
Carlisle, MA 01741 USA +1 703-620-4200(main office, Reston, VA)
http://www.cybercash.com http://www.eff.org/blueribbon.html
