[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: IPv6 address/port format (summary of valid chars)



On Tue, Jan 11, 2000 at 03:47:13AM -0800, eeyem@u.washington.edu wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 11, 2000 at 12:44:14PM +0800, James Bromberger wrote:
> > This leaves us with:
> > 	!	@	%	^
> > 	*	=	+
> > 
> > I kind of like @:
> > 	::ffff:127.0.0.1@80
> > 
> > 
> > So a URl would look like:
> > 	http://::ffff:127.0.0.1@80/
> > 
> > And isf we can user service names (a la /etc/services):
> > 	http://::ffff:127.0.0.1@www/
> > 
> > It also kind of makes sense as 'at port 80'. The only problem I can
> > see is perl - the @ array token needs to be escaped to \@ - but since
> > this is already the case with email addresses in perl, this should
> > not be too big a deal. We're not exactly reinventing the wheel here.
> > The only problem comes with user education - that when a novice sees
> > <something>@<something>, they currently think 'email'. Overloading
> > this may cause some confusion.
> 
> @ is already used in URIs to indicate passwords.
> http://user:password@host:port/path, IIRC.
> 
> Also, Ian McKellar pointed out that:
> > Of course !, % and * (And sometimes ^) have special shell meanings too.
> 
> So if you want to be absolutely correct, you must use one of:
> > 	=	+
> 
> Two choices.  Pathetic, eh?
> 

I've seen both ::ffff:127.0.0.1.:80 (dot-colon as the separator), and
[::ffff:127.0.0.1]:80 ([] as the separator), and both would be better than
using = or +. 

I suggest using [addr]:port, as it's the easiest to read, and is already
the "standard".

--
"If you continue running Windows, your system may become unstable." 
     -- Windows 95 BSOD

Dwayne C. Litzenberger - dlitz@cheerful.com

Please always Cc to me when replying to me on the lists.

Advertising Policy: http://www.redrival.com/dlitz/spamoff.html
GnuPG Public Key:   http://www.redrival.com/dlitz/gpgkey.asc
     Fingerprint:   0535 F7CF FF5F 8547 E5A5 695E 4456 FB6C BC39 A4B0

Attachment: pgpGLHyCT35eA.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: