At 10:18 AM 4/2/2003, Jeroen Massar wrote:
Spencer Dawkins wrote:
> Hi, Jeroen,
>
> Are you talking about
> ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/rfc2732.txt (PS)?
>
> My quick read of this RFC is that it says "don't use IPv6
> literals without enclosing them in brackets", as in
>
> host = hostname | IPv4address | IPv6reference
> ipv6reference = "[" IPv6address "]"
>
> But that's not quite the same thing you said: "never use IPv6
> IP's in URL's".
>
> If you're talking about another reference, could you provide it?
> A quick RFC search for "IPv6 URL" turned up only this RFC...
Yes, though I can't seem to google up any references. Except for:
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/pro/techinfo/administration/ipv6/defa
ult.asp
"Q: How can I force IPv6 connections using my Web browser?"
<SNIP>
"For applications other than Internet Explorer: Connect using a literal
IPv6 address. URLs that use the format for literal IPv6 addresses
described in RFC 2732, "Format for Literal IPv6 Addresses in URLs," are
not supported by the version of Internet Explorer provided with Windows
XP."
There was some discussion about this deprecation as the
Techpreviews (Win2k/NT4) did support literal url's.
The XP version and up though won't support it to overcome
one major 'problem': website 'designers' embedding IP's
inside websites to 'speed things up' (go figure).
And there where a number of other reasons for deciding so.
Unfortunatly I can't find the messages which where sent
to a mailinglist about this discussion which also contained
why they decided this. Note that wininet.dll doesn't support
it that's why IE doesn't either...
MS CC'd, they can best explain the rationale behind it.
This line of reasoning troubles me. One of the ways in which numeric IP
addresses are useful in URLs is for talking to systems which are not yet
fully configured (e.g. configuring routers and such). I'm sure Microsoft's
answer to this is "Use UPNP" but that may not be a universally sufficient
answer. Others will say "Use Zeroconf" which may also not be sufficient. I
guess I'm just really uncomfortable requiring name spaces in temporary and
disconnected networks as an absolute requirement.
Ad-hoc networks are another similar case, where two machines are connected
via ad-hoc wireless, bluetooth, firewire, or similar. I'd think it might be
useful to be able to serve web pages between two laptops on a train without
requiring a naming service to be present. Perhaps that won't be an issue in
the brave new world.
It just seems to me there is some utility in having this capability (and
others must have thought so since we have an RFC describing the
formatting). Let's think hard before deciding we are sure there are no
useful cases left.