>> The network address is passed to OF as (part of) the device >> argument for the network device; and colons aren't legal >> characters in a device argument, > > yeah, pretty thoughtless of the IETF for not consulting the 1275WG. :)
Heh. That's not an issue; it just means that OF implementations need to use a (slightly) different spelling for IPV6 addresses. However, see below. >> so any OF implementation that >> would use colons in IPv6 addresses is terminally broken. > > Ok. What is your proposed resolution that does not violate the rfcs? > Namely RFCs 3986, 4038, and especially 4291. Quotes from those RFCs would have been helpful. >> This >> is completely analogous to the fact that filesystem paths cannot >> use forward slashes. (The third disallowed character is the >> at-sign, for completeness). > > Not really. I don't expect to the the "device path" contain any ipv6 > info. Just the parameters that follow on the end, There can be parameters at *any* path component though, not just the final component. It isn't too farfetched to imagine devices as child devices under a network device IMHO. Not the common case, sure. > There is no ppc64 OFW that supports this yet, but a version is > expected soon. There is an x86 OFW that supports it now. Some good news, too: The requirement for device arguments to not contain colons or at-signs has been deemed overly strict, since any defined use for those arguments should follow the path resolution algorithm that is spelled out in the specification itself; and that algorithm can deal with it just fine. Therefore, it now is an (unpublished :-) ) recommended practice for OF implementations to allow it. Forward slashes are right out, though :-) > BTW, I don't really have any real input into how the OFW is designed, > just try to adapt to what is implemented. Yeah I understand :-) Segher _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
