Re: I-D draft-petersson-forwarded-for-00.txt

In message <2962611A-EC8C-490C-BA3F-FB96D596B38D@opera.com>, Karl Dubost writes:

>X-Forwarded-For is used by Opera Mini servers. What about others?

I thought the objective here was to define a replacement for X-Forwarded-For ?

I know this is not a big deal to most of you, but in high performance
applications, the difference between always having [...] around IPv6
or having that be optional is a relevant cost factor.

The matter of IPv6 address notation has been a total nightmare from day
one, addressed by at least 11 RFC which do not agree on very much, leaving
implementors with a nightmarish morass of code[1]

It would be nice if we didn't add further to the confusion, and tried
to show a bit of sanity for the rest of the community, so can we
please make the '[...]' mandatory even if there is no port number ?

Thanks,

Poul-Henning

[1]  From my own brief survey:
	RFC1884 -> 2373         1080::8:800:200C:417A
	RFC1884                 ::13.1.68.3
	RFC1884                 ::FFFF:129.144.52.38
	RFC2133 -> 2133
	RFC2292 -> 3542
	RFC2373 -> 3513
	RFC2428 EPRT |2|1080::8:800:200C:417A|5282|
	RFC2553 -> RFC3493
	RFC2732 -> 3986 http://[3ffe:2a00:100:7031::1]:8080/
	RFC3493 "numeric format"
	RFC3513 -> 4291
	RFC3986 BNF form
	RFC3986 http://[3ffe:2a00:100:7031::1]:8080/
	RFC3986 http://[v%x.????]/
	RFC5952 [2001:db8::1]:80

And it's really unfair to leave this one out:
	RFC1924 4)+k&C#VzJ4br>0wv%Yp
Despite the fact that it is published on april 1st, it does not stick
significantly out from the confusion of the rest.

-- 
Poul-Henning Kamp       | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
phk@FreeBSD.ORG         | TCP/IP since RFC 956
FreeBSD committer       | BSD since 4.3-tahoe    
Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.

Received on Thursday, 7 April 2011 12:24:26 UTC