From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: In-Reply-To: <14772.1186002066@falcon10.austin.ibm.com> References: <31368.1185909681@falcon10.austin.ibm.com> <18095.56272.4647.158912@cargo.ozlabs.ibm.com> <18071.1185935876@bebe.enoyolf.org> <5682bc7e60187e64d80fd99b4ad573df@kernel.crashing.org> <14772.1186002066@falcon10.austin.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v623) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Message-Id: From: Segher Boessenkool Subject: Re: ipv6 in yaboot Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2007 20:42:35 +0200 To: Doug Maxey Cc: Linux PowerPC List , Paul Mackerras , Paul Nasrat , yaboot-devel@ozlabs.org List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , >> 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 Therefore, it now is an (unpublished :-) ) recommended practice for OF implementations to allow it.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