[epistasis]

> And with the right scope it looks like this:

    [fe80::4%eth0]:80

> Now let's get URL encoding into the mix. ...

About here my I felt my heart start to beat really fast and I started to hyperventilate.

I'll just accept that this is as much of a nightmare as it seems.

[wolletd]

I wonder why IPv6 didn't catch on! It's just unergonomic and ugly!

At work, I have a rare case of a useful application of IPv6: setting IPv4 addresses. We have multiple embedded devices in one product which all got the same default IPv4. But their serials map to their MACs which map to their link-local IPv6.

So workers scan the serial and I connect to all devices at once via their IPv6 address. Then, I set their individual IPv4 address and that's all I do via IPv6.

[anyfoo]

Why don't you just use the IPv6 address directly then? Phrased differently, what's better about IPv4 in your particular case that makes it worthwhile to only use IPv6 for "bootstrapping" IPv4?

I must say, I rather enjoy both IPv6s autoconfiguration, and the fact that my non-link-local addresses are actually unique (and if I want to, routable).

[wolletd]

Legacy, I guess. Every product consists of six cameras and they get IPv4 192.168.223.(1-6).

And that is what everybody knows and everybody uses to interact with them. The serial numbers of devices are rarely used.

However, now that I think of it, IPv6 addresses that are constructed from the serial number of the whole device and the position of each camera would be useful. I'll check it out, thanks.

[sundbry]

It's not hard, just don't use those addresses in your application.

Link-local ipv6 addresses are not designed for the use case of serving web applications.