Internet Draft L. Donnerhacke Category: Proposed Standard Editor (DENOG) Expires: March 8, 2011 Richard Hartmann Editor (DENOG) September 8, 2010 Naming IPv6 address parts draft-denog-v6ops-addresspartnaming-00.txt Status of this Memo This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- Drafts. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. This Internet-Draft will expire on March 8, 2011. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2010 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved. This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Donnerhacke, Hartmann Expires March 8, 2011 [Page 1] Internet Draft Naming IPv6 address parts September 8, 2010 Abstract Discussing and explaining IPv6 addresses become difficult when different people use different terms for the same thing. This document tries to find a common naming scheme for the parts of an IPv6 address. Table of Contents 1. Introduction .................................................. 2 2. Rationale ..................................................... 2 3. Naming Considerations ......................................... 2 4. Naming Proposals .............................................. 3 5. IANA Considerations ........................................... 4 6. References .................................................... 4 6.1. Normative References ..................................... 4 6.2. Informal References ...................................... 4 7. Changes History ............................................... 4 8. Acknowledgements .............................................. 4 1. Introduction Verbal and written communication requires a common set of terms, eas- ily understood by every potential party. While deploying IPv6, when refering to segments of IPv6 addresses, confusion regularly arises due to the usage of different and sometimes conflicting nomenclature for the same pieces of information. [IPV6Addr] is the normative reference to IPv6 addressing and avoids to coin a special term for the subject of this document itself: The preferred form is x:x:x:x:x:x:x:x, where the 'x's are one to four hexadecimal digits of the eight 16-bit pieces of the address. 2. Rationale While we readily agree that the naming of IPv6 address parts is not the most pressing concern the Internet is facing today, a common nomenclature is important for efficient communication. In IPv6 deployments the delimiting colons are regularly used to facilitate the separation of labels discerning not only administra- tive boundaries but also network segments and distinct infrastructure components. Consequently the values between the colons are frequently refered to especially in communication regarding coordinative mat- ters. Donnerhacke, Hartmann Expires March 8, 2011 [Page 2] Internet Draft Naming IPv6 address parts September 8, 2010 Time spent explaining what one is referring to is wasted and con- flicting names can lead to misunderstanding while the usage of a com- mon term helps facilitating quick understanding. To solve this problem, the specification of a precise and recogniz- able term is advised. Since parts of the internet community only accept authoritative advice substantiated by a published document, also known as the 'citation needed' approach, it is helpful to have a definite source. 3. Naming Considerations Any term that can be confused with other technical terms due to pho- netic similarities can lead to misconfiguration causing reachability and security risks to the involved parties. Even with English being the preferred language in the IT world today, a good name should describe the technical matter precisely while being easy to remember, spell and pronounce in as many languages as possible. 4. Naming Proposals chazwazza [greg] - Simpsons reference - pro: Unique word in the scope of networking chunk - pro: Programmer slang for part of a datastream - con: Not unique to IPv6 column - The colons make an IPv6 visual similar to a table doctet - octect is a standard term for a sequence of 8 bits, so 16 bits are double octet hexadectet - pro: Directly related to the "octet" known from IPv4 - con: Hard to pronounce. hextet / hexatet / sixlet - con: Derived from six thus misleading as not six bits but sixteen bits are named hit - Short for "hex-bit" orone - Initially a typo in [greg] - pro: Unique word provider number, customer number, network number - pro: Describing the semantics of different parts of an IPv6 address - con: May not be the same in all deployments; can change over time Donnerhacke, Hartmann Expires March 8, 2011 [Page 3] Internet Draft Naming IPv6 address parts September 8, 2010 e.g. due to AS renumbering or a change of provider - con: Might not be applicable in all cases, e.g. multicast addresses - con: Reflects only the scope chosen by the network operator, thus can differ from network to network - con: More generally: It is not within the scope of this document to find terms describing semantics, but rather syntactic elements qibble - Short form of quadnibble - pro: Easy to pronounce qnibble - Short form of quadnibble - con: Hard to pronounce quadnibble - A nibble is a 4bit entity; 16 bits are a quad nibble quibble - pro: Easier to spell than qibble - pro: Unique word in the scope of networking segment - pro: An obvious choice - con: Not unique to IPv6 tuple - A tuple is a sequence of heterogenous elements considered as a new enitiy by itself - con: The bits are homogenous - con: Tuples are typically introduced to assign a different semantics word - A synonym for 16 bits on legacy x86 - Usually refers to a fixed group of bits processed at once - con: Has a different meaning outside of the the tech world 5. IANA Considerations No assignments by the IANA are required. However it is considered desirable that the IANA adopts the term in future documents. 6. References 6.1. Normative References [IPV6Addr] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture", RFC4291, February 2006 [Q.6] ITU-T, "Advantages of international automatic working", Fascicle VI.1 of the Blue Book, 1988 6.2. Informal References [greg] http://etherealmind.com/network-dictionary-chazwazza/, Sept 5, 2010 Donnerhacke, Hartmann Expires March 8, 2011 [Page 4] Internet Draft Naming IPv6 address parts September 8, 2010 7. Changes History 00 - inital version 8. Acknowledgements Thanks go to Greg Ferro who initiated the discussion by proposing the term "chazwazza".[greg] Thanks all the people who read to this point and are willing to provide valuable input instead of simply shaking their heads and moving on. The inital version of this document was created following the spirit of [Q.6]. Donnerhacke, Hartmann Expires March 8, 2011 [Page 5] Internet Draft Naming IPv6 address parts September 8, 2010 Authors' Addresses Lutz Donnerhacke Leutragraben 1 07743 Jena Germany Tel: 1.6.5.3.7.5.1.4.6.3.9.4.e164.arpa. EMail: lutz@thur.de Richard Hartmann Munich Germany Email: richih.mailinglist@gmail.com http://richardhartmann.de Michael Horn Po Box 540153 10042 Berlin Germany http://nibbler.tel/ Jens Link Freelance Consultant Foelderichstr. 40 13595 Berlin Germany EMail: jl@jenslink.net Kay Rechthien Netsign GmbH Lindenallee 27 14050 Berlin Germany EMail: kre@netsign.eu Donnerhacke, Hartmann Expires March 8, 2011 [Page 6] Internet Draft Naming IPv6 address parts September 8, 2010 Supporter's Addresses Sascha Lenz s-lz.net Zum Oberbaeumle 49 97318 Kitzingen Germany E-Mail: sascha.lenz@s-lz.net Leon Weber Ahornstrasse 5d 01458 Ottendorf-Okrilla Germany EMail: leon@whitejack.org Sebastian Wiesinger Germany EMail: sebastian@karotte.org Thorsten Dahm Josefstrasse 21 66265 Heusweiler Germany EMail: t.dahm@resolution.de Joerg Dorchain Harspergerflur 23 66740 Saarlouis Germany EMail: joerg@dorchain.net Jan Walzer Kopernikusstrasse 2 68519 Viernheim Germany EMail: jan.w@lzer.net Ronny Boesger Lahnsteiner Strasse 7 07629 Hermsdorf eMail: rb@isppro.de Donnerhacke, Hartmann Expires March 8, 2011 [Page 7]