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]