Internet Draft L. Donnerhacke Category: Proposed Standard Editor (DENOG) Updates: 4291, 5952 Richard Hartmann Expires: April 6, 2011 Editor (DENOG) October 6, 2010 Naming IPv6 address parts draft-denog-v6ops-addresspartnaming-02.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 April 6, 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 April 6, 2011 [Page 1]
Internet Draft Naming IPv6 address parts october 5, 2010 Abstract In the daily communication between technicians, engineers and other people who need to deal with computer networks, it is often necessary to refer to particular parts of IP addresses. In the world of IPv4, the term "octet" is well established, however as the use of IPv6 is spreading, it becomes apparent that there is no such commonly accepted term for IPv6 addresses. Discussing and explaining technical matters become difficult when different people use different terms for the same thing. Therefore, this document discusses several naming proposal for those 16bit pieces of IPv6 addreses. Table of Contents 1. Introduction .................................................. 3 2. Rationale ..................................................... 3 3. Naming Considerations ......................................... 4 4. Naming Proposals .............................................. 4 4.1. Chazwazza ................................................ 4 4.2. Chunk .................................................... 4 4.3. Column ................................................... 4 4.4. Colonade, Colonnade ...................................... 4 4.5. Doctet ................................................... 4 4.6. Field .................................................... 5 4.7. Hexadectet ............................................... 5 4.8. Hit ...................................................... 5 4.9. Orone .................................................... 5 4.10. Part .................................................... 5 4.11. Provider number, customer number, network number ........ 5 4.12. Quad nibble, qibble, quibble ............................ 5 4.13. Segment ................................................. 6 4.14. Tuple ................................................... 6 4.15. Word .................................................... 6 5. Security Considerations ....................................... 6 6. IANA Considerations ........................................... 6 7. References .................................................... 6 7.1. Normative References ..................................... 6 7.2. Informal References ...................................... 6 8. Acknowledgements .............................................. 7 Donnerhacke, Hartmann Expires April 6, 2011 [Page 2]
Internet Draft Naming IPv6 address parts october 5, 2010 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. [IPv6Rep] is the normative reference to IPv6 address text representa- tion and introduces the term "16-bit field" or short "field". 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. 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. A typical ambiguity occurs in [IPv6Rep] which uses the term "field" or "16-bit field" for the term in question. This case is interesting because there was a short IETF WG discussion which term should be used. If an IPv6 address field in a certificate was incorrectly verified by converting it to text ... 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. Donnerhacke, Hartmann Expires April 6, 2011 [Page 3]
Internet Draft Naming IPv6 address parts october 5, 2010 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 We are presenting a broadest selection of mostly serious proposals which needs to be narrowed in the future by straw polls and finally select one using normal IETF consensus. 4.1. Chazwazza "Chazwazza" was proposed as a Simpsons reference, see [greg]. While this is certainly a unique term in the networking world, it is not particularly meaningful nor easy to pronounce. 4.2. Chunk A chunk is commonly understood to be a specific amount of data. The term is not unique to IPv6, however easy to remember and pronounce. 4.3. Column The colons in an IPv6 address' text representation make it similar to a table. Besides that, the meaning of the word "column" has very lit- tle to do with the actual technical meaning of a 16bit piece of an IPv6 address, though. 4.4. Colonade, Colonnade Based on the colon as seperator the word sounds English (using a sin- gle 'n' to make it an artificial word) and is easy to spell and pro- nounce. Alternatively, "colonnade" could be used, overloading the existing, yet unrelated word with a new meaning. 4.5. Doctet Derived from "double octet", thus accurately describes the technical matter, as an octet is a standard term for a sequence of 8 bits. Donnerhacke, Hartmann Expires April 6, 2011 [Page 4]
Internet Draft Naming IPv6 address parts october 5, 2010 4.6. Field A "field" describes a form of a data structure in many programming languages. The term stresses the fact that a field is one of multiple fractions of a bigger subject, just like countryside is divided into fields, or like IPv6 addresses into 16bit long pieces. A drawback of that similarity is the lack of uniqueness to IPv6, though. 4.7. Hexadectet "Hexadectet" is directly derived from IPv4's "octet", thus techni- cally correct and probably convenient to get used to. On the other hand, it is much harder to pronounce. 4.8. Hit Short for "hex-bit", short and convenient to pronounce, however usu- ally associated with a completely different meaning. 4.9. Orone Initially started as a typo in [greg], "orone" is a short, unique word without a specific meaning yet. 4.10. Part The word "part" has been used throughout this document to describe the subject until there is a better term for this. It is very unspe- cific and can be used in countless ways, not only to describe 16bit long parts of an IPv6 address. 4.11. Provider number, customer number, network number These terms provide semantic descriptions of the different parts of an IPv6 address. However, it is not within the scope of this document to find terms describing semantic, but rather syntactic elements. Furthermore, naming the 16bit pieces of IPv6 addresses in a semantic way would introduce new problems, like limited applicability, e.g. it would not work for multicast addresses. 4.12. Quad nibble, qibble, quibble A nibble is a 4bit entity, hence 16 bits are a quad nibble. This is a rather bulky word, however, so "quibble" is a convenient abbrevia- tion. Also, it is a unique term, thus eliminating any chances of mis- interpretation. Donnerhacke, Hartmann Expires April 6, 2011 [Page 5]
Internet Draft Naming IPv6 address parts october 5, 2010 4.13. Segment "Segment" is another obvious choice, however it is also quite unspe- cific and used in different contexts, e.g. "network segments". 4.14. Tuple A tuple is a sequence of typically heterogenous elements considered as a new entity by itself. It is also a short, descriptive word that is not yet associated with anything networking related. Usually a tuple exceeds grouping by creating a new semantic level. 4.15. Word A "word" usually refers to a fixed group of bits that are processed at a time, and especially on legacy x86 systems is a synonym for 16 bits. It has a different and much more unspecific meaning to less technically skilled people, which might be problematic. 5. Security Considerations This memo does not directly discuss security issues, however the lack of a common, well established term could theoretically lead to misin- terpretation, possible leading to insecure configuration of computer systems. 6. IANA Considerations No assignments by the IANA are required. However it is considered desirable that the IANA adopts the term in future documents. 7. References 7.1. Normative References [IPV6Addr] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture", RFC 4291, February 2006 [IPv6Rep] Kawamura, S. and Kawashima, M., "A Recommendation for IPv6 Address Text Representation", RFC 5952, August 2010 [Q.6] ITU-T, "Advantages of international automatic working", Fascicle VI.1 of the Blue Book, 1988 7.2. Informal References [greg] http://etherealmind.com/network-dictionary-chazwazza/, Sept 5, 2010 Donnerhacke, Hartmann Expires April 6, 2011 [Page 6]
Internet Draft Naming IPv6 address parts october 5, 2010 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]. 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/ Kay Rechthien Netsign GmbH Lindenallee 27 14050 Berlin Germany EMail: kre@netsign.eu Leon Weber Ahornstrasse 5d 01458 Ottendorf-Okrilla Germany EMail: leon@whitejack.org Donnerhacke, Hartmann Expires April 6, 2011 [Page 7]
Internet Draft Naming IPv6 address parts october 5, 2010 Supporter's Addresses Ronny Boesger Lahnsteiner Strasse 7 07629 Hermsdorf eMail: rb@isppro.de Thorsten Dahm Josefstrasse 21 66265 Heusweiler Germany EMail: t.dahm@resolution.de Joerg Dorchain Harspergerflur 23 66740 Saarlouis Germany EMail: joerg@dorchain.net Sascha Lenz s-lz.net Zum Oberbaeumle 49 97318 Kitzingen Germany E-Mail: sascha.lenz@s-lz.net Jens Link Freelance Consultant Foelderichstr. 40 13595 Berlin Germany EMail: jl@jenslink.net Jan Walzer Kopernikusstrasse 2 68519 Viernheim Germany EMail: jan.w@lzer.net Sebastian Wiesinger Germany EMail: sebastian@karotte.org Donnerhacke, Hartmann Expires April 6, 2011 [Page 8]
Internet Draft Naming IPv6 address parts october 5, 2010 Appendix A. Change History 00 - inital version 01 - Jens Link moved from Author to Supporter - Leon Weber moved from Supporter to Author - numerous typographic fixes - added "field" from [IPv6Rep] as proposal and as reason - added "part" for completeness - dismissed "hextet / hexatet / sixlet" - created sub sections for each proposal - added update notification of RFC4291 and RFC5952 - added a "Security considerations" section 02 - Fixing nits - Propose a selection mechanism Donnerhacke, Hartmann Expires April 6, 2011 [Page 9]