On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 21:34, Doug Barton do...@dougbarton.us wrote:
If you're looking for serious feedback:
We are.
3. I've never had a problem calling it field, I think that 5952 is a
perfectly good normative ref for that, and I don't understand what the
fuss is about. :)
I seem to
Since 11/18/10 this discussion has generated something like 66 messages
across five threads on this list, on nanog and elsewhere.
While some suggestions are entertaining, I would think of this criticism
and commentary on the document as useful if it winnowed the number of
options down to fewer
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 11/29/2010 11:59, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
| Since 11/18/10 this discussion has generated something like 66 messages
| across five threads on this list, on nanog and elsewhere.
|
| While some suggestions are entertaining, I would think of this
Cisco's expression of a MAC address is wrong anyway. Correct notation
for a MAC address is separating each byte with a colon.
Doesn't matter... It's widespread and Cisco isn't the only one to use it.
Just for my own edification, who else besides Cisco do you know who
uses that notation for
On Nov 26, 2010, at 2:11 PM, kmedc...@dessus.com wrote:
Cisco's expression of a MAC address is wrong anyway. Correct notation
for a MAC address is separating each byte with a colon.
Doesn't matter... It's widespread and Cisco isn't the only one to use it.
Just for my own edification, who
Documenting my support publically, as requested.
--- Jay
-- Forwarded message --
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2010 23:26:31 +0100
From: Richard Hartmann richih.mailingl...@gmail.com
To: Jay Nugent j...@nuge.com
Subject: Re: Introducing draft-denog-v6ops-addresspartnaming
On Mon
If we can't choose mouthful (which for some reason sounds thematically
correct), chunk gets my vote.
*(Chunk = Maybe not the most technical, but has been working for me all
along ...)*
Chunk is at least the proper English term for these bits between the
colons. The process of breaking up a
On Nov 22, 2010, at 5:05 PM, TJ trej...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 08:14, Scott Morris s...@emanon.com wrote:
If 8 bits is a byte, then 16 bits should be a mouthful.
Scott
If we can't choose mouthful (which for some reason sounds thematically
correct), chunk gets my
On Sat, Nov 20, 2010 at 23:15, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
You seem to be indirectly answering the parent posting in much of what
you say. That is fine, I just wanted to point it out.
It's a commonly accepted, well-defined convention to save humans
effort while not sacrificing
On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 16:54, William Herrin b...@herrin.us wrote:
Because in my version fd::/8
actually is the same as fd00::/8, which, as you rightly point out, is
exactly what a normal human being would naturally expect.
Which is against every expectation of anyone who ever learned Arabic
On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 23:15, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
In fact, it would look pretty weird to most people if we started writing
951-21-42-33 (or I bet they wouldn't expect that was a zip code in
any case). Similarly, if we start placing the separators in arbitrary
places in phone
Please don't group several emails into one. It breaks threads. And
while I could not find anything about this in the NANOG FAQ, it's
common netiquette not to do so.
On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 23:50, William Herrin b...@herrin.us wrote:
On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 11:40 AM, Joel Jaeggli joe...@bogus.com
[ Meant to send this to the list and not directly to Richard. ]
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 03:07:40AM +0100, Richard Hartmann wrote:
If any of you have any additional suggestions, you are more than
welcome to share them.
I heard hexquad somewhere awhile back and have been using it since...
For the sake of completeness, the relevant part of what I answered
privately can be found below.
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 13:22, Jeff Aitken jait...@aitken.com wrote:
[ Meant to send this to the list and not directly to Richard. ]
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 03:07:40AM +0100, Richard Hartmann
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 6:40 AM, Richard Hartmann
richih.mailingl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 16:54, William Herrin b...@herrin.us wrote:
Because in my version fd::/8
actually is the same as fd00::/8, which, as you rightly point out, is
exactly what a normal human being would
I don't see a problem with people not assigning customers /56s so long
as they go in the correct direction and give /48s and not /60s or /64s.
Many ISPs will end up handing their customers /64, /62 or other
less-than-ideal prefixes. As soon as a customer needs to subnet their
/64, the
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 15:07, William Herrin b...@herrin.us wrote:
Trimming zeros on both the left and the right, as the correctly
written IPv6 notation 1::/16 would have us do, is confusing. It's
like writing one million and one tenth as 1,,.1 instead of
1,000,000.1.
No, there are simply
Richard Hartmann richih.mailingl...@gmail.com writes:
I will add quad to -03 anyway. If you get a few +1 on hexquad, I am
against adding that, as well.
Quad is a standard term for 64 bit integer in C/C++. For
example:
$ grep -c quad /usr/src/sys/netinet6/*|awk -F: '{tot+=$2} END{print
Given that a meal is often comprised of several mouthfuls, wouldn't it
stand to reason that the entire address would suffice there? ;)
Scott
On 11/19/10 11:06 AM, Richard Hartmann wrote:
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 14:14, Scott Morris s...@emanon.com wrote:
If 8 bits is a byte, then 16 bits
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 16:23, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
then, the other ISPs
will eventually find themselves at a competitive disadvantage as their
customers start to ask Why can't I have a /48 like my friend Bob
got from provider Z?
I kinda implied that, but yes, I should have
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 18:33, Daniel Hagerty h...@linnaean.org wrote:
Ambiguating usages like Take the least signifigant quad of that
ipv6 address to mean either 16 bits or 64 bits, when it currently is
unamibigously 64 bits won't make the lives of C/C++ programmers
writing IPv6 code any
On Friday, November 19, 2010 08:14:52 am Scott Morris wrote:
If 8 bits is a byte, then 16 bits should be a mouthful.
I thought the Jargon File settled that long ago: 4 bits = nybble, 8 bits =
byte, 16 bits = playte, 32-bits = dynner. See http://dictionary.die.net/nybble
Since the zeros
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 14:05, Richard Hartmann
richih.mailingl...@gmail.com wrote:
I will add quad to -03 anyway. If you get a few +1 on hexquad, I am
against adding that, as well.
Erm. Belated, but I am _not_ against adding etc pp.
Richard
From nanog-bounces+bonomi=mail.r-bonomi@nanog.org Fri Nov 19 11:05:33
2010
Subject: Re: Introducing draft-denog-v6ops-addresspartnaming
From: Owen DeLong o...@delong.com
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2010 08:58:45 -0800
To: Richard Hartmann richih.mailingl...@gmail.com
Cc: bmann
From nanog-bounces+bonomi=mail.r-bonomi@nanog.org Fri Nov 19 14:18:02
2010
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2010 12:19:34 -0800
From: Joel Jaeggli joe...@bogus.com
To: Owen DeLong o...@delong.com
Subject: Re: Introducing draft-denog-v6ops-addresspartnaming
Cc: bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com, nanog
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 08:14, Scott Morris s...@emanon.com wrote:
If 8 bits is a byte, then 16 bits should be a mouthful.
;)
Scott
If we can't choose mouthful (which for some reason sounds thematically
correct), chunk gets my vote.
*(Chunk = Maybe not the most technical, but has been
On Sat, Nov 20, 2010 at 5:15 PM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
fd00:68::1 and fd:0068::1 mean different things now. The former means
fd00:0068::1 while the latter means 00fd:0068::1. I would instead have
them mean the same thing: fd00:6800::1. The single-colon separator
gets syntax but no
On 11/21/10 7:54 AM, William Herrin wrote:
We've gone too far down the wrong path to change it now; colons are
going to separate every second byte in the v6 address. But from a
human factors perspective, floating colons would have been better.
From a computer parser perspective, a character
On Sat, 20 Nov 2010 12:12:09 EST, William Herrin said:
260:abcde:123456:98::1
260 - IANA to ARIN, a /12
abcde - ARIN to ISP, a /32
123456 - ISP to customer, a /56
98 - customer subnet
::1 - LAN address
What do you do when ARIN gives Tier1 a /24, and Tier1 gives Billy Bob's
Bait, Tackle,
On Nov 21, 2010, at 7:54 AM, William Herrin wrote:
On Sat, Nov 20, 2010 at 5:15 PM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
fd00:68::1 and fd:0068::1 mean different things now. The former means
fd00:0068::1 while the latter means 00fd:0068::1. I would instead have
them mean the same thing:
On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 11:40 AM, Joel Jaeggli joe...@bogus.com wrote:
There is a lot of assumption on the part of ipv6 that the use of ipv6
literals in uri's would be a rather infrequent occurrence, given how
infrequent it is in ipv4 it would seem to be a reasonable assumption.
Joel,
Looks
An option w/ movable separators:
260:abc:1234:9876:fe::1
Actual IPv6 standard (and also allowed w/ movable separators):
260a:bc12:3498:76fe::1
The problem with movable separators is in handling zeros. If the
separators are a known distance apart, zeros can be deduced. The
example
On 21/11/2010 22:50, William Herrin wrote:
Just for my own edification, who else besides Cisco do you know who
uses that notation for MAC addresses? I want some convincing before
I'll accept the claim that it's widespread.
Brocade, or at least the Foundry part of Brocade.
Nick
On 11/21/10 2:50 PM, William Herrin wrote:
On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 11:40 AM, Joel Jaeggli joe...@bogus.com wrote:
There is a lot of assumption on the part of ipv6 that the use of ipv6
literals in uri's would be a rather infrequent occurrence, given how
infrequent it is in ipv4 it would seem to
On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 5:15 PM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
Imea nrea lly, what ifwe wrot eEng lish thew aywe writ eIPv 6add ress
es? Looks pretty stupid without a floating separator, doesn't it?
If this were prose, sure. It isn't. It's an addressing scheme. I mean,
really, we
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 23:52, William Herrin b...@herrin.us wrote:
I thought about that. Have a one colon rule that IPv6 addresses in
hexidecimal format have to include at least one colon somewhere. The
regex which picks that token out versus the other possibilities is
easy enough to write
On 19 November 2010 13:14, Scott Morris s...@emanon.com wrote:
If 8 bits is a byte, then 16 bits should be a mouthful.
I like that, but maybe a chomp (although that might annoy some perl
ruby people)... then maybe when all 2bytes are zeros and we expel them
from the address with a double colon,
On 20 Nov 2010, at 13:42, Daniel Holme dan.ho...@gmail.com wrote:
On 19 November 2010 13:14, Scott Morris s...@emanon.com wrote:
If 8 bits is a byte, then 16 bits should be a mouthful.
I like that, but maybe a chomp (although that might annoy some perl
ruby people)... then maybe when all
On Sat, Nov 20, 2010 at 5:05 AM, Richard Hartmann
richih.mailingl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 23:52, William Herrin b...@herrin.us wrote:
I thought about that. Have a one colon rule that IPv6 addresses in
hexidecimal format have to include at least one colon somewhere. The
I saw 'field' somewhere
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5952#section-2.1
seems to agree.
Frank
On 11/19/2010 10:42 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
Since the poll is a straight yes/no option with no preference, I will
express my preference here. While I find the term quibble fun and
amusing, I think
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 07:00, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
problem is, its not alwas ggoig to be two bytes...
It's always two bytes, but people may choose to omit them. That is a
social, not a (purely) technical, syntax, though.
Richard
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 08:42, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
Since the poll is a straight yes/no option with no preference, I will
express my preference here.
I considered using the Condorcet method [1] (modified for NotA), but
as past experience has shown that people get easily confused
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 07:00, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
problem is, its not alwas ggoig to be two bytes...
It's always two bytes, but people may choose to omit them. That is a
social, not a (purely) technical, syntax, though.
Richard
That's exactly what I was
If 8 bits is a byte, then 16 bits should be a mouthful.
;)
Scott
On 11/18/10 10:45 PM, George Bonser wrote:
Hi all,
as most of you are aware, there is no definite, canonical name for the
two bytes of IPv6 addresses between colons. This forces people to use
a description like I just did
On 11/19/2010 4:57 AM, George Bonser wrote:
It's always two bytes, but people may choose to omit them. That is a
social, not a (purely) technical, syntax, though.
Richard
That's exactly what I was going to say but didn't want to quibble. We tend to call them
quads at work. What do you
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 10:57, George Bonser gbon...@seven.com wrote:
That's exactly what I was going to say but didn't want to quibble. We tend
to call them quads at work. What do you call that indeterminate space
between two colons :: where it might be four or more zeros in there? That's
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 14:14, Scott Morris s...@emanon.com wrote:
If 8 bits is a byte, then 16 bits should be a mouthful.
When does it become a meal and, more importantly, do you want to
supper (sic) size?
RIchard
On Fri, 2010-11-19 at 17:06 +0100, Richard Hartmann wrote:
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 14:14, Scott Morris s...@emanon.com wrote:
If 8 bits is a byte, then 16 bits should be a mouthful.
When does it become a meal and, more importantly, do you want to
supper (sic) size?
The supersize option
I'm sorry to quibble with the majority here, but, in this case, I think
we have enough problems with ambiguous terminology in
networking and this opportunity to avoid creating one more should
not be missed.
(The above paragraph was mainly so that I had an opportunity to toss
quibble into the
On Nov 19, 2010, at 12:57 AM, Richard Hartmann wrote:
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 07:00, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
problem is, its not alwas ggoig to be two bytes...
It's always two bytes, but people may choose to omit them. That is a
social, not a (purely) technical,
Greetings,
On Fri, 19 Nov 2010, Owen DeLong wrote:
I'm sorry to quibble with the majority here, but, in this case, I think
we have enough problems with ambiguous terminology in
networking and this opportunity to avoid creating one more should
not be missed.
(The above paragraph was
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 17:58, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
It is always two bytes. A byte is not always an octet. Some machines do
have byte sizes other than 8 bits
Vice versa. It's always two octects, but on some systems it may not be
two bytes.
, although few of them are likely to
I have a quibble with this discussion. When I defined a byte as a mouthful
of bits to my boss back in 1977, he nearly fired me on the spot. He did not
care about PDP-10 , much less PDP-11, data constructs.
By now, octet has become essentially synonymous with byte and nibble with
4-bits.
On Nov 19, 2010, at 8:58 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Nov 19, 2010, at 12:57 AM, Richard Hartmann wrote:
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 07:00, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
problem is, its not alwas ggoig to be two bytes...
It's always two bytes, but people may choose to omit
On 11/19/10 10:56 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
It is always two bytes. A byte is not always an octet. Some machines do
It is always two OCTETS. A byte is not always an octet...
Assuming you have a v6 stack on your cdc6600 a v6 address fits in 22
bytes not 16.
have byte sizes other than 8 bits,
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 9:07 PM, Richard Hartmann
richih.mailingl...@gmail.com wrote:
as most of you are aware, there is no definite, canonical name for the
two bytes of IPv6 addresses between colons. This forces people to use
a description like I just did instead of a single, specific term.
On 11/19/10 12:45 PM, William Herrin wrote:
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 9:07 PM, Richard Hartmann
richih.mailingl...@gmail.com wrote:
as most of you are aware, there is no definite, canonical name for the
two bytes of IPv6 addresses between colons. This forces people to use
a description like I
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 4:09 PM, Joel Jaeggli joe...@bogus.com wrote:
On 11/19/10 12:45 PM, William Herrin wrote:
The meaningful boundaries in the protocol itself are nibble and /64.
If you want socially significant boundaries, add /12, /32 and /48.
It is possible and desirable to be able to
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 21:45, William Herrin b...@herrin.us wrote:
I have an anti-naming proposal: Allow users to place the colons
-anywhere- or even leave them out altogether without changing the
semantics of the IPv6 address.
A decade or two of established syntax disagree. IPv6 addresses,
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 22:17, William Herrin b...@herrin.us wrote:
Bit, nibble and /64 then. /64 is treated specially by functions in the
protocol (like SLAAC) thus it's a protocol boundary rather than a
social one (/12 IANA allocations, /32 ISP allocations, /48 end-user
assignments).
I
Hi all,
as most of you are aware, there is no definite, canonical name for the
two bytes of IPv6 addresses between colons. This forces people to use
a description like I just did instead of a single, specific term.
Being highly pedantic Germans, this annoyed quite a few people within
the DENOG
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 07:45:19PM -0800, George Bonser wrote:
Hi all,
as most of you are aware, there is no definite, canonical name for the
two bytes of IPv6 addresses between colons. This forces people to use
a description like I just did instead of a single, specific term.
Since the poll is a straight yes/no option with no preference, I will
express my preference here. While I find the term quibble fun and
amusing, I think hextet is a far more useful term because it does not
have the overloaded human semantics that come with quibble.
I'm sorry to quibble with the
63 matches
Mail list logo
