[132306] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Introducing draft-denog-v6ops-addresspartnaming
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Richard Hartmann)
Fri Nov 19 16:21:01 2010
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTin=fdTVF3evX+yxxC+SAp6csjXVqL40bzGKDNUC@mail.gmail.com>
From: Richard Hartmann <richih.mailinglist@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2010 22:20:36 +0100
To: William Herrin <bill@herrin.us>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 21:45, William Herrin <bill@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, UUIDs
and similar have a unique syntax for a reason. Otherwise, we, nor
computers, wouldn't be able to quickly distinguish an IP from a hash.
> The colons are there for readability purposes only. They have no
> special significance and should not be elevated to significance by
> naming the parts of the address they delineate. Treat them specially
> and some fools will attach importance to arranging tasks on two-byte
> boundaries.
Even if they were for readability only, they would still be for
humans. Same as the specific, canonical name we are trying to agree
on.
If people want to interpret more into the colons than there is to see,
they will do so regardless of a name.
The rest of us will work faster, more efficiently and not explain the
same old thing a gazillion times.
Richard
