IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] On IPv6 address part naming

Richard Hartmann <richih.mailinglist@gmail.com> Fri, 21 November 2014 07:07 UTC

Return-Path: <richih.mailinglist@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C5631AD0D7 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Nov 2014 23:07:17 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.4
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.4 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_54=0.6, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uPWlsIBLFuST for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Nov 2014 23:07:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wi0-x22f.google.com (mail-wi0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c05::22f]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 801F21A0076 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Nov 2014 23:07:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wi0-f175.google.com with SMTP id l15so11050207wiw.8 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Nov 2014 23:07:14 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=IhPee/TnbTADAIGX/ddERjtCsfeKbDSA4cjtr+z4Zfk=; b=gtPlAvlcuB786Fmr77XfsVQZ3Bc216uvbYOaFzUeyzga6+SxlSlfH0phtWj1nTj2ls WrZaYCX4zEFffNfyLw98G+m+cczWYdVjdh/miqctE2X+pC/m0Wyilu16QEC7Y9AWz5ff 7DqszNh9isLMtx1BMcpRd59xjN8izYJ0yQd0SCH1Hq3J4AR4DTweYcBisTNsq/WBj2NA MoXYIy+CisT3OTpnIPb8Z8bI1RK8m6sJBw3WQLyyWe52J8o9nr5i3NKZS4ViphwuwOUd J/7IoC6btQzIIw6b3VnJb8/gm5Xuw+F6ALXnOuFE4+eNzC00h2Vw01Il9iFpCPsndHNO iMEg==
X-Received: by 10.194.77.233 with SMTP id v9mr4413211wjw.24.1416553634274; Thu, 20 Nov 2014 23:07:14 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.194.5.197 with HTTP; Thu, 20 Nov 2014 23:06:54 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CAKD1Yr0dVjm-D1_CTEYdqSi2Cjx2V3b5yaizPCWOpkTbpk2S2g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAD77+gQqAjWQ8iK6-GGBEitrY8sBPM59Mh2X0Gg8TLx9XThqnw@mail.gmail.com> <546E43C2.9010400@gmail.com> <546E48EB.5080405@isi.edu> <546E6FB9.9000500@dougbarton.us> <CAKD1Yr0dVjm-D1_CTEYdqSi2Cjx2V3b5yaizPCWOpkTbpk2S2g@mail.gmail.com>
From: Richard Hartmann <richih.mailinglist@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2014 08:06:54 +0100
Message-ID: <CAD77+gQb_RS14H0nuyVj0DCHVAoLS0LYZiX5GiLPHxsgoyMgKQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/ACc45kueS1OVS21bD2X2tidyMEc
Cc: "v6ops@ietf.org WG" <v6ops@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] On IPv6 address part naming
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <v6ops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/v6ops/>
List-Post: <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2014 07:07:17 -0000

On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 1:42 AM, Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com> wrote:
> Hextet seems to be the term most in use among my colleagues, too.

One more note about this point: back in 2010/2011, there was a
surprising amount of people well into the two figures who contacted
me, asking what the default will be so they could start adoption. The
only sane answer back then was that it would likely be "hextet". It's
quite likely that this usage spread from there and has created a
baseline of a somewhat commonly accepted name. Myself, I have heard
this name used several times in normal conversation without pushing
either way. This was not the case back then so maybe facts have been
created, already.

Reactions in this thread seem to mirror my observations though we
should let some more time pass before taking a count^Whum.



Richard

v2.46.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status