Re: Introducing draft-denog-v6ops-addresspartnaming

[Richard Hartmann <richih.mailinglist () gmail com>]

On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 15:07, William Herrin <bill () 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 two mechanisms at work:

I start with

  0001:0000:0000:0000:0000:0000:0000:0000/16

then, I remove leading zeros as they are not needed

  1:0000:0000:0000:0000:0000:0000:0000/16

which I can further reduce by the same mechanism to

  1:0:0:0:0:0:0/16

Finally, the accepted convention for IPv6 addresses is that I can drop
a continuous block of zeros which means I end up with

  1::/16

Makes perfect sense to me.


> Six of one, half a dozen of the other. Flooding a list with half a
> dozen replies on the same thread at the same time is poor netiquette
> for its impact on unthreaded mail agents and if your mailer started a
> new thread for this message in spite of the identical subject and
> in-reply-to header then it's broken.

I disagree, but if you want to continue this part of the discussion,
we should do so off-list. I do apologize that I wrote this in-line and
did not poke you off-list in the first place.


> Insolence alone does not rise to argumentum ad hominem. "The predicate
> assumption is wrong. Here's several paragraphs about what's actually
> observed in the field," certainly isn't. If you want to call me out on
> a logical fallacy, at least call me out on one I've actually
> committed.

I called out a social, not a logical, fallacy. As per the rest, see above.


Richard