Subject: names for non-global addresses

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 21:24:11 -0500

I still prefer

GUPI (pronounced "guppy" like the fish) - globally unique 
provider-independent
PUPI (pronounced "puppy" like a young dog) - probably unique 
provider-independent

as having about the right ratio of cuteness to mnemonic power.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email-masked]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Fred Templin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2003 17:30:00 -0800

I'll take mnemonic power, but could do without the cuteness.
How about:

  IDEA - Independently-Delegated Endpoint Address

Fred
[email-masked]

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2003 21:00:43 -0500

> I'll take mnemonic power, but could do without the cuteness.

IMO, some amount of cuteness is actually useful - it encourages people 
to use them.

---

From: Fred Templin <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 22 Nov 2003 07:34:56 -0800 (PST)

Keith,
 
GUPIs ("guppies") and PUPIs ("puppies") are things that little
children like to bring home from their local pet store.
 
IDEAs are things that all Internet users from the most seasoned
professional to the rankest novice immediately associate with
the pure essence of technology. The unspoken understanding
between any two peers would be:
 
  "I have an IDEA; you have an IDEA; let's network!"
 
Fred
[email-masked]

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 22 Nov 2003 11:04:06 -0500

> children like to bring home from their local pet store.

and therefore when network experts uses those terms it will nearly 
always be clear from context whether they mean pets or addresses - 
unlike ideas, which some people actually do employ in their work :)

but it seems silly to drill down too deep into this issue.  the 
important thing is that we pick a name or names and move on.  if the 
authors of the document don't pick something by the next IETF, we 
should just vote by humming.

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2003 09:58:36 +0100

Politically, calling them private addresses will work best, even
if it offends end-to-end purists such as myself.

I don't think cute geek acronyms work for this. We're looking for
a suitable chapter heading for a dummies' guide book.

  "Configuring private addresses for your network."

   - Brian

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2003 14:07:39 -0500

> if it offends end-to-end purists such as myself.

mumble.  is there a way to call them something that sounds politically 
correct without giving the impression that these addresses only work on 
the local network?

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2003 15:03:49 -0500

More on this point - I have two specific concerns about the use of 
"private addresses"

1. potential confusion with RFC 1918 addresses, including the 
association of RFC 1918 addresses with "non-routable outside of the 
local network" and "used with NATs".
2. potential confusion with RFC 3041 "privacy addresses"

Unfortunately English doesn't seem to have many antonyms for "public", 
but as politically-correct but not misleading alternatives to 
GUPI/PUPI, IDEA, and "private addresses" I suggest that either 
"nonpublic addresses" or "limited-access addresses" or perhaps just 
"limited addresses" would be better.

---

From: Zefram <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2003 20:40:38 +0000

>correct without giving the impression that these addresses only work on 

"Private" doesn't give me that impression.  "Private" suggests to me
that they work within a region determined by the owner of the address
(which is approximately correct); they do not necessarily work in the
public Internet.

-zefram

---

From: Fred Templin <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2003 15:50:46 -0800

Keith,

> "limited addresses" would be better.

You are coming dangerously close to completing the full-circle and
bringing us back to the term "limited range" which was en vogue for
some time.

Frankly, I see this as an endless rathole that we could spin on
forever; Brian's suggestion gives us a clean way to avoid it.

Fred
[email-masked]

---

From: Fred Templin <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2003 16:23:16 -0800

Hmm - so it seems that you *are* willing to go full circle
and spin in  the rathole? Have fun, but please don't try to
take the  wg with you; we have already  spent way too
much time there.

Fred
[email-masked]

Keith Moore wrote:

>well, to me "limited range" seems less dangerous than "private addresses",
>but others might disagree.
>
>
>
>  
>

---

From: Bob Hinden <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2003 16:33:55 -0800

>   "Configuring private addresses for your network."

This could be:

   Private IPv6 Unicast Addresses (PUA)

or perhaps:

   Globally Unique Private IPv6 Unicast Addresses (GUPA)

Bob

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2003 19:28:40 -0500

Well, maybe I wasn't paying much attention when that particular rathole
was being discussed, so I don't realize how painful it was.   

Anyway, I've put in well more than my two cents' worth on this topic.

Keith

> >well, to me "limited range" seems less dangerous than "private
> >addresses", but others might disagree.

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2003 14:06:06 +0100

Fred Templin wrote:
> I'll take mnemonic power, but could do without the cuteness. How 
> about:
> 

IDEA is the name of a block cypher too, 128bit keylength, so don't
talk to CGA people about IDEA addresses because there might be
confusions :-)

Alex