Movatterモバイル変換

Independent Submission                                         H. KaplanRequest for Comments: 8369                                128 TechnologyCategory: Informational                                     1 April 2018ISSN: 2070-1721Internationalizing IPv6 Using 128-Bit UnicodeAbstract   It is clear that Unicode will eventually exhaust its supply of code   points, and more will be needed.  Assuming ISO and the Unicode   Consortium follow the practices of the IETF, the next Unicode code   point size will be 128 bits.  This document describes how this future   128-bit Unicode can be leveraged to improve IPv6 adoption and finally   bring internationalization support to IPv6.Status of This Memo   This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is   published for informational purposes.   This is a contribution to the RFC Series, independently of any other   RFC stream.  The RFC Editor has chosen to publish this document at   its discretion and makes no statement about its value for   implementation or deployment.  Documents approved for publication by   the RFC Editor are not candidates for any level of Internet Standard;   seeSection 2 of RFC 7841.   Information about the current status of this document, any errata,   and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained athttps://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8369.Copyright Notice   Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the   document authors.  All rights reserved.   This document is subject toBCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents   (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of   publication of this document.  Please review these documents   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect   to this document.Kaplan                        Informational                     [Page 1]

RFC 8369                 Unicode IPv6 Addressing            1 April 2018Table of Contents1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31.1.  Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31.2.  Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .42.  The Need for 128-Bit Code Points  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .43.  Unicode IPv6 Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .63.1.  Reserved Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .63.2.  Multicast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .73.3.  IPv6 Routing  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .74.  Using Unicode IPv6 Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .84.1.  Uniform Resource Identifiers  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .84.2.  Address Allocation and Resolution . . . . . . . . . . . .85.  Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .96.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .97.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .98.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .108.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .108.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10   Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11   Author's Address  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11Kaplan                        Informational                     [Page 2]

RFC 8369                 Unicode IPv6 Addressing            1 April 20181.  Introduction   Unicode [Unicode] is currently limited to 1,114,112 code points,   encoded in various encoding formats (e.g., UTF-8, UTF-16, UTF-32).   At the time of this document's publication, 136,755 code points have   been allocated, with more already in the approval process.  Every   year, more writing scripts, symbols, and emojis are added, while none   are removed.  After consulting expert mathematicians, we have   determined that the world will run out of code points someday in the   future.   While it might appear that the current rate of code point allocation   gives us plenty of time to deal with the exhaustion problem, the   Internet's history has shown that popular number spaces do not fill   up linearly, but rather exponentially.  And once the size of a   particular number space becomes entrenched, it takes decades to   migrate to a larger one.  Therefore, the code point number space must   be increased as soon as possible.   The details for expanding the Unicode code point space are not   covered in this document.  Such details need to be worked out between   the IETF, ISO, the Unicode Consortium, and various gods.  We assume,   however, that the code point space will need to grow dramatically,   and there will continue to be a need for a fixed-length encoding   scheme similar to UTF-32.  Naturally, the next size increment should   go from UTF-32 to UTF-128, and thus the rest of this document follows   this assumption.   This new 128-bit Unicode code point space can be leveraged by the   IETF to address one of the lingering issues with IPv6: there's not   much left to standardize.  With the changes described in this   document, the IETF will be kept busy for decades to come.  It also   enables new features and market opportunities, to help the global   economy.  This in turn will increase tax revenues for governments,   which eventually may lead to increased funds for combating global   warming.  Therefore, the ultimate goal of this document is to reduce   global warming.1.1.  Requirements Language   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and   "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described inBCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all   capitals, as shown here.  All other words SHOULD be interpreted as   described by the Oxford English Dictionary OED [OED], which MAY be   considered almost as authoritative for word definitions as the IETF.Kaplan                        Informational                     [Page 3]

RFC 8369                 Unicode IPv6 Addressing            1 April 20181.2.  Definitions   UTF-128:  A fixed-length encoding for 128-bit Unicode.  It is         implemented as an array of bytes in the same manner as legacy         IPv6 addresses to avoid endianness issues.   Short-Name Tag:  A short descriptive name for a Unicode character         code point, surrounded by colons (:).  For example ":garfield:"         represents the Unicode code point for the Garfield cat imoji.   Emoji:  Pictographic symbol encoded in Unicode, used to express a         general item, concept, or emotion.   Imoji:  Pictographic symbol encoded in Unicode, used to represent an         individual, specific thing: a specific human, a favorite pet, a         famous animal, etc.   Amoji:  Pictographic symbol encoded in Unicode, used to represent an         individual of an alien species.   Umoji:  Pictographic symbol encoded in Unicode, used to represent         unknown things not covered by the other mojis.   Omoji:  Pictographic symbol encoded in Unicode, used to represent         obfuscated identities, used as addresses for the purpose of         privacy.2.  The Need for 128-Bit Code Points   The exponentially increasing demand for Unicode character code points   might not be obvious at first glance.  While it is true that the   number of languages and their writing scripts do not grow quickly   over time, one type of "character" will: emojis.  Unicode has barely   begun providing code points for all of the various emojis currently   in use, and it is likely that more emojis will be created in the   future.  For example, there are still missing emoji symbols for most   types of food and drink, the flags of each town and city on Earth,   all human sporting and leisure activities including all local and   national sports teams and players, and every plant and animal species   and gender.   Furthermore, it has become common for some applications to allow   their users to create custom emojis, whereby the user can provide the   graphic to display for a new "character".  For example, a user might   set their chat application to display a graphic of Carlos Ramirez's   popular "Trollface" meme [TROLL], using the short-name tag   ':trollface:' in their chat application.  All other users of the same   chat app will be able to see and use the same custom trollface emoji.Kaplan                        Informational                     [Page 4]

RFC 8369                 Unicode IPv6 Addressing            1 April 2018   However, since there is no Unicode code point for :trollface:, the   chat app cannot export the trollface emoji to other chat apps or   protocols, such as Internet Relay Chat (IRC) or the Extensible   Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP).  This represents a clear   interoperability issue.   In the future, it might also become desirable to assign each human a   Unicode code point to represent them, similar to names, with the   glyph being a picture of their face or a custom graphic.  These   personal code points are not truly "emojis" in the classical sense of   being generic concepts, so we've decided to give them a new name to   avoid confusion: imoji.  Unlike human names, code points for imojis   will be unique per human, for all space and time.  Favorite pets and   famous animals can also be assigned imojis.   Lastly, if we ever encounter sentient species from other planets,   they too will need Unicode code points for their writing scripts and   emojis; and they will each need unique amojis (imojis for aliens),   for whatever form their individual identity might take.Section 4 of   RFC 8136 [RFC8136] clearly supports such a scenario, with the new UFO   IPv6 option.   Based on the above obvious use cases, it is clear that the current ~1   million code points are nowhere near enough.  Increasing to 64 bits   might be sufficient for now, but since this will be a painful   transition process no matter the size, we believe jumping to 128 bits   is the appropriate choice.   Note: The current limit of ~1 million code points is a formal limit   due to what UTF-16 can encode today.  Increasing the limit will   either require deprecating UTF-16 or paying a hefty overhead penalty   to encode 128 bits across many pairs of surrogate code points.  Since   the ultimate goal of this document is to reduce global warming, the   challenge of choosing between deprecating UTF-16 or paying the   overhead price is a trivial dilemma to solve by comparison.Kaplan                        Informational                     [Page 5]

RFC 8369                 Unicode IPv6 Addressing            1 April 20183.  Unicode IPv6 Addresses   Assuming the new Unicode code point space is 128 bits -- excluding   some reserved bits for backwards compatibility and future expansion   -- it seems only natural to use Unicode code points for IPv6   addresses, and vice versa.  This leads to some exciting changes, such   as:   o  IPv6 addresses no longer need to be typed as hex values --      instead, the glyph for the script character, symbol, emoji, or      imoji representing that address can be input by the user, and it      will be displayed by the application as the graphic itself.  From      the user's perspective, this will also be more compact than the      representation described inRFC 1924 [RFC1924].   o  Network monitoring and troubleshooting tools can now display      pretty glyphs in place of ugly IPv6 addresses, leading to less      stress on the eyes of network administrators.   o  For cases where graphical glyphs cannot be used, such as IETF      documents, we can deprecate the legacy textual notation of IPv6      addresses of the style '2001:db8:85a3::8a2e:370:7334' to the      simpler Unicode textual notation      'U+20010DB885A3000000008A2E03707334'.  Using the short-name tag is      also possible, such as ':v6address-1:'.   Due to the nature of having IPv6 addresses be Unicode code points,RFC 8135 [RFC8135] is made obsolete by this document.  It was found   to be too complex to implement anyway.3.1.  Reserved Addresses   Some address code points will be inappropriate for IPv6 addressing,   such as formatting characters and control codes.  Such code points   MUST NOT be used for IPv6 addresses.   We do, however, still need to reserve some code points for private   network use.  Since no sentient life has been found on Mars, the code   points that would have been allocated for Martian imojis are hereby   allocated for this private use.  These addresses are thus called   "Martians", also known as "Bogons" due to them being bogus.   Note: Should life be found on Mars in the future, new code points   will be allocated for them.  To avoid confusion, they will be called   "Barsoom Indigenous Glyph Off-world Network" addresses, or "Bigons"   (pronounced "bye-gons").  We're certain the Martians will let Bogons   be bygones, and Bigons be Bigons.Kaplan                        Informational                     [Page 6]

RFC 8369                 Unicode IPv6 Addressing            1 April 20183.2.  Multicast   In both IPv4 and IPv6, multicast addresses have been relegated to   predefined IP address ranges, limiting how many multicast groups   could be used simultaneously.  Given the rise of broadcasting-style   social media platforms, and the market demand for individuals to be   watched/followed by numerous random strangers constantly, it seems   clear that we need to be able to multicast everything, all the time.   To address this need, the high-order bit of the 128-bit code point   space SHALL be reserved to indicate multicast.  All valid code points   (i.e., IPv6 addresses) will thus have multicast counterparts.  For   example, the code point allocated for :cat: is U+1F408.  The   multicast group U+8000000000000000000000000001F408 is thus for   content about cats.  Note that this is for general cat content --   other code points are allocated for specific cat content, such as joy   cat, grinning cat, pouty cat, etc.  For an individual cat like   Garfield, setting the high-order bit to the code point allocated for   :garfield: will indicate that it is multicast content about Garfield.   Source-specific multicast also plays a role; for example, joining the   :garfield: multicast group and restricting it to a source of   :garfield: results in only receiving content about Garfield, from   Garfield.3.3.  IPv6 Routing   There should be little impact on routing using code-point-based IPv6   addresses.  There might be some exponential growth in routing and   forwarding tables due to difficulties in aggregating code points;   hopefully, this will be offset by increases in processor and memory   capacity.  Of course this will also drive the need to frequently   upgrade networking hardware, resulting in a boost to the global   economy, and thus a reduction in global warming.   One improvement to routing that MAY be considered is for scenic   routing as defined byRFC 7511 [RFC7511].  With emojis and imojis   being available for addressing, we can now specify which exact type   of scenery to visit along the way, or even which exact avian carrier   [RFC6214] to ride with.  Note that avian carriers as described inRFC1149 [RFC1149] are not supported, since they only support IPv4.Kaplan                        Informational                     [Page 7]

RFC 8369                 Unicode IPv6 Addressing            1 April 20184.  Using Unicode IPv6 Addresses4.1.  Uniform Resource Identifiers   Uniform Resource Identifiers (URIs) and Uniform Resource Locators   (URLs) already support Unicode through Internationalized Resource   Identifiers (IRIs), but these are merely a means to use multiple   Unicode characters to indicate a resource.  With 128-bit Unicode, the   number space is large enough to identify each resource with a single   Unicode character.  Why waste space and time typing out multiple   characters, when you can just use one?   For URLs, this new model might only mean using a single Unicode   character for the hostname portion -- for example, a corporate logo   in place of the legacy corporate domain name.  Another alternative is   to allocate a code point for the entire host and path, possibly even   including the scheme.  These types of decisions can be made in future   IETF Working Groups.   The interesting aspect of this change for URIs/URLs is that no   address lookup needs to be performed.  The single 128-bit Unicode for   the URL *is* the IPv6 address.  An additional step is only needed if   the user inputs a private Unicode character or short-name tag that   needs to be converted to a publicly allocated one.  This would   require Network Address Translation (NAT) from the private code point   or short-name tag to a public Unicode code point.  This can be done   locally, thus finally bringing NATs into the last part of the   Internet in which they are not currently deployed: the user's   application.4.2.  Address Allocation and Resolution   It is obvious that once a single 128-bit Unicode character is used   for addresses and URIs, using domain names will quickly become   obsolete.  The subsequent collapse of the domain name industry   presents a threat to the world economy, which MUST be addressed.   One solution to this danger is to establish a Unicode registry model   and an accompanying Code Point Unicode Resolution System (CPURS,   pronounced "keepers").  CPURS would replace DNS and provide an   architecture and resolution mechanism to resolve Unicode code points   to their registered glyphs and short-name tags, and vice versa.  The   new Unicode registries and registrars would thus replace the legacy   domain name counterparts.  This would lead to a new gold rush for   registering Unicode code points for corporate logos and product   icons, and thus usher in an era of economic prosperity, which would   eventually reduce global warming.Kaplan                        Informational                     [Page 8]

RFC 8369                 Unicode IPv6 Addressing            1 April 2018   Once Unicode registries and CPURS are in place, IPv6 addresses would   be allocated by registering code points through that system; they   would no longer be registered by IANA and RIRs.  This is not a major   concern, however, because any tax revenue loss will be more than   offset by Unicode registries allocating code points.  Furthermore, in   order to make CPURS possible, the actual graphic files for the glyphs   need to be standardized and created in numerous formats and sizes,   with various intellectual property rules.  This will provide more   work for graphic artists and lawyers, further increasing tax revenue.   The astute reader might ask why we need CPURS if Unicode translation   is performed locally on hosts today.  The answer is volume: it is   unlikely that host applications can keep up with the rate of new   Unicode code points being allocated for emojis, imojis, and umojis.   While application and operating system updates have been occurring at   an ever-increasing rate, and will soon reach the same rate as human   births, it is doubtful that it will ever reach the rate of sentient   extraterrestrial births.  Therefore, we need a system that can scale   to reach such volume before we make first contact; otherwise, the   diplomatic failure to quickly provide the aliens with amojis of their   own may lead to armed conflict.  An armed conflict with other   sentient beings capable of reaching Earth might increase global   warming, defeating this document's ultimate purpose.5.  Summary   There is still much to be decided on, most of which is frankly rather   boring.  It is clear, however, that 128-bit Unicode code points will   be needed eventually, and IPv6 addressing MUST be migrated to it.   Thus, the time to act is now!6.  IANA Considerations   This document has no IANA actions.7.  Security Considerations   The main security concern with using 128-bit Unicode for IPv6   addressing is the need for privacy, in terms of anonymity.  If an   IPv6 packet is sent with an imoji or amoji address, then man-in-the-   middle devices in the network will know the specific human or alien   that sent or received the packet.  Using such information might lead   to heated discussions, thereby increasing global warming.   To address this concern, an IPv6 address MAY be obfuscated by using   an omoji.  An omoji is simply the original Unicode code point but   with the least-significant bit set; all other types of 128-bit   Unicode code points MUST have the least-significant bit cleared.  TheKaplan                        Informational                     [Page 9]

RFC 8369                 Unicode IPv6 Addressing            1 April 2018   graphical representation of an omoji is the same as its unobfsucated   moji counterpart, except that it is covered over by a solid black   block.   By setting the least-significant bit of the source or destination and   thus turning it into an omoji, the IPv6 address is obfuscated and the   true identity cannot be determined, while IPv6 routers can still   route the packet appropriately.  Note that this only provides a bit   of privacy, but every bit helps.8.  References8.1.  Normative References   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate              Requirement Levels",BCP 14,RFC 2119,              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.   [RFC8174]  Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase inRFC2119 Key Words",BCP 14,RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,              May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.8.2.  Informative References   [OED]      Oxford University Press, "Oxford English Dictionary",              <http://www.oed.com>.   [RFC1149]  Waitzman, D., "Standard for the transmission of IP              datagrams on avian carriers",RFC 1149,              DOI 10.17487/RFC1149, April 1990,              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1149>.   [RFC1924]  Elz, R., "A Compact Representation of IPv6 Addresses",RFC 1924, DOI 10.17487/RFC1924, April 1996,              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1924>.   [RFC6214]  Carpenter, B. and R. Hinden, "Adaptation ofRFC 1149 for              IPv6",RFC 6214, DOI 10.17487/RFC6214, April 2011,              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6214>.   [RFC7511]  Wilhelm, M., "Scenic Routing for IPv6",RFC 7511,              DOI 10.17487/RFC7511, April 2015,              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7511>.   [RFC8135]  Danielson, M. and M. Nilsson, "Complex Addressing in              IPv6",RFC 8135, DOI 10.17487/RFC8135, April 2017,              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8135>.Kaplan                        Informational                    [Page 10]

RFC 8369                 Unicode IPv6 Addressing            1 April 2018   [RFC8136]  Carpenter, B. and R. Hinden, "Additional Transition              Functionality for IPv6",RFC 8136, DOI 10.17487/RFC8136,              April 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8136>.   [TROLL]    The Meme Wikia, "Trollface",              <http://meme.wikia.com/wiki/Rule_63?oldid=23602>.   [Unicode]  The Unicode Consortium, "Unicode", <http://unicode.org>.Acknowledgements   The authors wish to thank the following people for providing the   inspiration for this work: Cal Henderson, Carlos Ramirez, Graham   Linehan, Agnetha Faltskog, Bjorn Ulvaeus, Benny Andersson, and   Anni-Frid Lyngstad.Author's Address   Hadriel Kaplan   128 Technology   Burlington, MA   United States of America   Email: hadriel@128technology.comKaplan                        Informational                    [Page 11]