Re: [atn] [EXTERNAL] Re: Embedding IP information in an IPv6 address (OMNI)

神明達哉 <jinmei@wide.ad.jp> Wed, 14 October 2020 18:39 UTC

Return-Path: <jinmei.tatuya@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7226F3A0FC2; Wed, 14 Oct 2020 11:39:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.649
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.649 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.001, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=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 FgJXO0lwnoxE; Wed, 14 Oct 2020 11:39:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vs1-f45.google.com (mail-vs1-f45.google.com [209.85.217.45]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 38BBF3A0C96; Wed, 14 Oct 2020 11:39:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-vs1-f45.google.com with SMTP id r1so806vsi.12; Wed, 14 Oct 2020 11:39:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=+NdDf2sT/TXOxf+NHO6eK7Thh3L5PAQP75yTjxzTaYM=; b=riSP8MIvvQNOliVSa6xo+Zq1kNrrW99icKgnNnMUj3fOhCOxEpqm+YIA31gRJXmYDV 858zsXZRXl2wnVws9c3nPuQQW/8gzg8NyPfpIAg+LLdAdpgXm/1/gzOjAeigM1SzasMP IqQ99BsctBImnc/hFcR/BWmf5xNGVJiAOQbVDptWFHPyOiDtncwK78MSbZ0lkH+4yd5L Ni6S1/Yk0RrfhErqUhgEwq7+6Zk7xYEH7Jj6ng6f6vp9KxhK70sO9u87qcSvQuMAN8ag ZI8nZwc5yblw2dGbNdiVlqMzJuTSXVpi1DocbnmrqwrQsabzL1rPtprpiyXWNM+2pTd/ kSfQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532ZsSclbTLi5JWsWHRarP58GG67iNlv9cMdTn2gUj0eixIOLIXb E5Luu2sWY1trcryGmRTniHDh4IfZ6jo/AA+d6pY=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwY5POkpiKwCL3+0sVNTKBPBjHsHDZtoqy7+p65I5XSAorer8DdM/xCoRjdeckqsGJfF8XhMNywkvPD8zdR8MQ=
X-Received: by 2002:a67:444:: with SMTP id 65mr547315vse.0.1602700762160; Wed, 14 Oct 2020 11:39:22 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <7af0ab36-4a6b-cb44-609c-6e81b364a01c@labs.htt-consult.com> <8009C8E3-E654-4623-BDC8-F794346C33B1@gmail.com> <026e1f94f9d646f38e6912174998b929@boeing.com> <CAO42Z2x7B3sjaV-v1Ox8Vojjv6Vcfpn58PYUOp5jj6iixJau7A@mail.gmail.com> <6c1b8260f1014b4bbcb05e618cb83aa3@boeing.com> <2d9a93ce82be4364bf9004ca94812641@boeing.com> <CAJE_bqc1YKy2ZFrq92gQkbtvq2cvx9EHYwu6rakP1LoLE8_kSw@mail.gmail.com> <301d22a813914f7c845b4715c4fdd628@boeing.com>
In-Reply-To: <301d22a813914f7c845b4715c4fdd628@boeing.com>
From: =?UTF-8?B?56We5piO6YGU5ZOJ?= <jinmei@wide.ad.jp>
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2020 11:39:10 -0700
Message-ID: <CAJE_bqdroK_O=8kpUjUbvPQdHu48gpbp7xj7r3PZogUuZMCy2A@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [atn] [EXTERNAL] Re: Embedding IP information in an IPv6 address (OMNI)
To: "Templin (US), Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>
Cc: Robert Moskowitz <rgm@labs.htt-consult.com>, 6man <ipv6@ietf.org>, "atn@ietf.org" <atn@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/3CN5xL2B_IwaKp6Oeu0d2_BKJog>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ipv6/>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2020 18:39:25 -0000

At Tue, 13 Oct 2020 23:16:14 +0000,
"Templin (US), Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com> wrote:

> > I don't necessarily say such a change is never possible, but if
> > there's a lesson from that previous discussion, it would be that it's
> > not as easy/trivial as you might think.
>
> What in your opinion would be easier - a) update RFC4291 to allow coding of
> the link-local address 54 zero bits, or b) update RFC4861 to allow routers to use
> site-local addresses instead of link-local?
>
> We need a good answer for this - either a) or b). The benefit of what is being
> proposed by OMNI is too great to simply say no to both.

Both a and b seem to me to be equally fundamental and therefore
equally challenging.  If the benefit is really so great (which I don't
know), though, you should be able to persuade the WG to make the
update - all I can say at this moment is "good luck:-)".

--
JINMEI, Tatuya