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

otroan@employees.org Wed, 14 October 2020 10:15 UTC

Return-Path: <otroan@employees.org>
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 B577D3A13BA; Wed, 14 Oct 2020 03:15:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham 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 aqW2Wxw-KD7j; Wed, 14 Oct 2020 03:15:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from clarinet.employees.org (clarinet.employees.org [198.137.202.74]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8BAD73A13AB; Wed, 14 Oct 2020 03:15:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from astfgl.hanazo.no (unknown [IPv6:2a02:2121:2c9:2ae9:2422:9c5f:da50:cb39]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by clarinet.employees.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4EB714E11C6B; Wed, 14 Oct 2020 10:15:31 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [IPv6:::1] (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by astfgl.hanazo.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id D6577409BFD1; Wed, 14 Oct 2020 12:15:26 +0200 (CEST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.4\))
Subject: Re: [atn] [EXTERNAL] Re: Embedding IP information in an IPv6 address (OMNI)
From: otroan@employees.org
In-Reply-To: <301d22a813914f7c845b4715c4fdd628@boeing.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2020 12:15:26 +0200
Cc: =?utf-8?B?56We5piO6YGU5ZOJ?= <jinmei@wide.ad.jp>, Robert Moskowitz <rgm@labs.htt-consult.com>, 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>, "atn@ietf.org" <atn@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <CE2F3208-2497-4EF7-9948-2E2000D49838@employees.org>
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>
To: "Templin (US), Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.4)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/6q9IdIQO8KGnQ49OJkUUHMZDA0o>
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 10:15:34 -0000

Fred,

> 
> 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.

It's unclear to me what the benfits are.
Would you be able to summarize here, or point to the relevant paragraphs in the OMNI draft?

Best regards,
Ole