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

Vasilenko Eduard <vasilenko.eduard@huawei.com> Sat, 17 October 2020 20:20 UTC

Return-Path: <vasilenko.eduard@huawei.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 C36323A0982; Sat, 17 Oct 2020 13:20:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 t-qrqQ-vE13R; Sat, 17 Oct 2020 13:20:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [185.176.76.210]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1E9053A097F; Sat, 17 Oct 2020 13:20:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhreml732-chm.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.7.108]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id BA4EA9EE4ADF95C640BF; Sat, 17 Oct 2020 21:20:42 +0100 (IST)
Received: from msceml702-chm.china.huawei.com (10.219.141.160) by lhreml732-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.83) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.1913.5; Sat, 17 Oct 2020 21:20:42 +0100
Received: from msceml703-chm.china.huawei.com (10.219.141.161) by msceml702-chm.china.huawei.com (10.219.141.160) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.1913.5; Sat, 17 Oct 2020 23:20:40 +0300
Received: from msceml703-chm.china.huawei.com ([10.219.141.161]) by msceml703-chm.china.huawei.com ([10.219.141.161]) with mapi id 15.01.1913.007; Sat, 17 Oct 2020 23:20:40 +0300
From: Vasilenko Eduard <vasilenko.eduard@huawei.com>
To: "Templin (US), Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>, Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>
CC: IPv6 List <ipv6@ietf.org>, "atn@ietf.org" <atn@ietf.org>
Subject: RE: [atn] [EXTERNAL] Embedding IP information in an IPv6 address (OMNI)
Thread-Topic: [atn] [EXTERNAL] Embedding IP information in an IPv6 address (OMNI)
Thread-Index: AQHWpJ2ehK8kJTIqq0it5ZwxmwamB6mbweWAgAAM9oCAAAO4gIAAaBhg
Date: Sat, 17 Oct 2020 20:20:40 +0000
Message-ID: <021d45888ad84b7eaa51756920255848@huawei.com>
References: <81c2b0adda744231ae790408dcb594a2@boeing.com> <C38A7B84-6451-42C3-925D-09BEDBA319AD@employees.org> <053deb1bf9c149df98ad3e75d60bfe93@boeing.com> <312E6A75-75D7-409D-85FB-6ACCBA2474F3@gmail.com> <49d4846dc5cf43e8921fe02d63810437@boeing.com> <43BBB7E0-3E55-4F6A-A49B-54AB0BB760FA@gmail.com> <1b205cd1ec3f4602b12b178a1c769944@boeing.com>
In-Reply-To: <1b205cd1ec3f4602b12b178a1c769944@boeing.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.47.194.173]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/Dfhml7sZvKGwBb4UjxRelRtQ5sM>
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: Sat, 17 Oct 2020 20:20:48 -0000

Hi Fred,
I could not imagine how many governments would agree to share 1 block for specific purpose.
Additionally, different governments would have 1000x different scalability needs.

I mean: it is not possible to just "request block for this purpose" upfront.
The architecture should be scalable to add blocks ad-hoc in the future.

Eduard
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ipv6 [mailto:ipv6-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Templin (US), Fred L
> Sent: 17 октября 2020 г. 20:01
> To: Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>
> Cc: IPv6 List <ipv6@ietf.org>rg>; atn@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: [atn] [EXTERNAL] Embedding IP information in an IPv6 address
> (OMNI)
> 
> Hi Bob,
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Bob Hinden [mailto:bob.hinden@gmail.com]
> > Sent: Saturday, October 17, 2020 9:47 AM
> > To: Templin (US), Fred L <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>
> > Cc: Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>om>; Manfredi (US), Albert E
> > <albert.e.manfredi@boeing.com>om>; IPv6 List <ipv6@ietf.org>rg>; Ole Trøan
> > <otroan@employees.org>rg>; atn@ietf.org
> > Subject: Re: [atn] [EXTERNAL] Embedding IP information in an IPv6
> > address (OMNI)
> >
> > Fred,
> >
> > > On Oct 17, 2020, at 9:01 AM, Templin (US), Fred L
> <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Bob, it looks like our notes crossed at approximately the same time,
> > > but I would say the same thing to you that I just said to Bert - we
> > > will want all four of LLAs (for the control plane), SLAs (for the OAL) and
> ULAs/GUAs (for end-system addressing).
> >
> > I think we are saying you are asking for too much.
> 
> The ask is to bring SLAs off mothballs and back into service - it would be a good
> use of an otherwise wasted space.
> 
> > > About your scale calculations, there will be far more terrestrial
> > > vehicles, urban air mobility vehicles, drones, pedestrians etc. than
> > > there are the number of aircraft currently worldwide. But, scale is
> > > just one dimension of the problem space and the more important dimension
> is *function*.
> >
> > Where is the problem statement for this?
> 
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ipwave-vehicular-networking/
> 
> > This is far beyond what was I understood was called for in the OMNI
> > liaison letter (https://datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/1676/ ) that we
> > thought the OMNI draft was focused on.  The liaison letter talks about aircraft,
> not vehicles, drones, pedestrians, etc.
> >
> > I read what you are saying is a mobility solution for everything.
> 
> What we have been designing for the aircraft domain appears to be a good fit
> for other mobility domains as well, with the above draft as evidence. I believe
> we can satisfy the aircraft in the near term while still allowing for more general-
> purpose mobility applicability.
> 
> Thanks - Fred
> 
> > Bob
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Thanks - Fred
> > >
> > >> -----Original Message-----
> > >> From: atn [mailto:atn-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Bob Hinden
> > >> Sent: Saturday, October 17, 2020 8:52 AM
> > >> To: Manfredi (US), Albert E <albert.e.manfredi@boeing.com>
> > >> Cc: IPv6 List <ipv6@ietf.org>rg>; Ole Trøan <otroan@employees.org>rg>;
> > >> Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>om>; atn@ietf.org
> > >> Subject: Re: [atn] [EXTERNAL] Embedding IP information in an IPv6
> > >> address (OMNI)
> > >>
> > >> Bert,
> > >>
> > >>> On Oct 16, 2020, at 2:47 PM, Manfredi (US), Albert E
> <albert.e.manfredi@boeing.com> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> From: ipv6 <ipv6-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Ole Troan
> > >>>
> > >>>> I would challenge you to make OMNI entirely free from semantic
> > >>>> addresses. That would also help the working group understand
> > >> what benefits semantic addresses bring to OMNI. And what the tradeoffs
> would be.
> > >>>
> > >>> I think it's a matter of speed and simplicity, no? You avoid that
> > >>> extra protocol, to assign addresses. Same idea as embedding the
> > MAC
> > >> into the IPv6 address. But it's true that the IETF likes to stay away from
> semantic addresses.
> > >>>
> > >>> The path of least resistance, from all the back and forth, as of
> > >>> now, seems to be to either use ULAs, or to request a new /10 for
> > this
> > >> new purpose.
> > >>
> > >> I did some searching, found that there are currently about 500K aircraft of
> all types (general aviation, commercial, military, etc.).
> > >> Allocating a /10 seems excessive to me for this even with a lot of growth.
> > >>
> > >> Using ULAs would be fine.   This might even be a good justification to use
> the other half of the ULA space as I suspect the ICAO
> > could
> > >> be an allocation authority.
> > >>
> > >> Bob
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------