Re: Embedding IP information in an IPv6 address (OMNI)

Ted Hardie <> Fri, 16 October 2020 16:14 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C40AD3A08AB; Fri, 16 Oct 2020 09:14:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pRzt_gmYLnSN; Fri, 16 Oct 2020 09:14:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::233]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5921F3A083F; Fri, 16 Oct 2020 09:14:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id w204so3039078oiw.1; Fri, 16 Oct 2020 09:14:37 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=2PoNbs43BApYBj1x/pj6D68KAsy7oIQ8dbO2SkYQOdE=; b=F31crOrPFpWAGRCUmxFfxzAaWGPnWaQ2uy42aIy6bGd+Ep8cA0RY/3UroRq/zybgUr svPC2VR5BTORsOBbciVQLG7Mx0N0G2U2ZTDHiGHP0mP5dDElMYBP15hJ6n/Ndl4kjiLF D6Jjc+3okKzZEmHXnbesWjyA8TZIjLXleYGgtdFMXuzIi6qWN94n/ZrsZv8W4WnLeuiz CbyjuIU0im0FjF129tZqA5jK6ROHwyjDNM2368M9GTo/+Zos/nezDyT6CMHqPxhiLR4w N3beAi7DVf8WlidJoCZhsqSJI5kGC/pwIFdVewBN7R5mnDj17/nycFtn+dj8klLnl9wx AxUw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=2PoNbs43BApYBj1x/pj6D68KAsy7oIQ8dbO2SkYQOdE=; b=azPsndVfmC3w3N5hU8+nni5U6HqmV/bVn39Y8zqSauUBMNCBXXqa1OQ7hwX9zoWYk7 X+rEYQMSMEZ75ukKOhidzks/RlyQNs9PtUP3X0ADa6ctCFCxhxq6+tXkB4M/nnlNWVqE BAi6MU5nyfWEisqO/pAE7syAtvKW+w/ThGkvC6OAgX22tBtqyCfKRqjz/tRxiHu5vEtQ ufy/6c/Y71e8hrhCP5zmleuROYTa23RE+X9QVUIGrw1eTXGAma7GH8D7GqF/OZn3rvzo up7ZeTRmunx1+VYc9uANl5mbxbfs/wdhRV5lXImtgwkM/h52w2MWACQ7DpJoD+SHZg2k LkeA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532qEI10kAidXlLv7QlbN42JDJmJgouSXPn7KuYbO5hDSv3NCYeA +78/eqBsFsSWYvjXkmajM+ZSGiUbS6gca1+K2gk=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyysGpu8X4XtffStsyIFj/sQklXRAbYD3eYpN9yw1CtY9q+MJL+QHBRjkfFb/YU/dWujHgP6xgwS4f30s5CDvI=
X-Received: by 2002:aca:34d4:: with SMTP id b203mr2977232oia.35.1602864876518; Fri, 16 Oct 2020 09:14:36 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Ted Hardie <>
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2020 09:14:10 -0700
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: Embedding IP information in an IPv6 address (OMNI)
To: "Templin (US), Fred L" <>
Cc: Philip Homburg <>, "" <>, "" <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000096815505b1cc0fc8"
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2020 16:14:39 -0000

Hi Fred

On Fri, Oct 16, 2020 at 9:04 AM Templin (US), Fred L <> wrote:

>   don't want to call them "site-local" anymore; I want to rename them in
> my draft as "segment-local".
> > Of course, you can ask IANA to allocate a prefix for your particular
> purpose,
> > and may be fec0:: but who knows. It seems bad to me to argue based on
> > properties of a prefix you don't know you will get.
> We can of course operate with any routable ::/10 prefix, and in fact the
> draft called for ULAs until very recently until we were turned on to the
> concept of re-purposing fec0::/10. It would be a good use of otherwise
> wasted spaceo
> Given the very large amount of space, I think re-using fec0:: is not
really needed and probably not a good idea.  I think managing that would
require first moving it from "deprecated" to "unallocated" then waiting a
good long time for that to percolate through the industry's consciousness.
Only then would I think it safe to re-allocate.  It seems simpler to use
ULAs (or ask for a new allocation, if you really believe that is necessary).

Just my opinion, of course.