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

Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com> Thu, 15 October 2020 10:48 UTC

Return-Path: <alexandre.petrescu@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 324923A1404 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 15 Oct 2020 03:48:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.458
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.458 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, FORGED_GMAIL_RCVD=1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.213, NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665, 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 gpa6hSV61tGx for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 15 Oct 2020 03:48:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from oxalide-smtp-out.extra.cea.fr (oxalide-smtp-out.extra.cea.fr [132.168.224.13]) (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 CBB673A1414 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 15 Oct 2020 03:48:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (pisaure.intra.cea.fr [132.166.88.21]) by oxalide-sys.extra.cea.fr (8.14.7/8.14.7/CEAnet-Internet-out-4.0) with ESMTP id 09FAmfke019478 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 15 Oct 2020 12:48:41 +0200
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 59C0F2062C6 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 15 Oct 2020 12:48:41 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from muguet2-smtp-out.intra.cea.fr (muguet2-smtp-out.intra.cea.fr [132.166.192.13]) by pisaure.intra.cea.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4ECC8202BD4 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 15 Oct 2020 12:48:41 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [10.11.241.94] ([10.11.241.94]) by muguet2-sys.intra.cea.fr (8.14.7/8.14.7/CEAnet-Internet-out-4.0) with ESMTP id 09FAmff3024435 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 15 Oct 2020 12:48:41 +0200
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: Embedding IP information in an IPv6 address (OMNI)
To: ipv6@ietf.org
References: <c068f71229404b3693b977ca7cde828f@boeing.com> <739bc23a-c48d-4791-be06-4f972b4699d8@si6networks.com> <5ae440c047db4b51811a00fd5dd15e3a@boeing.com> <m1kSzvJ-0000AXC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net>
From: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <0336e672-5619-1351-b585-e6f349d15f04@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2020 12:48:40 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.3.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <m1kSzvJ-0000AXC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: fr
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/L0zxaR2pWT_uKW0zEcFk1CmQ4bU>
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: Thu, 15 Oct 2020 10:48:53 -0000


Le 15/10/2020 à 11:51, Philip Homburg a écrit :
>> We really do want to define the link-local address format for OMNI interfaces.
>> Too many things depend on every IPv6 interface configuring a unique link-local
>> address. The address format and the means by which it is assured unique is wha
>> t
>> we want to specify for OMNI in an "IPv6-over-foo"-specifc document.
> 
> A few thoughts:
[...]
> 4) However, the main thing standing in the way of using all 118 bits allowed by
>     the fe80::/10 prefix seems to be the *BSD hack of putting an interface
>     number in the zero bits of a link local address. I think that the BSD
>     communities should remove this hack, and we should not effectively let
>     them squat those bits.

I think 4) is the best way forward.

To pursue that path, maybe a draft is necessary that states 'BSD hack is 
harmful to LL addresses'.  Then an implementation might accompany it.

> 5) I don't see any argument why the MNP should be longer than 64 bits. So
>     point 3 seems the best way to go forward.

I think there are valid arguments for the MNPs (Mobil eNetwork Prefixes) 
to be longer than 64bits.  Some relate to the way cellular networks work.

Alex

> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>