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

Ole Troan <> Fri, 16 October 2020 18:10 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id DECA53A010A; Fri, 16 Oct 2020 11:10:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zcljlgyQhKyi; Fri, 16 Oct 2020 11:09:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:7c80:54:3::74]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 277CE3A0114; Fri, 16 Oct 2020 11:09:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [IPv6:2a02:20c8:5921:100:4d40:c849:6c9a:2f9d] (unknown [IPv6:2a02:20c8:5921:100:4d40:c849:6c9a:2f9d]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6D02F4E11C77; Fri, 16 Oct 2020 18:09:58 +0000 (UTC)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-E33E0BA2-2588-4908-AF8E-8ED39CF86868
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Ole Troan <>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: Embedding IP information in an IPv6 address (OMNI)
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2020 20:09:55 +0200
Message-Id: <>
References: <>
Cc: Ted Hardie <>,,
In-Reply-To: <>
To: "Templin (US), Fred L" <>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (18A393)
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 18:10:01 -0000


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. 


> On 16 Oct 2020, at 18:31, Templin (US), Fred L <> wrote:
> Ted, thanks for your input. We actually started with ULAs but were turned on to SLAs
> by the notion that we would be making good use of an otherwise-wasted space. The
> other thing to consider is that whatever ::/10 prefix we use, it will be dedicated for
> use with operating the OMNI Adaptation Layer (OAL). If we were to use ULAs for
> that, then the ULAs could not be used for any other purposes within the OMNI
> domain. If we instead use SLAs, then we can still use ULAs for end system addressing.
> So, yes, I think we want to allow for all three of LLAs, SLAs and ULAs to coexist
> within an OMNI domain and to be used for their respective purposes. GUAs will
> also naturally fit in where needed.
> Thanks - Fred
> From: Ted Hardie [] 
> Sent: Friday, October 16, 2020 9:14 AM
> To: Templin (US), Fred L <>
> Cc: Philip Homburg <>om>;;
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Embedding IP information in an IPv6 address (OMNI)
> This message was sent from outside of Boeing. Please do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know that the content is safe.
> 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.
> Ted
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> Administrative Requests:
> --------------------------------------------------------------------