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

Bob Hinden <> Wed, 21 October 2020 17:51 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE23A3A13EB; Wed, 21 Oct 2020 10:51:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 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, 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 pGzZp0uwqkiu; Wed, 21 Oct 2020 10:51:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::42c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 15ADA3A13E7; Wed, 21 Oct 2020 10:51:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id s9so4045086wro.8; Wed, 21 Oct 2020 10:51:52 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=vfjrrEOie/gFyXXI03MrxCVWld5+pk4igdHhibhn76k=; b=vB8UKq+4ynJGw9GPJuN4jy3FQFTVQsdrtoWCCXq3gXhfonw5G//KNRjfGQWsQczFOQ NtsUe7HIgDQ2FcJrlsxFKHfe1Qi0ZqLCqv6jIl1WwD/Q26F6Gd549B4o8aJShIV2AcTn KspwLoojCbRpdU0mKL8s3jUp1xy8tOBKRq1YlctH0vc+mw1jbc0y9tjsLhI9tDTZwaOP j/6FXgR2R/I4AdFWdCglVSjdTrI3XrhTLUzrby6XpJfVfGVIKhU1udV/uSHFXAN/eGgs HSvMM6SbAdQrJG/5edCKG4MaCezopi6MyuJm5M9E3BU/VGEHEjoMrxfktLTvGMS/jWKU FbWQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=vfjrrEOie/gFyXXI03MrxCVWld5+pk4igdHhibhn76k=; b=ffJWwQ4A0E+qZpcRaw40tQlt+Hqv1EnJUFDw/Ul3rYOqR2JFkDaVTHL9n2ICLwu3Uh gscdNjM57N9umAsGPfDMuKxlKFMy7uBBfuPIO+/kogdGF7QkWvz77nbt+KPexGsWwRiY C4vRiFg77lu5qLDGtsNmW2amXJevPN4KIYB7qIb926doGSmU+gG8wJywcFoqQncdrSKu LDiquDtR9KA3z/bSo8aj67V+Tu9p5/gf20hEHmuxam1PXwGK/ByrzldnIif/0ogV/DHy ZbT736nPtIcqIkac82Bqq0IYPHGXjEbSZ2AoUiwh1QkbWFK10V4J/cb0er0pMR/Nx9hQ qdnQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533n79p2PMRjhcVI2A+oqIkPPTIMp2FEFz/xHMCdTNE/WUSkkGGg nrSwMHz2GVIZFZH6crH723s=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwtUjMwgTRT/+2mGE6iHtCp3lGOpMRyA2/RE+x3a0IDJNWoETJituoTAEvi34OegdhzxhdWrQ==
X-Received: by 2002:adf:fd09:: with SMTP id e9mr6134589wrr.241.1603302710335; Wed, 21 Oct 2020 10:51:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( []) by with ESMTPSA id a15sm5166457wro.3.2020. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 21 Oct 2020 10:51:49 -0700 (PDT)
From: Bob Hinden <>
Message-Id: <>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_195ED732-1B39-408B-8914-21393B7E15DD"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.17\))
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Embedding IP information in an IPv6 address (OMNI)
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2020 10:51:44 -0700
In-Reply-To: <>
Cc: Bob Hinden <>, IPv6 List <>, "" <>
To: Philip Homburg <>
References: <> <> <> <> <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.17)
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: Wed, 21 Oct 2020 17:51:55 -0000


> On Oct 21, 2020, at 5:25 AM, Philip Homburg <> wrote:
>> So, we split the doc into
>> two parts, with everything relating to the interface moved into
>> the OMNI draft and everything pertaining to mobility left in the
>> AERO draft.  This allowed the OMNI draft to take on the form of an
>> "IPv6-over-foo" spec independently of the AERO draft. In this way,
>> the interface specification can be made to work with other mobility
>> solution alternatives than just AERO, as ICAO still has other
>> candidate mobility solutions under consideration.
> It seems to me there are two ways to read this draft:
> 1) as a part of AERO. In that case we should focus on how to minimize the
>   changes we are making. For example, it doesn't seem to make a lot of sense
>   to allocate a /10 just for communication within aviation.
> 2) As a far more general overlay network technology. But in that case, there
>   should be an archtitecture for the general case. And the draft should
>   actually focus on the general case, and have aviation specific parts in
>   other drafts.
> Currently, it seems that the draft wants to do 2) but is actually doing 1)

I think this is a good summary.

I will add, if the goal is to meet the requirements in the liaison letter ( in the short term, then minimizing the changes would be helpful.

If the goal is “general overlay network”, then that is going to take a lot longer, might well need a BOF and its own working group.