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

Bob Hinden <> Sat, 17 October 2020 15:52 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 14D163A0BC2; Sat, 17 Oct 2020 08:52:17 -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 wwEHbA83qIWm; Sat, 17 Oct 2020 08:52:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::436]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 46EF83A0BB3; Sat, 17 Oct 2020 08:52:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id e17so6723570wru.12; Sat, 17 Oct 2020 08:52:15 -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=ED/fdPnwNLNIY1nio8HsBDAmcDSOFEhRThRGtpCC8Pk=; b=EbxFRLRwcIWyc82AUF3j7VctbHEBoNlfMBvno+Gizq1TGQMaaKbNNuqlAP7OzEa4Gt vlhnNTNcGMRl4n13ElzJHYwL8VJhAIa5FUvXWewzsNaaHmQiSB66OfOID+9oQXNG+BAP wSNutlzShSvEttaFXgPxXPMZK8RqdjCjf5LMf5im06zYqBsY64Aiqs/0+oS8vxfAHgmI r4sAUURX3wda2doSTrqv/AfYvAgEHwX/K6pLjOb24G9O5OwKZ2P4Y57PbTkl3mAuxtoQ LNbNZLoukzkEJyi6Zsl37ZceL+yIooaD/RRF3RbHEEoEiztc2LuwMTIGjyKgX+y7Q7m6 hl9w==
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=ED/fdPnwNLNIY1nio8HsBDAmcDSOFEhRThRGtpCC8Pk=; b=pkgZNXYCdZ1IpSDnuozLsTIq29gAu9ZeWRSAea04oEZl4/S2yi6daySwvLde9mAQEt S3WNUlNp0A5HG/h9k+umJ9/ljRAjIZbcml7f3PDS42JptwtKwNmB50/rhbT44TvlYhKm IGOLFJGSyPM1c9OdNNiUQwkmUYGMUxseP8hxpZ970T8zCPHOv6VE8Yfp7qwn/vjlmhTk yqojslu/F00JkLFFrYDrBS7IoJtGdadhGFH5U+n+IWqdGBe8Jf5mj2Fus79iiGB0UWjL Dltaw7q3xQtecYeJ3Mk+fZ9n5S99GIPjiriPf2M0FHaBkHOCaAm7Ud/0tKEhaijyP8E7 CW2Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5308AhrKRLr2D5XMYjQgQ3ZTyVSCiuRYthA0B+R+c9aUA75lt+6z uz00JWDU1lsveCIWxWuDeOY=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwL7S/wpxE0HY8y9DVfzXS2So3bwJFMO6220yB6Dqh9BuClQ8cNRZDqJK4CHRDvfAt249Gi0w==
X-Received: by 2002:adf:97da:: with SMTP id t26mr10463521wrb.321.1602949933586; Sat, 17 Oct 2020 08:52:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2601:647:5a00:ef0b:8c25:bc1:6706:fa4a? ([2601:647:5a00:ef0b:8c25:bc1:6706:fa4a]) by with ESMTPSA id j17sm8870774wrw.68.2020. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sat, 17 Oct 2020 08:52:12 -0700 (PDT)
From: Bob Hinden <>
Message-Id: <>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_2E31F579-A987-478B-9ADE-4DF640AAF728"; 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: Sat, 17 Oct 2020 08:52:04 -0700
In-Reply-To: <>
Cc: Bob Hinden <>, =?utf-8?Q?Ole_Tr=C3=B8an?= <>, IPv6 List <>, "" <>
To: "Manfredi (US), Albert E" <>
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: Sat, 17 Oct 2020 15:52:17 -0000


> On Oct 16, 2020, at 2:47 PM, Manfredi (US), Albert E <> wrote:
> From: ipv6 <> 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.