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

Bob Hinden <> Sat, 17 October 2020 23:02 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id DCC653A0115; Sat, 17 Oct 2020 16:02:29 -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 G8yWDIQU-pbd; Sat, 17 Oct 2020 16:02:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::344]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BD5303A0114; Sat, 17 Oct 2020 16:02:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id 13so6839092wmf.0; Sat, 17 Oct 2020 16:02:27 -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=gNUjzG1qmax1OHgwMIiUO+5jahm3ftcvHCRNUGBnlTU=; b=HVtfEvPt5miGgLFHVV88GSCHbrNp9+qeawO4omMPg0DM2Y7/s2zLkzrKUJzAy5UkKV 2zcZrBImvStuZlPr1fqPOg6fjvl3x77TdYBMkkOsdqijMIQ3gRM7XvzBrAfcbT8AiV9H dwqO6Qd3SSc7Ulq6usinwxxZfKLkUWmsdoYgmlo741kqwrDyDc1J9PwIlfvpsGArrMak 5JZc9np0MAceI6MovCO9sANxJHx87Tx4NEQkTB7dlvsOHQJ2hNJX6WlWVPju0N0MmRyM uQjfMrreYM2vegxRgsJ5H1+DNqGFMradtX6V37v5gwYrNu2LZHUprrv4qZ0yh1YJpn/R wOag==
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=gNUjzG1qmax1OHgwMIiUO+5jahm3ftcvHCRNUGBnlTU=; b=cF5bvL/QzWNfbeBPgmIrZY91N+QBnuC1G+0nU/vqtaz9kWyGpBWbHbJxEyIOmPblP3 59o7QyQpS/OaN5Kyuw4j1dVM4q4fnhEl2/VJ9Hzz7D2M2If1mx2cF3HakP0B81SLo3Rb jLnlOoJ7UwEp/TQh96SFdyn7KL7+537Er9gCl3YIf31VoHMcSpG/xupQS11FGzh1RiYZ mA3UjuNCrkOfVfDF36P+qJ4XgeGxNPPeUYkN4NKlGrTRNy5wLENSyhmEi4Hxpn9MPSTJ BvA+qC30627h0UNyPOzGLaa75vfW0OE1g7KL3Nj6Avz1vfiEJWbVB8acCfhZZ+AT21k8 VacQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532kcxhxWAAH3mV2CWE51LYVdaTr3mWHqd7AWolApKHiC8AjZJyh TKoejdcAWO84m4wTaZa81uQ=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzzlan7Z+/52WoWAvMBKsdj0JgOZtUKDS8oDxQvbUgtPNq/qhaNzqGgz99YQ6kF3mdUYN0oVQ==
X-Received: by 2002:a7b:c4cb:: with SMTP id g11mr10303536wmk.88.1602975745770; Sat, 17 Oct 2020 16:02:25 -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 a17sm10986255wra.29.2020. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sat, 17 Oct 2020 16:02:25 -0700 (PDT)
From: Bob Hinden <>
Message-Id: <>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_C9CF60AF-494D-41C3-A4D6-895537FA318D"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.17\))
Subject: Re: [atn] [EXTERNAL] Embedding IP information in an IPv6 address (OMNI)
Date: Sat, 17 Oct 2020 16:02:17 -0700
In-Reply-To: <>
Cc: Bob Hinden <>, "Manfredi (US), Albert E" <>, IPv6 List <>, =?utf-8?Q?Ole_Tr=C3=B8an?= <>, "" <>
To: "Templin (US), Fred L" <>
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 23:02:30 -0000


> On Oct 17, 2020, at 10:00 AM, Templin (US), Fred L <> wrote:
> Hi Bob,
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Bob Hinden []
>> Sent: Saturday, October 17, 2020 9:47 AM
>> To: Templin (US), Fred L <>
>> Cc: Bob Hinden <>om>; Manfredi (US), Albert E <>om>; IPv6 List <>rg>; Ole
>> Trøan <>rg>;
>> Subject: Re: [atn] [EXTERNAL] Embedding IP information in an IPv6 address (OMNI)
>> Fred,
>>> On Oct 17, 2020, at 9:01 AM, Templin (US), Fred L <> wrote:
>>> Bob, it looks like our notes crossed at approximately the same time, but I would say
>>> the same thing to you that I just said to Bert - we will want all four of LLAs (for the
>>> control plane), SLAs (for the OAL) and ULAs/GUAs (for end-system addressing).
>> I think we are saying you are asking for too much.
> The ask is to bring SLAs off mothballs and back into service - it would be a good use
> of an otherwise wasted space.

There are very good reasons why SLA were deprecated, I don’t see a reason to change that.  ULAs are intended to replace the use of SLAs.

>>> About your scale calculations, there will be far more terrestrial vehicles, urban
>>> air mobility vehicles, drones, pedestrians etc. than there are the number of
>>> aircraft currently worldwide. But, scale is just one dimension of the problem
>>> space and the more important dimension is *function*.
>> Where is the problem statement for this?

That is interesting, but I don’t see any references to that in the omni draft, or any mention at all of ipwave.   Nor does the ipwave document reference your omni draft.

>> This is far beyond what was I understood was called for in the OMNI liaison letter
>> ( ) that we thought the OMNI draft was focused on.  The liaison letter talks about aircraft, not
>> vehicles, drones, pedestrians, etc.
>> I read what you are saying is a mobility solution for everything.
> What we have been designing for the aircraft domain appears to be a good fit
> for other mobility domains as well, with the above draft as evidence. I believe
> we can satisfy the aircraft in the near term while still allowing for more
> general-purpose mobility applicability.

That is far from clear to me.   To me you have a solution, that changes a lot of things in IPv6, and you are claiming it solves all IP mobility problems.   Please excuse my skepticism, I can’t even tell if it solves the aircraft domain.


> Thanks - Fred
>> Bob
>>> Thanks - Fred
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: atn [] On Behalf Of Bob Hinden
>>>> Sent: Saturday, October 17, 2020 8:52 AM
>>>> To: Manfredi (US), Albert E <>
>>>> Cc: IPv6 List <>rg>; Ole Trøan <>rg>; Bob Hinden <>om>;
>>>> Subject: Re: [atn] [EXTERNAL] Embedding IP information in an IPv6 address (OMNI)
>>>> Bert,
>>>>> 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.
>>>> Bob