RE: draft-thubert-6man-ipv6-over-wireless-06 running counter to RFC4903?

"Templin (US), Fred L" <> Tue, 02 June 2020 19:24 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 234E53A0F66 for <>; Tue, 2 Jun 2020 12:24:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-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 J6Zcy8aOYQgI for <>; Tue, 2 Jun 2020 12:24:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2159C3A0F64 for <>; Tue, 2 Jun 2020 12:24:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (8.15.2/8.15.2/DOWNSTREAM_MBSOUT) with SMTP id 052JOQ5s005169; Tue, 2 Jun 2020 15:24:26 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=boeing-s1912; t=1591125867; bh=tOLRV0PS93oe5/TSA23jtVIyIIP14xErlblOjJqmBGo=; h=From:To:CC:Subject:Date:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=OdMP4YzgMSnFyjXOtb2F+GorbBWNrcmjkQLa3UdVp34KIKN/a1hLA16dz8T8VlO3Q 0FSiQANmAgqguAENSwEmT2Rx+XnXKOGcmbR4EgU+VF2edB+Q/p1r/t1oF5bTDzsGK9 rD/hSGoYbdqyb9pS+OZwrTM5fWNQcoGxg4RMEl0vZHxmFm0RmAkoCL88F3Y+tXvNXd YhvxvOatnXXMui12Ylf2rlDmRcsUzohF/n90Kx5z5xavWaXKFKK9MlRYfbIBFXSEVK s/so/o4l0lKyq6qwKVurVmzXTP46SN48Ata666DtyurWhFEH+8kWhOpxI1CEB3kDK8 PgaRghKp3qBew==
Received: from ( []) by (8.15.2/8.15.2/8.15.2/UPSTREAM_MBSOUT) with ESMTPS id 052JOEB7003695 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Tue, 2 Jun 2020 15:24:14 -0400
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384) id 15.1.1979.3; Tue, 2 Jun 2020 12:24:13 -0700
Received: from ([fe80::e065:4e77:ac47:d9a8]) by ([fe80::e065:4e77:ac47:d9a8%2]) with mapi id 15.01.1979.003; Tue, 2 Jun 2020 12:24:13 -0700
From: "Templin (US), Fred L" <>
To: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <>, "Etienne-Victor Depasquale" <>
CC: "" <>
Subject: RE: draft-thubert-6man-ipv6-over-wireless-06 running counter to RFC4903?
Thread-Topic: draft-thubert-6man-ipv6-over-wireless-06 running counter to RFC4903?
Thread-Index: AQHWOQBCNaPPBR+9vEWgsiqq8BwLwKjFj78agAAiPlA=
Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2020 19:24:13 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
x-tm-snts-smtp: F937854E22C602E97E0EA2665E6D6E0ED2EC6BB48462DE1964B570FA03267A962000:8
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_c87dc51106fd4fd096fc17306f5d850eboeingcom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
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: Tue, 02 Jun 2020 19:24:31 -0000

That makes you just as bad as me, Pascal - but with good intentions, I am sure!

But, my real reason for replying is to inform the community that we are going
to have a terminology collision between the ICAO and IETF domains. In ICAO,
the term “multilink” refers to an aircraft that has multiple wireless transmission
interfaces that can be used simultaneously to carry packets having the same
IP source address/prefix. That is very different than what “multilink subnet”
has come to be known as in the IETF.


From: ipv6 [] On Behalf Of Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2020 10:12 AM
To: Etienne-Victor Depasquale <>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: draft-thubert-6man-ipv6-over-wireless-06 running counter to RFC4903?

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.

Yes, Etienne-Victor.


Le 2 juin 2020 à 19:07, Etienne-Victor Depasquale <<>> a écrit :


Please bear with me as I put this question; I'm afraid it may have been thrashed out long ago.

RFC4903 states that:

"A multi-link subnet model should be avoided. IETF working groups
using, or considering using, multi-link subnets today should
investigate moving to one of the other models."

Now, draft-thubert-6man-ipv6-over-wireless-06 states that:
"routers federate the links between nodes
that belong to the subnet, the subnet is not on-link and it extends
beyond any of the federated links"

Is it correct to conclude that the draft runs counter to RFC4903?


Ing. Etienne-Victor Depasquale
Assistant Lecturer
Department of Communications & Computer Engineering
Faculty of Information & Communication Technology
University of Malta
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list<>
Administrative Requests: