Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: AERO/OMNI dropping support for SEND/CGA

Hi Fred,

What I am observing from the ensuing discussion is that you should consider
a reboot of OMNI seriously. I suggest you reorg your drafts, add an
architecture draft and start from scratch with -00 drafts.
This could be good time to start that process.

Behcet

On Wed, Dec 2, 2020 at 10:40 AM Templin (US), Fred L <
Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com> wrote:

> Thanks for the suggestion, Behcet. In terms of architecture, at its most
> fundamental
>
> level it is simply just the marriage of ISATAP and Teredo. (Well, there is
> a lot more to
>
> it than just that, but everything builds on top of those principles.)
>
>
>
> Fred
>
>
>
> *From:* Behcet Sarikaya [mailto:sarikaya2012@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, December 02, 2020 8:10 AM
> *To:* Templin (US), Fred L <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>
> *Cc:* sarikaya@ieee.org; ipv6@ietf.org
> *Subject:* Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: AERO/OMNI dropping support for SEND/CGA
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Dec 1, 2020 at 12:44 PM Templin (US), Fred L <
> Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com> wrote:
>
> Behcet,
>
>
>
> To be clear, there is now a -52 version of the draft that bows to the
> pressures
>
> of those who still insist on the /64 boundary. Earlier draft versions can
> still be
>
> referenced for those who like /65+, but there is strong resistance to
> using the
>
> 54 “zero” bits of fe80::/10 which is where the extra prefix bits would end
> up
>
> going. I was told that trying to define a use for those bits would be
> pushing a
>
> “large rock up a hill”, and I have experienced that struggle firsthand.
>
>
>
> To your comments, yes an EUN should certainly be added to figure 2 and
>
> adding a packet flow diagram is something that can be done as well. I can’t
>
> give a timeframe for a next draft version but will put this in a TODO note
>
> to myself.
>
>
>
>
>
> Sure. As I mentioned you could consider separating some parts of this
> quite large document into an architecture document and protocol document.
>
>
>
> Behcet
>
>
>
> Behcet
>
> Thanks - Fred
>
>
>
> *From:* Behcet Sarikaya [mailto:sarikaya2012@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, December 01, 2020 10:17 AM
> *To:* Templin (US), Fred L <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>
> *Cc:* ipv6@ietf.org
> *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] Re: AERO/OMNI dropping support for SEND/CGA
>
>
>
> Hi Fred,
>
>
>
> In draft-templin-6man-omni-interface-51
>
>
>
> I could not see EUN in Figure 2.
>
> Also a figure showing the flow of packets in the network from source to
> destination is missing.
>
>
>
> Maybe you need an architecture draft to clear these things out.
>
>
>
> Behcet
>
>
>
> On Mon, Nov 30, 2020 at 4:12 PM Templin (US), Fred L <
> Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com> wrote:
>
> Folks, this is a big decision point for the AERO/OMNI drafts but I am
> preparing
> to drop support for SEND/CGA (RFC3971; RFC3972). This means that IPv6 ND
> message authentication on OMNI interfaces will use a simple HMAC the same
> as is done for Teredo (RFC4380; RFC6081). If anyone knows why that might
> cause problems, it would be best to speak up now.
>
> Fred
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>