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

[Bob Hinden <[e-mail]>]

Fred,

> On Oct 17, 2020, at 9:01 AM, Templin (US), Fred L <[e-mail]> 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.

> 
> 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?  This is far beyond what was I understood was called for in the OMNI liaison letter (https://datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/1676/ ) 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.

Bob


> 
> Thanks - Fred
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: atn [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Bob Hinden
>> Sent: Saturday, October 17, 2020 8:52 AM
>> To: Manfredi (US), Albert E <[e-mail]>
>> Cc: IPv6 List <[e-mail]>; Ole Trøan <[e-mail]>; Bob Hinden <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
>> 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 <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> 
>>> From: ipv6 <[e-mail]> 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
>> 
>> 
>