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

Bob Hinden <> Thu, 15 October 2020 20:28 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC9B13A0112; Thu, 15 Oct 2020 13:28:45 -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 pzctmCmPpb3C; Thu, 15 Oct 2020 13:28:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::42c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 63F763A010A; Thu, 15 Oct 2020 13:28:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id g12so70250wrp.10; Thu, 15 Oct 2020 13:28:44 -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=7ENUikXBZfz+kfSeqHFUyIrBHT5tazun12wyV1+KBE4=; b=URvT7IjGygK7TCJKxNnBnmHgiihrX7Dqp3VyfmQphWap259CDOqmw+mzdbBWGk8wia yZwuAJH3/5kiYzfF0QP0OcxhdqpvWNCkAfS+D779HF7DIXUk2C22GoAazh1TvB1rKMZc sRZxTxlC9BFddMVPTOZ/b74nhCOVSX+q4Cguek8CvVUNwfbVHysPvSN+fX6V9Kv6EEO3 i4OP+ss3dPXIh9y14v0aVHJKuweY5CgGaBNcwI8a+j3doy1jJdBDg9qrc0i9FEabzNv8 wuIMki6HdVbtBJme67wK6voTyF5kz6FQmAvSXLSla+E3hM6sTqqvCYoTCOu6+wCwVlgR nl8Q==
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=7ENUikXBZfz+kfSeqHFUyIrBHT5tazun12wyV1+KBE4=; b=oaJK22HFknqs22mb8UZipGuePUF+rAMVdtkl3w/qPcWQ2t3eIiZFXnJGNJTRT45UjF Gob8VpWFtg5Px0pj312804Snie6u1T88IOhBVbe6UNDhAQ7VjwDq1CS7RD3N31e+Bq69 qaVczuOlA3VrlNOJi66EZDhICOY2cXM49ptD4QqoQwE4sGWR699rmQtaF88+qJA5kHAB gELrZExP4mKeDwqNCzvfL5M0KfzunnqUBqdNrxV/6P8ORlpWz2TL+ycJ76JMQTm91rsT 7yTfXb/tEzPur4qjfOrKo16GkZegCyZeu/5V51BtwGrhRymgY+H13kOVPlVfyiPUv4fD XT+Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531LabhWAa0Km5gybUQdt+VsjfcDbv0j2AIjbuycB3NuzcRJ16QV nqLEkm1v8aNDqg3C5lvzzAc=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJx8gmmbNniSl2LbSt87M/OwgP0USHl6jPoFiwu7ov/KWy7Inc9nESHzIj31JeYNSr76u2eBkA==
X-Received: by 2002:a5d:4b49:: with SMTP id w9mr67839wrs.41.1602793722916; Thu, 15 Oct 2020 13:28:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2601:647:5a00:ef0b:59b8:8ba2:9f23:c336? ([2601:647:5a00:ef0b:59b8:8ba2:9f23:c336]) by with ESMTPSA id g139sm663612wme.2.2020. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 15 Oct 2020 13:28:41 -0700 (PDT)
From: Bob Hinden <>
Message-Id: <>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_360DCB16-8411-4F24-A16C-ED15A03C3AE9"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.17\))
Subject: Re: Embedding IP information in an IPv6 address (OMNI)
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2020 13:28:36 -0700
In-Reply-To: <>
Cc: Bob Hinden <>, =?utf-8?Q?Ole_Tr=C3=B8an?= <>, IPv6 List <>, "" <>
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: Thu, 15 Oct 2020 20:28:46 -0000


> On Oct 15, 2020, at 12:40 PM, Templin (US), Fred L <> wrote:
>>> That circles us right back to the subject of how RFC4861 is intrinsically tied to
>>> the use of link-local address and the fact that all IPv6 interfaces are required
>>> to configure a unique link-local address. It would be a bear to try to change
>>> that, so OMNI employs RFC2473 encapsulation instead of trying to override
>>> the bedrock IPv6 standards. The use of RFC2473 encapsulation also brings
>>> other important benefits.
>> Right, that how ND works.   Seems to me that you are proposing many changes to IPv6 for some degree of optimization.   It’s unclear
>> to me that the benefit outweighs the cost.
> Rather than repeating them again here, I would invite you to go back over the
> message exchanges I had with Ole yesterday (10/14/2020) where I outlined the
> benefits.

I read that, but was not convinced that the benefits were sufficient to justify what you are proposing.

> About changes to IPv6, all that has been asked so far is for the OMNI
> interface to define its own link-local addresses - having that, none of the IPv6
> standards like RFC4861, RFC8200 etc. are changed.

The OMNI draft updated RFC1191, RFC3879, RFC4291, RFC4443, and RFC8201.