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

Bob Hinden <> Thu, 15 October 2020 23:20 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D8E6F3A0C8F; Thu, 15 Oct 2020 16:20:24 -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 DNxDkAqKEDPw; Thu, 15 Oct 2020 16:20:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::432]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4102F3A0C8B; Thu, 15 Oct 2020 16:20:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id e17so466610wru.12; Thu, 15 Oct 2020 16:20:23 -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=nRcURIDXtHoN+VkabsnzqxBJ5+kBxf0k2ClJX8qZjRg=; b=XG5Y6gn0clSQpVnnj7S1dymCpAFru+zvY6l/MoxXya2WKYJ6T6JWQxVltJsm2sQMs9 4d1+zzzqcJU54U3TdzyKJU6C1D355tzpAec/nOLFIM3BXT+WCUwO4vDQvIAUnSpBtX/X SOFeuOb2IrBQ2wWLRE1Z2YS/EtOgXPN55N8ZxmMMEferjZlVBcodrY4VB+jOFBhRJn4R gx6Sm1lQWWeAf89eJTAdurUVBc03lg7HeeKq1LFcFNbPsUWvN6Jnc/oiiVqGKb+XJuJP 1lY4YZs6I1f0epa9u2PehfKuS/m4rDN6POJmBnV89gz/AlweEdPDcMBqFdhJqQJkmX8Z jI1Q==
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=nRcURIDXtHoN+VkabsnzqxBJ5+kBxf0k2ClJX8qZjRg=; b=eIaC9mRZSTdgzVai0qlVsijbFiVhPLYF25x7A5BZGAyMRBHUSIrS3wYaMJjTUCoD13 TARRR2Yq+xu/+Ruyp6yJYBs8Rtmi3OywLvckGfHXAgmYx46oLg3rLQCrwqsQXL64XTiz MF3o2x0p2oA7yrI/AR6PnzccMkgw17K9uwAlGJZwyIwoNCKnCroUDCjR0aQyVohnBw3+ SJ9hDsYRkUxglQSjZtaDgDjr7qKrOXaGR8OjhWfGxktmoOKbsQjiXlbshX6DW31d8oie p8iO6bm9HSIshV/hsX7/+4FvCuUrr2dbOKwM/Lj9v9SvCNiJIhYT+QIG6nWhExEBjjY0 bZjA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531UzHVniWtzF7W+3tTn+MdHmK+STIeF/nljDPNgP/rNnZBmDY2u gd+w2I/fobv7FRtYRUwXbxA=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzMczB2GwxcZW/TT+/jYsIKOP+xRcDKsnH2A9BECCn/DFQnfNNdpyNdd1q6i0V7fCfSth5HsA==
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6000:10cd:: with SMTP id b13mr596737wrx.4.1602804021535; Thu, 15 Oct 2020 16:20:21 -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 d4sm1051781wrp.47.2020. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 15 Oct 2020 16:20:20 -0700 (PDT)
From: Bob Hinden <>
Message-Id: <>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_2EAEF166-57FD-461B-932C-4C7488B11453"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.17\))
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Embedding IP information in an IPv6 address (OMNI)
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2020 16:20:16 -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 23:20:25 -0000


> On Oct 15, 2020, at 4:08 PM, Templin (US), Fred L <> wrote:
>> I think this is a bad idea, that is trying to make a set of networks with a whole range of characteristics (i.e., speed, delay, drop rates,
>> errors, cost, etc.) look like a single "big bridged campus LAN”.   Most people have stopped buildings “big bridged campus LANs” a long
>> while ago, what your are proposing is much harder given the different characteristics of the networks you mention.
> I think you may have gotten a polar opposite read from what the OMNI technology
> is all about - OMNI is about diversity; not homogeneity. The OMNI "multilink" concept
> in particular is about accommodating all manners of data links having diverse properties
> and characteristics, while presenting the best possible performance profiles to mobile
> nodes in the face of dynamically changing conditions. The "bridged campus LAN"
> concept is not a physical thing; it is a virtual one that allows nodes to communicate as
> single-hop neighbors at the IP layer while their underlying data link properties may be
> varying dynamically. This discussion now starts to enter into the realm of what we have
> been debating in the ICAO working groups for the past several years, and has motivated
> the design based on expert input from the aviation community. And, what is good for
> aviation also turns out to be good for the worldwide mobile Internet for any manners
> of mobile nodes.

I think I understand what you are trying to do.  I just don’t think this will work, some problems are best not solved at L3.   As I outlined below, I think the transport layer (and probably application layer) will also need to be involved.


> Fred
>> I think a better approach is to treat the networks separately and use transport protocols techniques to use them efficiently separately
>> and concurrently.   Likely the transport protocols and applications above them will need to be aware of the underlying networks.
>>>>> 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.
>>> When I said "all that has been asked for *so far*", I meant in terms of what has
>>> been discussed on the list up to now. Up to now, the only aspects of OMNI we
>>> have touched on are the LLAs and SLAs, and it is only RFC3879 and RFC4291 that
>>> are in question. So, until we get around to discussing the OAL let's put the other
>>> RFCs aside for now.
>> I disagree, you are clearly proposing a lot of changes, discussing them separately doesn’t change that.
>> Bob