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

"Templin (US), Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com> Sat, 17 October 2020 17:00 UTC

Return-Path: <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB2E93A11F7; Sat, 17 Oct 2020 10:00:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.1
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.1 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, 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: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=boeing.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZGmCnG085rRL; Sat, 17 Oct 2020 10:00:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from clt-mbsout-01.mbs.boeing.net (clt-mbsout-01.mbs.boeing.net [130.76.144.162]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 968883A11F4; Sat, 17 Oct 2020 10:00:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by clt-mbsout-01.mbs.boeing.net (8.15.2/8.15.2/DOWNSTREAM_MBSOUT) with SMTP id 09HH0sv4014241; Sat, 17 Oct 2020 13:00:54 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=boeing.com; s=boeing-s1912; t=1602954054; bh=Fo67KBgGv0f8ycjm1uoh8IGEqUpXhdBBPHUAiPRm8dA=; h=From:To:CC:Subject:Date:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=flOnZ0WO9FwYnRuQZeKD6qsDWe32rmP+5HHfn05KQNucsHT9W0nhOBMWg0OnWrAf6 vg5whYQJ99p3znjr7E9B8m5Ml1XGjKucZzioXLmdG2XUCux0487sVbqgHSEf7Xko/3 Luy4+ZSXNZ78+qc0vWtFEs4jLX4CaEKwbYIz4qZhA7Bg0wMbgWXHf8fARCsHVky7P9 cPpHWf1tUTS38jOPifjzxXzflG4FDYGHHJzTM8DghW9rDDf9he9gW/odXjE1J2GQs0 GTt1v1nlUDzJ6mOynpsElFm9vmgJ/6M7RA0Klz7lNLrq1LD7AUxyVmfGK6T5iJN435 VRnqAEW0g486g==
Received: from XCH16-01-10.nos.boeing.com (xch16-01-10.nos.boeing.com [144.115.66.5]) by clt-mbsout-01.mbs.boeing.net (8.15.2/8.15.2/8.15.2/UPSTREAM_MBSOUT) with ESMTPS id 09HH0i0O013200 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Sat, 17 Oct 2020 13:00:44 -0400
Received: from XCH16-07-10.nos.boeing.com (144.115.66.112) by XCH16-01-10.nos.boeing.com (144.115.66.5) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384) id 15.1.2044.4; Sat, 17 Oct 2020 10:00:43 -0700
Received: from XCH16-07-10.nos.boeing.com ([fe80::1522:f068:5766:53b5]) by XCH16-07-10.nos.boeing.com ([fe80::1522:f068:5766:53b5%2]) with mapi id 15.01.2044.004; Sat, 17 Oct 2020 10:00:43 -0700
From: "Templin (US), Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>
To: Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>
CC: "Manfredi (US), Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@boeing.com>, IPv6 List <ipv6@ietf.org>, =?utf-8?B?T2xlIFRyw7hhbg==?= <otroan@employees.org>, "atn@ietf.org" <atn@ietf.org>
Subject: RE: [atn] [EXTERNAL] Embedding IP information in an IPv6 address (OMNI)
Thread-Topic: [atn] [EXTERNAL] Embedding IP information in an IPv6 address (OMNI)
Thread-Index: AQHWpJ61lTbGp5dyxUO9c4fancNpXqmcdn2A//+LufA=
Date: Sat, 17 Oct 2020 17:00:43 +0000
Message-ID: <1b205cd1ec3f4602b12b178a1c769944@boeing.com>
References: <81c2b0adda744231ae790408dcb594a2@boeing.com> <C38A7B84-6451-42C3-925D-09BEDBA319AD@employees.org> <053deb1bf9c149df98ad3e75d60bfe93@boeing.com> <312E6A75-75D7-409D-85FB-6ACCBA2474F3@gmail.com> <49d4846dc5cf43e8921fe02d63810437@boeing.com> <43BBB7E0-3E55-4F6A-A49B-54AB0BB760FA@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <43BBB7E0-3E55-4F6A-A49B-54AB0BB760FA@gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [137.137.12.6]
x-tm-snts-smtp: ED1FAD51C8A084BAB4B9C03F1AAB0FABE13D081EC0F6E330B47089A20E3FB1CF2000:8
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/shX7ff4My38xX4N9NnnEnvVVOxc>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ipv6/>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 17 Oct 2020 17:01:00 -0000

Hi Bob,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bob Hinden [mailto:bob.hinden@gmail.com]
> Sent: Saturday, October 17, 2020 9:47 AM
> To: Templin (US), Fred L <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>
> Cc: Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>om>; Manfredi (US), Albert E <albert.e.manfredi@boeing.com>om>; IPv6 List <ipv6@ietf.org>rg>; Ole
> Trøan <otroan@employees.org>rg>; atn@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [atn] [EXTERNAL] Embedding IP information in an IPv6 address (OMNI)
> 
> Fred,
> 
> > On Oct 17, 2020, at 9:01 AM, Templin (US), Fred L <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com> 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.

The ask is to bring SLAs off mothballs and back into service - it would be a good use
of an otherwise wasted space. 

> > 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?

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ipwave-vehicular-networking/

> 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.

What we have been designing for the aircraft domain appears to be a good fit
for other mobility domains as well, with the above draft as evidence. I believe
we can satisfy the aircraft in the near term while still allowing for more
general-purpose mobility applicability.

Thanks - Fred

> Bob
> 
> 
> >
> > Thanks - Fred
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: atn [mailto:atn-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Bob Hinden
> >> Sent: Saturday, October 17, 2020 8:52 AM
> >> To: Manfredi (US), Albert E <albert.e.manfredi@boeing.com>
> >> Cc: IPv6 List <ipv6@ietf.org>rg>; Ole Trøan <otroan@employees.org>rg>; Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>om>; atn@ietf.org
> >> 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 <albert.e.manfredi@boeing.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> From: ipv6 <ipv6-bounces@ietf.org> 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
> >>
> >>
> >