RE: OMNI Interface - formal issues

"Jaron, Zdenek" <Zdenek.Jaron@Honeywell.com> Tue, 02 June 2020 15:39 UTC

Return-Path: <Zdenek.Jaron@Honeywell.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 5B48B3A0B56 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 Jun 2020 08:39:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.102
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.102 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, 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_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=honeywell.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 fB7Iqq9j5bnr for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 Jun 2020 08:39:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from NAM11-DM6-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-dm6nam11on2104.outbound.protection.outlook.com [40.107.223.104]) (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 017F03A0B51 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 2 Jun 2020 08:39:53 -0700 (PDT)
ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=hlXRNBpcTxjSGNjf2s14/L56HzJXPl1P/zbjznEHxmR6MKzAhMhYOlIvkW0T9D+VYJjPWMddWDaIjgLXbMFWaSnpR4Xb2au4LzTxKXZ899Y0eO7eYhbGobSxQvGujbM+rVjjvtIVtnsJJinUbxypYJEnaWRLkpSTJieUzfY5q9ITWfkagUBmZOnCSIAv4382U2XQuK97x5jNVE2Xps/gt/nYwoQLCOd4UAeBUlGDbC7daO55BiyPMOaajH8KD5omf/WltTIUqqBJykWNHZcazgqeFJW9obt5VYKMrfIPXAv2WuFMe8JV8XT32nsb2uOl34cHlc4GlNzP+AtqZnAcOw==
ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=P5yl/PJGkfrxBZaG7ikJgZscgOuT6NecYDSZx/oSWFI=; b=VsVjFrZ6kEb1wIme/ylQZR5zlsz2GL42YjxBwFQ4Knd28y3dzL0DbRwArvpaOPM+PKCAy9sZmD6lC7eDHQyy86L4xH1bZ5GsxVgY+LVCEO9b4d9jR+CtYJMgE6CU2Y2gUFDIKdfZ0O/uTe1bQPaevGvInYCKJbZyUtBJz4QO8v3IhSHkZQzGXftMoLSV+PXzfSk0QFqU71l3JMZTcevI9mPw6JMh3D3OYJjVngfj5Es7RkKRQ1GYhhx1s0wlvpDgI6Bhf87iHO0v/nTDOxiiN9FaXUhIWGi8d+0sizB1N/cwFjQH0L+KUK06nu9JKTx+q1sPYgIeK7g7rwt/eZSQBg==
ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=honeywell.com; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=honeywell.com; dkim=pass header.d=honeywell.com; arc=none
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=Honeywell.com; s=selector1; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=P5yl/PJGkfrxBZaG7ikJgZscgOuT6NecYDSZx/oSWFI=; b=DSkVPjlKwM2L27ElhV6/TuiByrn4M5gdYYW59M6opE8nMKciUzmkwemiphY9HYhJwetI8x5FJIc8NZqeV2iQ8g7QeFmq+KRfeAIjPFusjBDcxbT4rHowMORU2j9FZnS3F6XZIAJnT8nG80ylL9xMiE6HvYIXsrDNGifukX1MABM=
Received: from DM6PR07MB5978.namprd07.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:5:184::30) by DM6PR07MB4587.namprd07.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:5:97::11) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.3066.18; Tue, 2 Jun 2020 15:39:52 +0000
Received: from DM6PR07MB5978.namprd07.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::ad14:46a9:3dd2:cc96]) by DM6PR07MB5978.namprd07.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::ad14:46a9:3dd2:cc96%5]) with mapi id 15.20.3066.018; Tue, 2 Jun 2020 15:39:52 +0000
From: "Jaron, Zdenek" <Zdenek.Jaron@Honeywell.com>
To: "Templin (US), Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>, 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
Subject: RE: OMNI Interface - formal issues
Thread-Topic: OMNI Interface - formal issues
Thread-Index: AdY49AM8e+/VqOcARLOVn5gnfPsetg==
Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2020 15:39:52 +0000
Message-ID: <DM6PR07MB5978C1ADD3827A786B2D48829F8B0@DM6PR07MB5978.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
dlp-product: dlpe-windows
dlp-version: 11.1.0.61
dlp-reaction: no-action
authentication-results: boeing.com; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;boeing.com; dmarc=none action=none header.from=Honeywell.com;
x-originating-ip: [46.13.61.192]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-office365-filtering-ht: Tenant
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 41334504-cfe7-43f5-e9a7-08d8070b3149
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: DM6PR07MB4587:
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <DM6PR07MB4587FA5530E814B77F0438949F8B0@DM6PR07MB4587.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
x-antispam: TRUE
x-recptdomain: NotTLSDomain
x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:10000;
x-forefront-prvs: 0422860ED4
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: Vg7Hp7HEtaNIkDzexBK9vURoP4NzgUYm9mb9S8+uRfeS64iz2ICathE9CbeIFM3fJHDytrZHpFnaQRKF3Y28lshQpE3uGZuvxpwTUxEegxZ6JMpS/4NHgzrQo0G4VanFTmMEtoB5jHhZlfs0jTV6CeOSKRHLEjcXdjhivrlMogC4sJ6sAKTEcOZoFdwjjJ/Aa4lEiFztO2yvjwPNQDEh1m9IswHduFEoQW+Res843/kkPIrEAFyiUnlUI3ynZ5Yj58We36LTs/ezM23GHmUu+LMpzxLwY05tFwPJhZ2n444ansRlIkkTnNgUm5VHUOVNYeOH5Omc4Og0zl1pH+P6tQ==
x-forefront-antispam-report: CIP:255.255.255.255; CTRY:; LANG:en; SCL:1; SRV:; IPV:NLI; SFV:NSPM; H:DM6PR07MB5978.namprd07.prod.outlook.com; PTR:; CAT:NONE; SFTY:; SFS:(4636009)(346002)(366004)(136003)(39860400002)(396003)(376002)(83380400001)(478600001)(5660300002)(2906002)(7696005)(8676002)(52536014)(33656002)(71200400001)(8936002)(66446008)(66556008)(64756008)(66476007)(26005)(110136005)(9686003)(76116006)(6506007)(86362001)(186003)(316002)(55016002)(66946007); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102;
x-ms-exchange-antispam-messagedata: UMXXHerw528ti3Sn60UltCnkeRXGTSRvCzsK4qA9QJjKIw8OMLF8xEqkjLNMG53yueiEAWUHM1d9fy6sy6xE8rQwv63HtulC2tGrmNy4+xO+zaQ5iepp6JcMogrBQirWo5jNR1H8cFzffjoHqBkhsdJm6lVrRgWKVkg/PzlrGf4Z2lWOBdOqw/FLIjUgI5V1qr7yLYti5e7tJ21H8cM8nUobDVfoBhE88tsTItVafCZJPXtG2hk6zwbHWi8Pj4quRvw71y7ZVJtigxlEG3RSuLiStDWGdX0FVUVmmJukbh2kolxWlJ74VmAgP7zOSimHOrzbdzIvHlHLe5d8Lv0vnyXTp+Mb9NpshX5ReX47s0TlyaOq1Kr+/fk/0c1MtKNlkeC63EnZBGzA5GmSdhIruFst+8zAuQFW+BSv3D3FM5DTTXdfLef5rvVVoG1QLXJ0iiKqIymQGn9uFaa4MhWVcA5CMswGDM+t++jDY642en4=
x-ms-exchange-transport-forked: True
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: Honeywell.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 41334504-cfe7-43f5-e9a7-08d8070b3149
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 02 Jun 2020 15:39:52.4947 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 96ece526-9c7d-48b0-8daf-8b93c90a5d18
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: T6+FeSZMPxtlPcMpT8Py+1V4TqZqR4X0CoI4PvgMZ6VVGVeTZVzShB7T/U8FD+X30l5X9MD0o2+8gcvrPkZWnY8DTWb0sKu5MWW7Xe4lCbY=
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: DM6PR07MB4587
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/IUKHCo6wp9vUmXNSqyeIk9gEEeo>
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: Tue, 02 Jun 2020 15:39:55 -0000

Dear Fred
Thank you for your reply.

> The OMNI spec is an "IPv6-over-foo" document which specifies the
> operation of IPv6 over specific link layers. That includes the formation and
> use of IPv6 link-local addresses. So, since only nodes that implement the
> OMNI spec will ever see these link-local addresses it should be OK to define
> the link local addresses as being relative to fe80::/10 as permitted by RFC4291
> while overriding the default zero settings of the 54 intermediate bits. So,
> since this is wholly contained within the OMNI spec I don't think we need to
> formally update RFC4291.
I still believe that any "IPv6-over-foo" must conform to the IPv6 Addressing
Architecture [RFC4291]. This document says that all addresses from FE80::/10
are interpreted as link-local (see Section 2.4.), but only addresses from
range FE80::/64 may be actually used (see Section 2.5.6.: the 54 zeros are
not "default", they are mandatory). In my understanding, this makes the rest
of FE80::/10 reserved for future updates of [RFC4291]. Although I agree
that chances to collision seem to be low, I think that using the whole
FE80::/10 is otherwise equivalent to using any other currently
unassigned/reserved IP address range.


> Good point, Zdenek - I honestly never dug deeply into RFC4193 and thought
> that all of fc::/7 was our own playground for free expression. However, I
> notice that RFC4193 says that bit 7 is "Set to 1 if the prefix is locally assigned
> and Set to 0 may be defined in the future". The behavior you are describing
> above is therefore with respect to "fd::/8", so what if we were to change the
> OMNI spec to define "fc::/8" as permitted by RFC4193? That way, we would
> be free to define the setting of fc80::/10 in the way we currently do in the
> OMNI spec. However, I think you are correct we would still need to say
> "updates RFC4193. What do you think?
FC00::/8 is currently reserved and cannot be used at all without update
to [RFC4193]. The "locally assigned" range FD00::/8 is limited to have
bits 8-47 randomly generated (see [RFC4193], Section 3.2.), so currently it
could only be used as a source of (any number of) unrelated /48 prefixes.

Personally, I would reconsider the need to introduce "OMNI ULAs". They seem
to be used only for segment routing (which could probably use some
deployment-specific addresses) and fragmentation (which, if I understand
it correctly, could use link-local addresses).

Best regards
Zdenek Jaron