Re: Extending a /64

[Philip Homburg <[e-mail]>]

> 3. Safety Authorities will now identify a new hazard potentially
> resulting from a mis-match between the existing ICAO 24-bit identifier
> (which still has to be used for radar, ADS-B, TCAS, etc.), and the
> new airframe identifier.
> 
> 4. We need to develop procedures and systems for mitigating the
> new hazard, assuming it is deemed serious enough.
> 
> 5. The protocol gateways that are planned to avoid having to upgrade
> the existing ATC Systems in the same timeframe would now have to
> include a lookup table between the "old" NSAP Addresses and the
> "new" IPv6 Addresses.
> 
> 6. The Safety Authority would identify a new hazard resulting from
> a table configuration/maintenance error and procedures/mitigations
> would be needed to counter the threat.

I find it fascinating that telco's can associate phone numbers with IMSIs for
billions of phones. Governments can associate license plates with VINs for
millions of cars, but somehow the aviation industry cannot associate IPv6
addresses with existing aircraft identifiers.

An IPv6 address is a locator, not an identifier. Using IPv6 addresses as stable
identifiers or embedding stable identifiers in IPv6 addresses is an abuse of 
the protocol. 

Basically, go back to the drawing board and don't do any of those two things.