Re: Extending a /64

On Tue, 17 Nov 2020, 03:33 Tony Whyman, <tony.whyman@mccallumwhyman.com>
wrote:

> On 16/11/2020 15:47, Philip Homburg wrote:
> > 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.
>
> Perhaps the point that you are missing is that you have identified
> examples where there is a central administrator managing a database. On
> the other hand, there is no central administrator for civil aviation, it
> is all devolved to individual states.
>
> In principle as well as technically, it would be possible to aggregate
> all the databases - although the example of "herding cats" does come to
> mind. But you have to ask the question: is it worth it?
>
> In many ways, an MNP is a name and the mobility routing problem is to
> first register a care-of address for that name and then to provide a
> means of looking up the (care-of) address for a given MNP (name).
>
> This is also not the only example of an IPv6 Address being used as an
> identifier rather than a locator. For example, the type 4 SRH using IPv6
> Addresses as policy identifiers.
>

Be wary of using SRH as an example of what to do. SIDs don't comply with
RFC4291, which very explicitly says that unicast IPv6 addresses are
interface identifiers.

> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>