RE: [EXTERNAL] Re: Extending a /64

["Manfredi (US), Albert E" <[e-mail]>]

-----Original Message-----
From: ipv6 <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Nick Hilliard

> Thing is, if an organisation feels that their needs for ip address 
allocation are sufficiently different from everyone else's in the world 
that they need to bypass the RIRs and apply for a direct IANA 
reservation - whether that be in GUA space or not - then the 
organisation needs to make a case which justifies this ask.

I agree with the sentiment. It's not at all obvious why the airplane ID must, of absolute necessity, belong in the prefix of an IPv6 address. This seems to have been an assumption based on previous ideas, on how one might use NSAPAs. If I got that history right. So, if that's what we expected in NSAPAs, we'll do the same thing with IPv6. Why?

Also, it seems immaterial whether these networks will ultimately be reachable from "the Internet," or not. That's an orthogonal discussion, getting into safety matters and other such. The goal of reaching mobile platforms seems to be feasible, and scalable, with plain vanilla mobile IP, as far as I've understood the problem. But for that, the IPv6 address architecture has to be used.

When cars, buses, trains, etc., also want IPv6 mobility, I would not expect them to be requesting such extraordinary accommodations?

> Obviously there's no problem discussing ideas on 6man to get the lay of 
the land, but bypassing the RIRs for addressing requirements seems to be 
an extraordinary ask, and an extraordinary request will need 
extraordinary justification.

Yes.

Bert