Re: Extending a /64

The AERO/OMNI technologies are air-air capable, and not just air-ground. That is
one big reason why they are also being considered for ground transportation and
urban air mobility where "vehicle-to-vehicle" (V2) is important.

Fred

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ipv6 [mailto:ipv6-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Tony Whyman
> Sent: Monday, November 16, 2020 7:55 AM
> To: Da Silva, Saulo <Sdasilva@icao.int>; ipv6@ietf.org
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Extending a /64
>
> I take your point - but these considerations are not (to my knowledge)
> in the scope of the work being undertaken by Working Group I. You are
> looking here a future concepts and these should be all limited to line
> of sight.
> 
> Currently, any air-to-air routing is out of scope. If you want to bring
> air-to-air routing in scope then we need to discuss.
> 
> Tony
> 
> On 16/11/2020 15:05, Da Silva, Saulo wrote:
> > Tony.
> > The evolution of the aviation system towards increasing capacity and acess of what we call new entrants (drones, high level
> operations, supersonic acft, etc) through strategic and tactical self separation do need air-to-air comm. The concept of management
> by trajectory instead of isolated clearances do need air-to-air. The aviation industry is working towards that direction.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: ipv6 [mailto:ipv6-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Tony Whyman
> > Sent: 16-Nov-20 9:39 AM
> > To: ipv6@ietf.org
> > Subject: Re: Extending a /64
> >
> > This discussion seems to have gone off in the wrong direction. There are no ICAO applications that foresee aircraft to aircraft
> communication using datalink. The underlying set of applications is:
> >
> > 1. Controller to Pilot Datalink Communication (CPDLC) - the name says it all
> >
> > 2. Automatic Dependent Surveillance (ADS) - allows an ATS Provider to monitor an aircraft's position and intent.
> >
> > 3. Flight Information Services (FIS) - allows a pilot to pull information (e.g. on runway conditions).
> >
> > TCAS also exists as a collision avoidance system and this does use air-to-air communication. However, this is a rider on the Mode S
> surveillance radar and is not IP based.
> >
> > On 16/11/2020 14:30, Philip Homburg wrote:
> >> However, this seems to be a case of doing things at the wrong level.
> >> If aircaft use IPv6 to communicate then obvious they need unique IPv6
> >> addresses. However, each plane only needs to know its own address. Any
> >> time a plane communicates with an unknown plane, they can exchange higher level identities.
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> > ipv6@ietf.org
> > Administrative Requests: https://secure-web.cisco.com/1Ttb6AZE6VAf8slZg6Up2Wbc-
> yRRw1bRFNxq3xFe0rvxo57JW3EORgd4Y26YVF1A3xJsGZYRey0b4EIYy8ftofcyCu7BKkGwioWSLWoCYbTzIMknfOy-
> InoUgJYGfaqD7b1PlyjfOs8ZkaaScuic6BjfH5hTsbJpBV2VmzoNDG6f7CoPZtjQqwXQ19FQu3evxWz0PTffaVTwtvvzpf9p9kkX8LX_mM4wx3
> g_jmYCK195bx7bKPQ0K0yoQzrihSnUSf7IQpTyfWp1zyNnknt4KbOeHobj8oxycxJAY6QC3ckVxhuUM85Vly6EtrO37uaUL/https%3A%2F%
> 2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fipv6
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------