Re: Extending a /64 (ATN/IPS worked example)

Philip Homburg <pch-ipv6-ietf-6@u-1.phicoh.com> Tue, 17 November 2020 11:39 UTC

Return-Path: <pch-b9D3CB0F5@u-1.phicoh.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 4AE563A10F6 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 17 Nov 2020 03:39:11 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.622
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.622 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, KHOP_HELO_FCRDNS=0.276, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
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 6q8gmJWopeBt for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 17 Nov 2020 03:39:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from stereo.hq.phicoh.net (stereo6-tun.hq.phicoh.net [IPv6:2001:888:1044:10:2a0:c9ff:fe9f:17a9]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B0EE03A0FC5 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 17 Nov 2020 03:39:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from stereo.hq.phicoh.net (localhost [::ffff:127.0.0.1]) by stereo.hq.phicoh.net with esmtp (TLS version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305) (Smail #157) id m1kezKE-0000FAC; Tue, 17 Nov 2020 12:39:06 +0100
Message-Id: <m1kezKE-0000FAC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net>
To: ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Extending a /64 (ATN/IPS worked example)
From: Philip Homburg <pch-ipv6-ietf-6@u-1.phicoh.com>
Sender: pch-b9D3CB0F5@u-1.phicoh.com
References: <202011151920.0AFJKN9U003337@mail2.mwassocs.co.uk> <3d26bffe-b6c9-4ed7-6135-a515f9902fd7@gmail.com> <m1keOTi-0000EGC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <CAO42Z2wZkXryhw1u5WAFdtCvXHyyz1zeM22FP_gRxjurjsG-Jw@mail.gmail.com> <CAN-Dau2XTRJpR9S=ZXOXOD6PkxLTD7KAzN-CwoGhMUmSQTp0Zg@mail.gmail.com> <91d4b7d4-5477-50c0-fb34-5e7bbfdfb253@gmail.com> <ad5ee6e1-c402-f9d4-80a2-f9f0fd5c3da5@mccallumwhyman.com>
In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 17 Nov 2020 09:26:38 +0000 ." <ad5ee6e1-c402-f9d4-80a2-f9f0fd5c3da5@mccallumwhyman.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2020 12:39:05 +0100
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/FUU9I0h5ZCqJIYT-864HAIoxZh4>
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, 17 Nov 2020 11:39:11 -0000

> Each aircraft operator could individually register (e.g.) a /32
> with an RIR for their Home Network Prefix. However, there are more
> than 5,000 airlines and if you want to have firewall rules that
> refer to "all uplink packets", an un-coordinated registration of
> Home Network Prefixes would lead to a big configuration maintenance
> problem for every firewall in the ATN/IPS. The 
> 
> I believe that American Airlines currently has the largest fleet
> with about 1,300 aircraft. You would need a minimum of 11 bits for
> this fleet - rounded up to 12 for a nibble boundary.

This a clear example of a bad addressing plan. If you have 5000 airlines and
the biggest has 1300 aircraft then you don't give all tiny airlines the 
same amount of space you need for the biggest.