Re: Extending a /64

There is a liaison function between the RIR and the IETF, and the IETF
and IANA regarding address dispositions. When people reach a point
they believe there is a need for an unusual assignment from global
unicast space, the proper thing to do, is invoke the liaison function,
and have this dealt with respectfully across distinct process
boundaries regarding how addresses are managed and delegated.

As long as the people who perform this liaison function are aware of
this conversation, nothing much else has to be said here. I would ask
that the WG chairs and AD keep that in mind.

cheers

-George

On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 11:45 AM Michael Richardson
<mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> wrote:
>
>
> Tony Whyman <tony.whyman@mccallumwhyman.com> wrote:
>     > In the end, we concluded that we could not bend the existing standards
>     > to do this and did not have the desire to push for change. Hence, we
>     > are in the process of asking IANA for a /16 for the global civil
>     > aviation community. Hopefully we will get this. However, an argument is
>     > expected given that the current policies push back against such a large
>     > allocation and demand a utilisation efficiency that we will never
>     > achieve. However, if we don't get a /16 and the standards stay as they
>     > are, then a private address space and NAT at the boundaries may be the
>     > only answer - not really what anyone wants.
>
> I think that it's pretty important that the IETF IPv6 community understand
> your needs, and speak clearly in support of your needs.
>
> What would happen if you had a /18 or a /20?
>
> --
> Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
>            Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------