Re: Extending a /64

[Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>]

JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet=[e-mail]> wrote:
    > IANA can't directly allocate to ISPs or end-users, unless the IETF
    > documents a special case, which I don't think is required because it
    > can perfectly follow the existing policies in the relevant RIR.

I believe that this is exactly what Tony is here to do.

    > You need to follow the process with the relevant RIR, according to
    > their existing policies. I understand that in the case of ICAO, it will
    > be ARIN.

I don't believe that ARIN (or any of the RIRs) is allowed to allocate address
space that won't be used in it's region.
So while it might be reasonable for an *airport* to go to it's local RIR, the
rest of the infrastructure moves all over the place.

ICAO essentially needs to be a RIR of sorts.

    > Even allocating a /48 to each possible human in the earth, there is not
    > any problem. See slide 6 at:

Sure.  I don't know if ICAO needs a /16 (vs a /18 or /22).
This is something we should debate on the basis of engineering trade offs.
If we won't give people the address space they need, then they will push the
/64 boundary.

(And Ole, sorry to continue off of your intended thread. But, your question
is too big)


--
Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide