Re: Extending a /64

Philip Homburg <pch-ipv6-ietf-6@u-1.phicoh.com> Sun, 08 November 2020 13:37 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 4BAAC3A0475 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 8 Nov 2020 05:37:17 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.621
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.621 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, KHOP_HELO_FCRDNS=0.276, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 Pwj1SidQJi3Q for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 8 Nov 2020 05:37:15 -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 8700E3A044A for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Sun, 8 Nov 2020 05:37:14 -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 m1kbksa-0000IHC; Sun, 8 Nov 2020 14:37:12 +0100
Message-Id: <m1kbksa-0000IHC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net>
To: ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Extending a /64
From: Philip Homburg <pch-ipv6-ietf-6@u-1.phicoh.com>
Sender: pch-b9D3CB0F5@u-1.phicoh.com
References: <005ECBB3-088B-4363-BB53-8D4AD25CA3D2@employees.org> <b468124f-f85b-7e20-a354-c6b7eaba3447@mccallumwhyman.com>
In-reply-to: Your message of "Sun, 8 Nov 2020 13:00:40 +0000 ." <b468124f-f85b-7e20-a354-c6b7eaba3447@mccallumwhyman.com>
Date: Sun, 08 Nov 2020 14:37:11 +0100
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/MkdLm2h0Emkstm-ZB4O2V7MOki4>
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: Sun, 08 Nov 2020 13:37:17 -0000

> Our problem is that we wanted to define an addressing plan that
> uses 39 bits to identify each aircraft, 

It seems to me that using 39 bits to number aircraft would violation
allocation density policies. See for example Section 2.8 and Section 5.2.2
of ripe-738 (https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-738)

(unless there are 100 billion aircraft in the world).

IF the IETF directs IANA to grant this for aircraft, what happens if the
ITU shows up and wants a prefix for phone numbers?