Re: Extending a /64

[Tony Whyman <[e-mail]>]

On 08/11/2020 13:37, Philip Homburg wrote:
>> 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).
I would agree with that point and was why I am doubtful about whether 
the /16 application will be granted. Hence why extending beyond the /64 
boundary looks so attractive.
>
> IF the IETF directs IANA to grant this for aircraft, what happens if the
> ITU shows up and wants a prefix for phone numbers?
If they had a good enough case, why not?
>