Re: Extending a /64

[Nick Hilliard <[e-mail]>]

Philip Homburg wrote on 15/11/2020 21:32:
> Not a /39. It seems that there is an existing 39-bit identifier for planes.
> Somebody has decided that it would be a good idea to include that into the
> prefix.

sigh, helps to read previous messages more thoroughly.  Thank you for 
correcting this.

> So if you want to give each plane a /56 then you need a /17 prefix.

If the need is shown, why would the aerospace industry not get the 
address space?  /17 of address space for an entire industry with unified 
networking goals doesn't seem especially unreasonable, i.e. it's very 
large service provider size.  There aren't that many other equivalent 
society / industry areas which have common networking goals in the same 
way that the aerospace industry does.

Nick