Re: Why this is broken [was Re: Extending a /64]

[Tony Whyman <[e-mail]>]

On 17/11/2020 00:45, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> I'm not disputing that you can make practically anything work in a private
> network. As I heard the late Dave Sincoskie say in an IAB discussion of the
> Internet as it was in about 1994, "just buy an ****ing big CAM and you can
> make anything work." Nor am I disputing that aircraft present an especially
> hard case of mobility. (Isn't that why cell phones are mainly forbidden
> on planes?)

I believe that there are two problems that cause problems with cell 
phones and aircraft. One is that older aircraft can have poorly screened 
radios and headphones used for ATC voice comm (AM double side band in 
the VHF spectrum) with a risk that the cell phones can interfere with 
voice communication. The other is that when you are up in the air, you 
can see an awful lot of "cells" on the ground and an aircraft full of 
active mobile phones can overload each of those "cells" simultaneously.

Assuming that the first problem is solved, a pico cell on board the 
aircraft should keep down the transmission power of the active phones. 
SATCOM can provide you with the backhaul service for the pico cell. Cell 
phones are a simpler problem if only because they are not deemed to be 
flight critical.

> But at Internet scale, we just can't do that. Routing prefixes need
> to aggregate. This isn't an aesthetic consideration; it's fundamental
> to why we have enough IPv6 prefixes to last for hundreds of years,
> and why the backbone routers are able to keep up with growth.
In another post, I have given a worked example and hopefully explained 
that our MNPs are allocated from a /36 that does comply with this model. 
Our only argument is really over the allocation of the remaining MNP 
bits. This will always be a non-topological identifier given then nature 
of a mobile platform.