Re: Extending a /64

Tony, why are you embedding the 39 bit airplane ID into the IPv6 
address.  That seems to be the fundamental thing that then has you need 
very short prefixes, and doing other difficult operations.

And if the answer is "ICAO said so", then we have a problem of really 
smart aviation engineers doing network engineering.

Yours,
Joel

On 11/16/2020 9:38 AM, Tony Whyman wrote:
> This discussion seems to have gone off in the wrong direction. There are 
> no ICAO applications that foresee aircraft to aircraft communication 
> using datalink. The underlying set of applications is:
> 
> 1. Controller to Pilot Datalink Communication (CPDLC) - the name says it 
> all
> 
> 2. Automatic Dependent Surveillance (ADS) - allows an ATS Provider to 
> monitor an aircraft's position and intent.
> 
> 3. Flight Information Services (FIS) - allows a pilot to pull 
> information (e.g. on runway conditions).
> 
> TCAS also exists as a collision avoidance system and this does use 
> air-to-air communication. However, this is a rider on the Mode S 
> surveillance radar and is not IP based.
> 
> On 16/11/2020 14:30, Philip Homburg wrote:
>> However, this seems to be a case of doing things at the wrong level. 
>> If aircaft
>> use IPv6 to communicate then obvious they need unique IPv6 addresses. 
>> However,
>> each plane only needs to know its own address. Any time a plane 
>> communicates
>> with an unknown plane, they can exchange higher level identities.
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------