Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: Extending a /64 (ATN/IPS worked example)

Philip Homburg <pch-ipv6-ietf-6@u-1.phicoh.com> Tue, 17 November 2020 22:59 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 AD28B3A0E73 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 17 Nov 2020 14:59:41 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.622
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.622 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, KHOP_HELO_FCRDNS=0.276, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=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 U1iJ4ig-uZyL for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 17 Nov 2020 14:59:40 -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 56D323A0E70 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 17 Nov 2020 14:59:34 -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 m1kf9wc-0000MnC; Tue, 17 Nov 2020 23:59:26 +0100
Message-Id: <m1kf9wc-0000MnC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net>
To: ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: Extending a /64 (ATN/IPS worked example)
From: Philip Homburg <pch-ipv6-ietf-6@u-1.phicoh.com>
Sender: pch-b9D3CB0F5@u-1.phicoh.com
References: <6728075c39884f40b49836e5e0061c76@boeing.com> <47e33c69-8ad9-b03e-872e-80b132af4906@gmail.com> <3ba4ac13fa304d09b7c3c6a1f0f50a9c@boeing.com> <79b67dece97044df9a15223154d15545@boeing.com> <255a5c37a1724b22a5aeac937d8a3bc3@boeing.com>
In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 17 Nov 2020 22:47:15 +0000 ." <255a5c37a1724b22a5aeac937d8a3bc3@boeing.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2020 23:59:22 +0100
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/k0Lu0MJwHyfcNILuuGxbEpsloNg>
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: Tue, 17 Nov 2020 22:59:42 -0000

>Plus, the aircraft ID is the moral equivalent of a VIN; 

One way to look at this discussion is that to make aircraft ID part of an IPv6
address is like making the VIN part of a car's license plate number.

For cars it is obvious why we don't do that. For IPv4 it is clear why we 
would not do that. It seems that IPv6 enough bits to promote 'creativity'.
Same as putting IID generation types in link-local addresses. Clearly
the link local prefix has too many bits and should have been a /64.