Re: Extending a /64

[S Moonesamy <[e-mail]>]

Hi Tony,

I'll disclose that I am affiliated with a RIR.

At 05:00 AM 08-11-2020, Tony Whyman wrote:
>The problem of the /64 limit came up in ICAO working groups earlier 
>this year when developing a global addressing plan for the ATN/IPS 
>and there would be strong support here for allowing subnet prefixes 
>to go beyond the /64 boundary.
>
>Our problem is that we wanted to define an addressing plan that uses 
>39 bits to identify each aircraft, allows for a minimum of 4 more 
>bits for subnetting and works within the existing standards. I'll 
>give some background below for those interested in why 39 bits, but 
>the problem is that if you are going to allocate a /64 (deriving 
>from a /60 MNP) to each subnet on an aircraft then you need a /21 as 
>your initial allocation - and this is before you start thinking 
>about other ATN/IPS users such as drones.
>
>In order to avoid a potential problem getting a sufficient address 
>allocation, we did look at extending into the "other 64 bits" of an 
>IPv6 address for subnet IDs, which was looking very "unused". After 
>all, you can only cram in a handful of systems into the

There were proposals to assign a /56 MNP for an aircraft.  That 
"drone" user looks like something different from an aircraft for 
address assignment purposes.

The procedure for global allocation registration is listed at 
http://r.elandsys.com/r/51238

Regards,
S. Moonesamy