Re: Extending a /64

[JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[e-mail]>]

    IMHO, RIR policies are often far too focussed on the public internet and 
    forget about non-public internets and the value of common addressing 
    plans between public and non-public internets.

[Jordi] This is incorrect. All the RIR policies are, on purpose, "ignorant" if you use the resources in the public Internet or non-public internets. If you justify that you have a need for a non-public /16, you get it.

    3. Mobile Network Prefixes (MNPs) are non-topological addresses.

[Jordi] Similarly, RIR policies don't ask you to have an addressing plan tied to topology, geography or anything similar. You can justify your needs depending on your own case. Same for many other of your points.

    7. We are boxed in

    An ATN/IPS MNP needs to be statically allocated and to be formed from 
    some initial prefix, a 39 bit aircraft identifier and some more bits for 
    subnetting. This scheme also needs to be expandable to include other 
    airspace users such as drones. If you assume 
    draft-mishra-6man-variable-slaac then you could make do with an ICAO 
    prefix that is a /20, but a /16 avoids making that assumption.

[Jordi] I understand that this is technical issue and because we have sufficient space, it should be possible to justify it to the relevant RIR and get a /16, or a /11 or whatever you need. There is no issue at all.

    8. For legal reasons, the allocation of a /16 has to be made at the IANA 
    level.

[Jordi] I don't understand the legal reasons for that. What court will tell you that it is right? IETF is responsible of the standards, and has given the mandate to IANA for allocating the space to the RIRs. IANA can't do that unless the IETF allows that, and/or there is a global policy that allows that.

   However, I
   suspect that would make it legally impossible for IANA to unilaterally
   revoke the /16 allocation. 

[Jordi] What court will have power on that?

    My guess is that the RIRs do not have the 
    authority to give away a chunk of the address space in this way and that 
    this has to be done at the IANA level.

[Jordi] This is incorrect, I've explained it already in previous emails, maybe you didn't saw them. Any of the RIRs can easily allocate the space never mind it is a /16 or a /11. You just need to justify the need. Have you tried it?

[Jordi] It is true that some RIRs, such LACNIC and AFRINIC, require that the space is used in their region (LACNIC ask for more than 50%), however, others not, and any international/multinational organization may request an allocation for example in RIPE NCC. Again, have you tried that? If you need help, I can put you in touch with the relevant people.





**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.