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

[Matthew Petach <[e-mail]>]

On Mon, Nov 16, 2020 at 12:43 PM Templin (US), Fred L <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> Brian,
>

[...]


> The ATN/IPS will be a secured network with no connections to the Internet
> and open only to authorized users. An enterprise network for civil
> aviation,
> if you will. Unauthorized users will not have access to the network, and
> even
> for authorized users the multi-layered security services will ensure
> secured
> communications.
>
> Fred
>

If it is truly an isolated network, with no connections to the Internet,
can't you define your addressing within it as freely as you want?
Surely you don't need IETF approval to do strange and unusual
addressing schemes within your own internal networks that never
connect to the rest of the Internet.  Lord knows I never asked the
IETF for approval before performing unusual acts of discontiguous
addressing within my lab networks.   ;)

If it really is completely isolated and can never connect to the
wider Internet, you can define your addressing and your
protocols in any way you like; and in fact, making them
not entirely compatible with the rest of the Internet may
help ensure there's no accidental leakage, by making the
two schemes dissimilar enough that they can't cross-communicate
accidentally.

Matt