Re: Extending a /64

No, this is wrong ...

All the RIRs allow to have part of the allocation used in other regions. How much depend on each RIR policies.

For example, LACNIC needs 50% used in LAC, but as I recall, for ARIN and RIPE, they don't require how many addresses are being used there, and if that was a problem, with a justified case, it can be changed - it just a matter of a policy proposal.

A policy proposal to allow IANA to allocate directly bypassing the RIR, will need a global policy proposal, maybe also something at the IETF level. This will take much longer and will need consensus in all the 5 RIRs with the same text.

I don't think this effort is justified/needed, because *today* many international organizations are *already* getting (big) blocks even if they are used in many regions.

This "problem" seems to me a non-problem, maybe just lack of understanding about how policies work in all the 5 RIRs.

Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet

El 10/11/20 2:49, "ipv6 en nombre de Michael Richardson" <ipv6-bounces@ietf.org en nombre de mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> escribió:

    Philip Homburg <pch-ipv6-ietf-6@u-1.phicoh.com> wrote:
        >> Our problem is that we wanted to define an addressing plan that uses
        >> 39 bits to identify each aircraft,

        > It seems to me that using 39 bits to number aircraft would violation
        > allocation density policies. See for example Section 2.8 and Section
        > 5.2.2 of ripe-738 (https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-738)

    I think that the allocation density policies are not terribly sensible and
    still suffer from IPv4 scarcity thinking.
    Anyway, the reason they need to skip RIPE/ARIN/etc. and go to IANA is because
    of the international aspect of this.

        > (unless there are 100 billion aircraft in the world).

    Over the lifetime of the human race's use of IPv6.
    (The 100 billion aircraft don't exist concurrently)
    And probably not including UAS, because there is a different allocation
    request for that coming from the DRIP WG.

        > IF the IETF directs IANA to grant this for aircraft, what happens if
        > the ITU shows up and wants a prefix for phone numbers?

    Sounds good for me.

    --
    Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
               Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide

    --------------------------------------------------------------------
    IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
    ipv6@ietf.org
    Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
    --------------------------------------------------------------------

**********************************************
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.