[ppml] IP-v6 Needs (RE: a modified proposal 2005-8)

Michael.Dillon at btradianz.com Michael.Dillon at btradianz.com
Fri Mar 17 12:41:25 EST 2006

> The aircraft MUST be able to join to many different
> service provider networks as it moves around the world; we have carriers
> that fly there aircraft literally around the world in a bit over a day.
> The aircraft WILL most of the time have simultaneous links to multiple
> service providers.  An aircraft will probably have at least three
> separate networks onboard: air traffic control, airline or operator, and
> in-flight passenger services/entertainment.)

This is the reason for giving EVERY end-site a /48. No matter
which network you connect to, you can get a /48 for your connection
and maintain the same internal subnet topology. The same issue 
arises with shipping containers, buses, travelling salesmen,
freight companies, and others.

Conservation of addresses should be at the very bottom of the
priority list with IPv6. Maybe there is a case for making one
small tweak by going to a /56 for single family dwellings,
but that should be the end of it. We can't retrofit IPv4
scarcity-based policy into IPv6.

> 4) We might as well come to terms with the idea that some of these must
> be essentially irrevocable.  Can anyone envision revoking the IP address
> of an aircraft that is set up in air traffic control systems around the
> world?

I don't think irrevocability is an issue. If an address block is used,
then you can keep on using it. If an address block is not used at all,
then there should still be a process for revoking the allocation and
recovering the address block. That process should require some sort
of publication of notice like we do with bankruptcies, etc.

--Michael Dillon

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list