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

Howard, W. Lee Lee.Howard at stanleyassociates.com
Fri Mar 17 14:14:44 EST 2006

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net] On 
> Behalf Of Michael.Dillon at btradianz.com
> Sent: Friday, March 17, 2006 12:41 PM
> To: ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [ppml] IP-v6 Needs (RE: a modified proposal 2005-8)
> > 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.

I'm not disagreeing, but what is the definition of "end site" here?
The aircraft has a single /48?  
Or each user on the aircraft has a single /48?  
Or each network (air traffic control, air carrier, and passenger)?

Are you also saying that each /48 be provider independent?  Or
are you saying it should be provider aggregatable, but the same
prefix length so the internal topology doesn't have to change
when you change access providers?

Buses, trains or train cars, ships, tandem bicycles.  Be
> --Michael Dillon


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list