[address-policy-wg] Re: Question - Aviation

"Davis, Terry L" <terry.l.davis at boeing.com> writes:

> PSS: Back to "critical infrastructure" networks a moment, I'd say that
> any network that wanted to declare itself "critical infrastructure"
> could obtain PI space,

Note: in my mind "PI" space is closely associated with the notion of
"being routed within the DFZ of the public internet".

> BUT to me this type of network should always be run as a "closed
> network" with exchanges to the Internet only through "mediation
> gateways" operating at the application level, not at the routing
> level.

So, this type of network isn't connected directly to the internet and
is thus not really part of the public internet (which makes sense to
me). Thus, it is unclear to me that PI space is really needed for
this.

Seems to me, that all you really need is globally unique, unrouted (on
the public internet) space.

Would RFC 4193 "unique local addresses" satisify the need?

And if your answer is "they are not unique enough", would centrally
assigned ones, ala (expired) draft-ietf-ipv6-ula-central-00.txt meet
your needs? (It would be ironic if you answered yes, because the topic
of resurrecting this document came up during the discussion of
http://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2006_2.html at Tuesday's ARIN
meeting).

Thomas