On Feb 21, 2026, at 3:23 PM, Tony Li <[email protected]> wrote: Hi John,
I guess that it might be helpful to get some more insight into the expected operating environment, since going by the draft as written it would appear that celestial body based issuance would require deep space operators to carry additional and distinctly non-aggregataable routes for all elements served that have celestial-based allocations… That’s exactly backwards. The intent is to provide aggregation along celestial body lines. The network operating environment is pretty spartan. Deep space communications are expensive, slow, and have major outages when physics precludes the connection. Redundancy is luxury for the distant future. There will be relay nodes in place, and eventually many different surface networks that will be interconnected. Those networks are deployed by a number of different space agencies, who are somewhat mutually cooperative, but need gudiance about network architecture. Now, according to current policies, each of these agencies will use part of their own address space allocations, presumably one prefix per network. As those allocations are from different RIRs and different blocks, all of those prefixes will result in explicit routes carried across interplanetary links. Actually, there are zero external routes for the agency network operating along its own interplanetary links, and only additional routes for the specific missions of other agencies currently being transit to meet joint mission requirements - i.e. additional routes, but controlled and temporary in nature to reflect scope and mission duration. By doing allocation along celestial bodies, each agency will be able to get a prefix for their network from the common block for that specific body. These can then be aggregated when they hit interplanetary links, resulting in minimal overhead. Aggregated by whom? Is there a presumption that an agency network will step up and serve as the default transport provider for each given celestial body? Note that aggregation with celestial body allocations if and only if – a) all the entities in that deep-space region have rich connectivity between themselves and b) one of those entities announces a covering prefix for the entire body address space, and then c) all traffic traffic goes via that single connection and no agency network announces their more specifics for their their own network. That’s an impressive list of assumptions to be satisfied to achieve aggregation - given the sparse bandwidth available, one would expect very careful coordination of its use, and that’s the opposite of an agency network setting up to serve as the default transit provider for an entire deep space region. Is there rough consensus and/or running code on this particular operational model? There is zero aggregation with your proposed architecture unless there’s agreement up front to have designated service providers for each deep space body/region, and further than agency networks do not interconnect or route individual components with one other except thru the default service providers for that the deep space region/body - i.e. the party announcing the covering route via its communications links. /John
_______________________________________________ ARIN-PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
