On Fri, Feb 20, 2026 at 5:02 AM Tony Li <[email protected]> wrote: > As part of the IETF TIPTOP working group, we are working towards enabling the > Internet in outer space. We would like to direct your attention to a couple > of recent Internet drafts that may be of interest: > > An Architecture for IP in Deep Space > datatracker.ietf.org > IP Address Space for Outer Space > datatracker.ietf.org > > The latter has direct implications for the ARIN community, > > I would welcome any and all comments.
"To enable aggregation around celestial bodies, we would then like to have a prefix per celestial body." Hi Tony, Are you the same Tony Li I worked with in the IRTF Routing Research Group (RRG) years ago? I watched the TIPTOP presentation at APRICOT a couple weeks ago. It sounded like the idea is to hew as closely as practical to the existing protocol standards and practices that we have now, rather than invent an interplanetary-specific network stack. Relax the timers and change the buffering expectations. Is that about right? I guess my main question is: what's different about interplanetary network links that would allow geographic address aggregation to align with the routing? I thought we pretty clearly established in the RRG that geographic routing in terrestrial interdomain networks was a non-starter. Folks running expensive long haul links like to be paid. They choose protocols which restrict the introduction of data packets to addresses operated by networks who have directly or indirectly compensated them. We know with the transatlantic and other oceanic routes that this selection does not follow large geographic boundaries closely enough to benefit from geographic address aggregation. Why would it follow large spatial ones? Taking my Bill Herrin hat off and putting my Advisory Council hat on: If you want to achieve something like this at ARIN, at some point you would write and submit a number policy proposal which does three things: 1. Establishes criteria in the ARIN NRPM where IP addresses deployed in outer space are considered in use for the purpose of ARIN determining an organization's use and qualification. 2. Establishes pools of IPv4 addresses reserved for each of the specific celestial bodies, and the quantity reserved for each. 3. Establishes pools of IPv6 addresses reserved for each of the specific celestial bodies, and the quantity reserved for each. Finally, you'd specify that implementation would pend a request from IANA pursuant to publication of the relevant TIPTOP RFC. Once the policy proposal is submitted, it goes through a bunch of steps, for which the main one is presenting it to the community and gathering their consent. That means discussing it here on the PPML and at ARIN in-person meetings and gathering feedback. I think I would consider splitting it into three proposals since you're really asking the community for three related but different things: permission for ARIN to act as a registrar for outer space, permission to reserve blocks of IPv4 addresses which then cannot be used for another purpose and permission to reserve blocks of IPv6 addresses which then cannot be used for other purposes. That way you could get some separation of fate between whether the ARIN community is willing to have its fees support space allocations and whether they're willing to tie up IP addresses for it ahead of those addresses' use. And I would definitely suggest more informal discussion like this one to help develop such a proposal before formally submitting it. You can find the template here: https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/pdp/appendix_b/ Regards, Bill Herrin _______________________________________________ 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.
