+1 to this rationale. This draft policy is very interesting and well thought out, interested to see additional feedback from others in the community as well.
Thanks - Doug -- Douglas J. Camin [email protected] From: ARIN-PPML <[email protected]> on behalf of Tony Li <[email protected]> Date: Tuesday, March 24, 2026 at 6:21 PM To: [email protected] <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2026-1: Taking IP To Other Planets (TIPTOP) Hi Joe, > Considering appendix A of deepspace-ip-assessment, why > does this policy speak to IPv4 at all? Because there are some other pragmatic issues that I think that we’ve touched on before. Today, space agencies are already using IPv4 addresses for all of the usual legacy reasons. They have IPv4 infrastructure, and some of that may not be easily upgradeable. IPv4 also has a significant advantage in bandwidth overehead. Deep space links are extremely low bandwidth. Voyager (admittedly not IP) gets about 160bps. Mars rovers, when transmitting directly to Earth, get 500bps. The extra size of IPv6 does make a significant difference at these rates. Mission planners are going to be pragmatic, not dogmatic. For them, IP is a tool and they will pick the best tool available to meet their mission goals. While we might like them to pick IPv6, their decisions will be based on their mission requirements, and bandwidth is always going to rank high in their decision criteria. We do not get to dictate to them. We have no authority over them. The best that we can do is to advocate for our preferred solution. If they choose to use IPv4, and we do not provide addressing infrastructure, then they will simply use legacy prefixes and routing in space will be chaotic. That is a pragmatic tactical outcome that will have deleterious strategic consequences, which we should avoid. On the other hand, if we provide addressing infrastructure for both IPv4 and IPv6, we enable sane routing in both the short and long term, regardless of the version selected. When mission planners are thinking more strategically, working on missions that lead to permanent installations, then the strategic benefits of IPv6 become more apparent, especially in cases where there is higher bandwidth. Mission planners are going to be the ones evaluating the tradeoffs and making the decision. We should support them to provide the best pragmatic solution available, regardless of what they choose. Regards, Tony _______________________________________________ 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://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.arin.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Farin-ppml&data=05%7C02%7C%7C7038fd8cd3004f90bcc508de89f3b90a%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C639099877065792669%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=XH1P%2FzSJWUeT2U4kf4XTXsrFPlhExwEcnZEEzXb7AGQ%3D&reserved=0<https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml> Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
_______________________________________________ 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.
