Tony
I don't buy this thing about aggregation. Find it unnecessary to even
consider having it out of well established system.
It is just much simpler and makes more sense to have each space agency
to request IP space from their respective RIR and that's it.
It doesn't justify by far to think of another RIR or something specific
to address something that doesn't have any near a demand that justifies
it. Aggregation argument doesn't justify it.
Keep it simple !
Fernando
On 5/9/2026 3:41 PM, Tony Li wrote:
Hi all,
I tried to attend the session on TIPTOP, but was unable to do so.
There were many comments that came up that I’d like to respond to.
1) Space is outside of ARIN’s charter.
This is absolutely true. It’s outside of everyone’s charter. It
was not part of anyone’s thinking when the RIR system was first
established. This is an oversight that needs to be corrected.
John mentioned the example of Antartica, which I think is apropos.
A small demand, which ARIN handles for the good of the global
community. I think space should be handled the same way.
It was suggested that space should get its own RIR. While that’s
possible, that would create an entire organization for a handful
of constituents with maybe a dozen requests per year and lacking
the expertise that ARIN has. To my mind, this would be as
inefficient as an independent RIR for Antartica.
Space is outside of ARIN’s current charter. ARIN should broaden
its reach and include space. Because someone has to and ARIN can.
2) This doesn’t guarantee aggregation.
Absolutely true. This is not regulation. But this is enablement.
Aggregation cannot happen if allocations are not done properly.
This is the status quo.
This intent of this policy is to enable aggregation. The space
agencies involved are strongly motivated to keep their overhead
costs down and keep their routing efficient. We can provide the
technical expertise to make this happen, but none of that can
happen if we have dispersed addressing.
3) Latency is the driver for the IPv4 portion of the policy.
The issue is bandwidth, not latency. Space vehicles are very
bandwidth limited and communications are mission critical, so
efficiency is paramount. For this reason, missions are being flown
with IPv4 today and will likely continue to do so. While access to
IPv6 prefixes for higher bandwidth provides for future missions
with higher bandwidth, for today’s missions where bandwidth is
severely constrained, we want to encourage mission planners to
aggregate within IPv4.
Cheers,
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://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please [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.
