Hi Fernando,
On Tue, 12 May 2026, Fernando Frediani wrote:
Hi
On 5/12/2026 3:58 AM, scott wrote:
Hi Fernando,
On Sun, 10 May 2026, Fernando Frediani wrote:
Point of order: Space agencies are no longer the only players.
No problem. It is always a legal entity in one of the 5 RIR regions. Get IP
space from the respective RIR.
Right, the point is that there are other stakeholders to pay attention to.
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.
Not everyone shares Tony and TIPTOP's "IP networks only" notion
of how space networking will play out. Many of us, including
experts from many space agencies, believe that Bundle Protocol
(BP) based networks are intergal parts of a Solar System
Internet, just as IP based surface networks on Earth are and
eventually the Moon, Mars, Europa, etc. will be.
What if there were other identifiers which are generally
specific to space applications: BP Node Numbers, Allocator IDs
(both in production), and Region IDs(to be added after proper
standardization). Do discrete blocks for other worlds
(specifically not terrestrial, as defined out to GEO) _and_ BP
based identifiers constitute sufficient reason to entertain
discussion around the notion of a new RIR?
No problem as well. Still connectivity always comes from Earth
This is not correct. These are not "bent-pipe" circuits from Mars to the
Moon via Earth, for example. Further, it is generally accepted by those
who have been working these problems for decades that if there are IP
networks on the Moon, and particularly other planets, these will be
isolated in terms of direct IP connectivity with anything other than hosts
also on the same world. If we term our terrestrial network the
"Internet," these isolated IP networks are termed "internets." The
Internet and internets are interconnectable via Bundle networks at the
application layer, through tools termed "Application Layer Gateways."
and as such
can continue to be organized within the well established RIR system we have.
Do you believe the present system, as is, has competency for management of
BP related resources by the RIR system. We accept the management of IP
resources by the RIRs because RIR participants generally know IP
networking very well. I will wager that the level of BP related knowledge
is not as strong among this group, yet resources from both will be
required to participate in the LunaNet. It might be preferable for a
participant to get these resources from one source. There are ways to
accomplish this without new RIRs, but it does involve the existing RIRs to
build the relevant competence and infrastructure to support management of
these resources.
Any specific/technical details can be adjusted as necessary without the need
to reinvent the wheel or create a new system to manage this all.
Not sure it is that easy, but I am willing to listen to your proposal.
Scott
Regards
Fernando
Thanks,
Scott
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 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.
