[arin-ppml] Addressing for other planets

[John Curran]

On Feb 21, 2026, at 6:56 PM, Tony Li <tony.li at tony.li> wrote:
...
I ask because ARIN is capable of dealing with ISP IPv6 allocation requests that are quite sizable and unusual in nature, but we do require some fairly concrete plans to support any such allocation request.  Individual space agency networks are likely to qualify today with sufficiently detailed requests (just as we’ve handled various satellite network requests), but I suspect your Deep Space IPv6 requirements really are really of a nature that need to be handled as a new RIR region – that will allow for allocations to be more expansively sized and for handling the implied operational/policy development requirements.


This is NOT an allocation request.  This is asking to put in place an architecture to allow for aggregation.

The space allocations need not be expansively sized, but reserving space so that aggregation can happen as things grow would make a great deal of sense.

Tony -

As noted, I remain unclear about the aggregation properties of your Outer Space/Celestial Body-based allocation scheme (as opposed to allocations that follow and thus naturally aggregate within the network topology of agency space networks), but understand that further clarity is unlikely to be obtained without some actual hard parameters and modeling.  You assert a gain in aggregation, and let’s take that as given assumption for the time being.

The reason I sought clarification about the anticipated upside of this new Outer Space/Celestial Body” RIR region is because operationalizing it is not without costs to the ecosystem, and these also need to be examined.

Let’s presume the following:

A.  IETF adoption of <draft-li-tiptop-address-space-01>, which includes:

     "6.  IANA Considerations
           This document requests that IANA work with the Internet numbers
           registry community to provide for issuance of general purpose IP
           number resources for outer space in accordance with this document.”

B. The Internet numbers community (via discussion among the regional RIR communities) concurs, and the RIRs make appropriate arrangements for administration of a new IANA IPv6 address reservation for deep space. This is accomplished by selection of a lucky RIR to handle requests per the policy stated in the document –

  “The RIR for outer space should operate in a manner similar to other
         RIRs, allocating address space to qualified requests for those
         operating or with credible, demonstrable near-term plans for
         operating in Outer Space.  The RIR should have a single address space
         for all of outer space, and from the block allocate smaller blocks
         for each celestial body.  Allocations for each request should come
         from the relevant block for the celestial body.  In the case where
         there are multiple operators per body, this would then result in a
         set of prefixes from each operator, all from one common block for the
         body.”

C. The administering RIR provides relevant services for “deep space IPv6” allocation holders.

If I understand correctly, steps A, B, and C above would effectively accomplish the intent of your Internet-Draft – and while it looks quite simple, there is quite a bit that would be necessary to make it happen (which I am omitting at the moment for the sake of brevity).

Now the world is a dynamic place, and as a result, let’s hypothecate some of the questions that arise in the early years of operation –

– What constitutes “credible, demonstrable near-term plans for operating in Outer Space”? (e.g. Is credible space operations to be interpreted as qualification for all celestial bodies, or just those specific bodies for which there are credible plans for operations?)

– How long does a party have to move from credible plans to operations, and if an entity goes defunct, should reclamation occur?

– A party indicates that they intend to announce a coverage aggregate for the entire prefix of a celestial body and provide corresponding shared transit service for networks around that body. What is the threshold for recognition, and how is contention for that role handled?

– What are the appropriate fees and terms of service for the registry services provided to Outer Space IPv6 allocation holders? For that matter, what services are provided?  Are these address transferrable?

Many of these questions are fairly innocuous, but they still require definitive answers.  Note that we’ve worked fairly hard to make sure that the Internet numbers community has clear structures that allow the affected community to determine applicable policy and provide for member-based governance over the registries themselves.  How does that occur for the customers of the “RIR for Outer Space”?  Are those questions addressed that RIR’s normal policy and governance policies, under the determination of the administering RIR members, or under purview of full RIR system, or something else?

I understand that these questions may seem trivial details, but in fact it’s taken us decades to get all these mundane matters settled for the existing Internet numbers registry system, so I’ll ask your indulgence and suggest that getting the governance questions right on day one for this new “Outer Space RIR region” is actually fairly important – we’re well past the the days when Jon could just “do the right thing” on behalf of everyone, and that means that the technical layer for new initiatives is often the least complicated aspect to be determined once they enter the real world.

Thanks,
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
American Registry for Internet Numbers












-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20260222/1841e40e/attachment-0001.htm>