[arin-ppml] Addressing for other planets

[Lee Howard]

 Replying to the latest message, not necessarily the most topical for what I want to say.
Is seems to me that the place to debate the documents in or from the TIPTOP Working Group is the TIPTOP WG. https://datatracker.ietf.org/group/tiptop/about/  I note that they have a mailing list and will be meeting in just a few weeks https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/125/agenda. Remote participation is cheap.
Draft https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-li-tiptop-address-space/  specifically updates RFC7020 and RFC8720 (which updated RFC2050). It proposes to allocate a prefix for each of several areas in space (Earth's moon, Earth's Lagrange points, the asteroid belt, each planet, and "Other regions not covered by the above" which might indicate Rest of Universe) but does not specify prefix size or allocation policies other than "credible, demonstrable" and "according to RFC8720."
When it comes to determining policies for allocations, and how to evaluate whether policy requirements have been met, that is up to the addressing communities. We, as the existing RIRs, should facilitate this discussion. While ARIN might have jurisdiction of last resort, this is probably better facilitated by the NRO. If a new registry is required, that will need to be a "global" policy, even if the scope of such an RIR might be extra-global. I understand that there is some conversation about whether topology will require a new Registry, and to the extent that such a conversation will help to establish policies, I think that would be better suited to a global NRO-scale conversation.
Ultimately, the recommendation to remand responsibility for these allocations to all RIRs, one existing RIR, or a new RIR, will be a Global Policy. 
Having said that, I think it would be prudent to invite presentation at an upcoming ARIN meeting. 
Lee



 

    On Sunday, February 22, 2026 at 04:04:06 AM GMT-3, Tony Li <tony.li at tony.li> wrote:  
 
 
Hi John,


> 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. 


Two words for you to meditate on: nested abstraction.


> 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 –


All of the points that you make below are largely the same as for any ISP.  I don’t see why you’re making this molehill into a mountain.  I get that they are important and I acknowledge that they will take work, but I don’t see them as a serious impediment.

I get that you don’t wanna do this. I don’t understand why.

Regards,
Tony

_______________________________________________
ARIN-PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20260222/215759b7/attachment.htm>