[arin-ppml] TIPTOP

[Fernando Frediani]

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 (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contactinfo at arin.net if you experience any issues.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20260510/82cb9bbd/attachment.htm>