[arin-ppml] TIPTOP

[scott]

Hi Fernando,

On Sun, 10 May 2026, Fernando Frediani wrote:


> 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.

Point of order:  Space agencies are no longer the only players.

> 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?

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 (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.
> 
> 
>