[arin-ppml] TIPTOP
scott
scott at solarnetone.org
Tue May 12 12:16:37 EDT 2026
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
> (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.
>
>
>
>
>
More information about the ARIN-PPML
mailing list