[arin-ppml] TIPTOP

[Tony Li]

Hi David,


> On May 20, 2026, at 7:20 AM, David Farmer via ARIN-PPML <arin-ppml at arin.net> wrote:
> 
> First, compliance, regulation, and enforcement are stronger terms than I intended. I'm thinking more along the lines of mutual understanding, shared intent, and consensus.


Agreed.  Envisioning ‘enforcement’ against large government organizations that play around with tons of liquid oxygen is a challenging proposition.


> Early in this discussion, others and I asked for more details about what is meant by "celestial body aggregation". I believe this means that relatively large address pools will be reserved for use on and around other celestial bodies.


It need not be large, but otherwise yes.


> Allocations will then be made from these reserved pools to ETNs and their operators. I think this much is generally agreed upon. However, which celestial bodies receive which size reserved pools is a detail that needs to be resolved before ARIN or anyone else can begin allocating to ETN operators on such a basis.


Can we defer this to the managing RIR?


> Furthermore, to be effective and to avoid future renumbering or address block fragmentation around celestial bodies, it seems likely that very large reserve pools will be necessary and will be of interest to the Internet Registry System as a whole, the IETF, space agencies, other space and Internet operators. What processes will be used to reach consensus regarding these parameters? Ideas like "slow start" seem out of place; conservation and other goals will likely have new balance points within a celestial-body aggregation-allocation regime, compared to the provider-based aggregation-allocation regime we have today. 


This also seems like it could be deferred to the managing RIR.


> I'm doubtful these issues can be effectively resolved within IPv4, given that IPv4 allocations have been exhausted. The only possible solutions I see for IPv4 are either to allocate Class-E (240.0.0.0/4 <http://240.0.0.0/4>) for ETN use or to have NASA or another government agency provide an IPv4 block for ETN use. 


I’ve suggested that a reclaimed /16 or other reclaimed prefixes might suffice.


> For IPv6, I envision asking the IETF to allocate a block outside 2000::/3 for ETN use, and then using sparse allocation within that block, probably starting with allocations for the Moon and Mars, then other celestial bodies as necessary.


Seems reasonable.


> Finally, I think an ETN advisory group should be created that includes representatives from space agencies, other space operators, and the Internet number resource community as a whole.


This seems like this is the purview of the managing RIR.


> However, nothing in the current proposal addresses how these many issues will be resolved.


Please propose text?

Cheers,
Tony


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20260520/747ae3c1/attachment-0001.htm>