[arin-ppml] TIPTOP

[Daryll Swer]

>
> A multi-stakeholder working group is likely a good idea.

Agreed. I don't think we should limit this discussion only to
networking-centric people (TCP/IP/MPLS/SRv6 folks).

Where would this new working group ideally be 'hosted', though? It doesn't
seem ideal to map such a unique collaborative group to ARIN or the IETF.
Because the group is more than just "IPv6", it would involve people with
deep-space expertise across different scientific domains and knowledge well
beyond TCP/IP/UDP/MPLS/SRv6/EVPN.

I also believe it is worthwhile to not include IPv4 in any of these plans
> as we’re at exhaustion and the v4 space is not nearly vast enough to
> accommodate these needs.  I believe most of these space based
> implementations will require unique networking to the point where IPv6-only
> will be the least technical challenge here, especially with this and so
> much of it being so future-focused.

Couldn't have said it better myself. If we implement IPv6-native for space,
we should make it an easy-to-use technology. We should agree on the
addressing/subnet model for space from the start and probably also consider
the possibility that *endpoints *like laptops, phones, etc. outside Earth
may use an *RFC9663*-like implementation so that space-related
organisations won't hesitate to adopt IPv6.

*--*
Best Regards
Daryll Swer
Website: daryllswer.com
<https://l.shortlink.es/l/c34e3084974961b681d7c54e1ce4efbd7e2353f1?u=2153471>


On Wed, 20 May 2026 at 21:55, Preston Ursini via ARIN-PPML <
arin-ppml at arin.net> wrote:

> I agree with many of the points raised and I believe any address
> allocation that revolves (orbits?) around celestial body aggregation will
> be difficult and would merit input from a body such as the IAU, Planetary
> Society, government space agencies, commercial operators, and many others
> with cross domain knowledge. A multi-stakeholder working group is likely a
> good idea.
>
> In our own solar system we go from planet to moon and then we have dwarf
> planets, asteroids, and many other classifications of celestial objects.
>
> One thing we run into is celestial objects are constantly being discovered
> that could need address space.
>
> A simple hierarchy from Planet -> Moon won’t work, especially with
> thousands of trans neptunian objects alone, and millions of other
> categorized objects as well.
>
> This is only our own solar system, interstellar probes could also
> potentially need to be addressable.
>
> I believe a prefix for each planet may be a good idea, but which planets,
> of what size, and what classification of planet (dwarf / gas giant with
> many moons / etc) is just barely scratching the surface of what is needed
> here.
>
> If we really were thinking of the far future, I believe that the solar
> system and objects only exiting the solar system such as the voyager probes
> should be separately allocated from interstellar objects that may need to
> one be addressed.
>
> On a very high level I’d propose:
>  - Earth orbit and Near Earth Objects (LEO / GEO / Lagrangian Points / etc)
>  - Solar system bodies and spacecraft (Moon / Mars / Jupiter / Asteroids)
>  - Interstellar probes or future non-solar system networks (Anything
> destined to leave the solar system)
>
> Each of these class of objects have different needs with latency /
> connectivity / etc, and I believe is a good start based on density of use
> and future planning.  Moon/Mars Colony can then be addressed different than
> an LEO satellite, and Voyager type spacecraft would be in a different range
> from everyone else.
>
> There will obviously need to be major discussions as to what ranges each
> body / orbit / etc gets.  I also believe it is worthwhile to not include
> IPv4 in any of these plans as we’re at exhaustion and the v4 space is not
> nearly vast enough to accommodate these needs.  I believe most of these
> space based implementations will require unique networking to the point
> where IPv6-only will be the least technical challenge here, especially with
> this and so much of it being so future-focused.
>
>
> Preston Louis Ursini
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20260520/6e0480d7/attachment.htm>