[arin-ppml] TIPTOP

[David Farmer]

I don't think we can just dump these issues on ARIN Staff or the Board of
Trustees; they don't have the necessary expertise to resolve them
all, especially on the space-operations side. I'm not saying we need all
the answers to move the policy forward, but we do need at least a framework
or plan to address the obvious issues that will arise. Some kind of
advisory panel seems like a reasonable option for such a framework.

On Wed, May 20, 2026 at 9:57 AM Tony Li <tony.li at tony.li> wrote:

>
> Hi David,
>
> On May 20, 2026, at 7:20 AM, David Farmer via ARIN-PPML <
> arin-ppml at arin.net> wrote:
>
> ...

> 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.
>

If it's not large, then provide some examples based on your thoughts. What
kind of planning horizon are you thinking of? I said large because I'm
thinking 20 to 50 years.

> 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?
>

Final details, maybe, but I think a rough outline is necessary. How should
the staff make the determination? At least, what are our priorities and the
principles that should be followed?

> 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.
>

Again, we would need to share priorities, principles, and propose a
framework to resolve these issues. I think an advisory panel is the way to
go.

> 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) 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.
>

Then, a policy statement stating that ARIN should reserve the next
reclaimed/16 block for ETN use should be included.

> 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.
>

The actual creation of the advisory panel is the responsibility of the
managing RIR. However, calling out the need for one or the expectation that
one will be created, and generally what it should look like, seems
important.

> However, nothing in the current proposal addresses how these many issues
> will be resolved.
>
> Please propose text?
>
> Cheers,
> Tony
>
>
>

-- 
Thank you / Ho Pidamayado / Miigwech
===============================================
David Farmer               Email:farmer at umn.edu
Networking & Telecommunication Services
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota
2829 University Ave SE    Phone: 612-626-0815
Minneapolis, MN 55414   Cell: 612-812-9952
===============================================
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20260520/ac45d58e/attachment.htm>