[arin-ppml] TIPTOP

Wed May 20 13:59:28 EDT 2026

I think these are important issues, but are way beyond the scope of ARIN or
any other RIR's address allocation policies. There are enough issues just
keeping the scope to address allocation and management.

On Wed, May 20, 2026 at 12:19 PM Daryll Swer via ARIN-PPML <
arin-ppml at arin.net> wrote:

> Speaking of endpoints, this might not be a popular opinion, but perhaps
> DHCPv6 should be forgone for space endpoint networking. We already have
> enough complexity with DHCPv6 HA/state transfer/failover on Earth in
> everyday residential ISP networking for M:N BNG design.
>
> Since IPv6 is native and NAT-less, we could just use *routed* IPv6 to the
> host. In a DC environment, that would mean a BGP-to-the-host design that
> I'm sure many of you are well familiar with.
>
> For *wireless* networking in space, perhaps an IGP *variation* *inspired*
> by ES-IS (not IS-IS) and the Babel routing protocol would work, assuming it's
> possible to design for extremely high-latency networking and limited
> bandwidth.
>
> *--*
> Best Regards
> Daryll Swer
> Website: daryllswer.com
> <https://l.shortlink.es/l/a274a18c4794eb252540be4a22756944d387de0b?u=2153471>
>
>
> On Wed, 20 May 2026 at 22:41, Daryll Swer <contact at daryllswer.com> wrote:
>
>> 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
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
> 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.
>

-- 
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/20260520/439766a1/attachment-0001.htm>