[arin-ppml] Revised - Draft Policy 2026-1: Taking IP To Other Planets (TIPTOP)

[Joe Klein]

*Keep Looking Up - A Short History of Space-Borne Communications*
Joe Klein, jsklein at gmail.com

January 9, 2024


The earliest generations of artificial satellites emerged during a
technological era that predated modern packet-switched networking and the
development of the Internet Protocol (IP) suite. Consequently, these
pioneering spacecraft relied upon highly specialized telemetry, tracking,
and command (TT&C) systems designed specifically for mission assurance,
deterministic control, and constrained radio-frequency communications
environments. These architectures were overwhelmingly proprietary, tightly
coupled to individual missions, and optimized for narrow-band,
point-to-point communications rather than interoperable networking. In
practical terms, early space communications systems functioned more like
isolated electronic lifelines than participants within any generalized
information-sharing infrastructure.


Throughout the Cold War and early Space Age, spacecraft communications
evolved primarily through advances in radio engineering, modulation
techniques, forward error correction, and deep-space telemetry standards.
While these innovations dramatically improved reliability and reach, they
remained fundamentally disconnected from the layered networking principles
simultaneously reshaping terrestrial communications through ARPANET,
TCP/IP, and eventually the global Internet. Spacecraft, despite their
increasing sophistication, largely remained isolated endpoints
communicating through carefully orchestrated ground infrastructure.


A significant architectural transformation began to emerge during the late
1990s and early 2000s as researchers and aerospace engineers explored the
feasibility of deploying Internet Protocol technologies directly within
orbital systems. This transition represented more than a simple protocol
substitution; it marked the conceptual convergence of aerospace engineering
and Internet-scale networking. Early pioneering programs—including the
Disaster Monitoring Constellation (UK-DMC) and the Cisco-enabled CLEO
satellite—demonstrated that spacecraft could successfully operate as
routable nodes within packet-switched environments utilizing IPv4 and later
IPv6 technologies. These efforts validated the idea that satellites were no
longer merely telemetry platforms, but active participants in distributed
network architectures capable of supporting increasingly sophisticated
communications models.


The successful application of IP-based networking within low Earth orbit
(LEO) accelerated further experimentation across commercial, governmental,
and academic sectors. Networking concepts once reserved for terrestrial
routers and backbone infrastructures began migrating into orbital
environments. This evolution extended into geostationary orbit (GEO)
through initiatives such as IRIS, which introduced increasingly advanced
in-orbit routing and communications capabilities. Over time, what began as
experimental networking research matured into commercially scalable
satellite broadband ecosystems capable of delivering global Internet
connectivity.


Modern satellite constellations—including large-scale low Earth orbit
deployments such as Starlink—now operate as globally distributed networking
infrastructures utilizing IPv4, IPv6, carrier-grade routing architectures,
software-defined networking concepts, and increasingly sophisticated
inter-satellite optical communication systems. These platforms represent a
profound departure from earlier generations of space systems, effectively
transforming orbital assets into extensions of terrestrial
telecommunications backbones. Space is no longer merely a transport medium
for broadcast signals; it has become an operational domain of the Internet
itself.


Yet the next evolutionary stage of space networking extends well beyond
Earth orbit. Emerging cislunar and deep-space initiatives—including LunaNet
and Moonlight—are driving the development of communications architectures
specifically engineered for environments where conventional terrestrial
assumptions no longer apply. Unlike Earth-based networks, lunar and
deep-space communications must contend with extreme latency, intermittent
connectivity, dynamic topology changes, signal obstruction, and prolonged
disruption windows measured in minutes or even hours.


To address these challenges, next-generation space networking frameworks
are increasingly integrating traditional Internet Protocol technologies
alongside Delay/Disruption Tolerant Networking (DTN) paradigms and the
Bundle Protocol (BP). These architectures are designed to support
resilient, fault-tolerant communications capable of operating across highly
disrupted environments where persistent end-to-end connectivity cannot be
assumed. In many respects, DTN represents a return to foundational
store-and-forward principles, reimagined for the realities of
interplanetary communications.


The historical trajectory of space-borne communications therefore reflects
far more than incremental improvements in bandwidth or signal reach. It
represents the gradual convergence of aerospace systems, distributed
computing, and global networking into a unified communications ecosystem
extending from Earth to the Moon and ultimately toward deep-space
exploration. What began as isolated telemetry beacons orbiting Earth has
evolved into the foundation of a future interplanetary networking
architecture.

The following timeline-oriented capability analysis should not be
interpreted as an exhaustive inventory of every spacecraft ever launched.
Rather, it provides a historically grounded examination of the evolutionary
progression of space networking systems that implemented, transported, or
interoperated with IPv4-, IPv6-, IP-over-space-, and DTN/BP-based
communications architectures within the broader context of terrestrial and
extraterrestrial networking convergence.


Scott, does this answer your question?

Cheers,

Joe Klein

On Wed, May 27, 2026 at 2:07 PM scott <scott at solarnetone.org> wrote:

> Hi All,
>
> From the problem statement:
>
> "Organizations conducting space exploration missions are deploying
> IP-based networking infrastructure beyond Earth orbit, including on the
> Moon and in other deep-space environments. These networks currently
> utilize address space allocated independently from multiple RIRs,
> including ARIN."
>
> I am not sure that this is entirely accurate.  Can someone cite
> documentation of a current or past mission beyond GEO which
> successfully deployed an IP network?
>
> I concur that other planetary bodies, and perhaps spacecraft ranging
> between worlds will likely have local IP networks deployed on them, but at
> present, I am not convinced of the validity of this assertion.
>
> Thanks,
> Scott Johnson
>
> On Wed, 27 May 2026, ARIN wrote:
>
> > The following Draft Policy has been revised:
> >
> > *Draft Policy 2026-1: Taking IP To Other Planets (TIPTOP)
> >
> > This revision adds one new paragraph to the Problem Statement. All
> previously existing text remains unchanged:
> >
> > "Implementation of any such addressing framework would depend upon
> broader coordination within the Internet technical and registry
> communities, including determination by the IETF and IANA that dedicated
> address resources and registry coordination are necessary, concurrence
> among the RIRs regarding operational responsibilities, and a determination
> by the ARIN Board of Trustees that participation is consistent with ARIN’s
> mission."
> >
> > The complete revised Draft Policy text is below and can be found at:
> >
> > https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/2026_1/
> >
> > You are encouraged to discuss all Draft Policies on PPML. The AC will
> evaluate the discussion to assess the conformance of this Draft Policy with
> ARIN's Principles of Internet number resource policy as stated in the
> Policy Development Process (PDP). Specifically, these principles are:
> >
> > * Enabling Fair and Impartial Number Resource Administration
> > * Technically Sound
> > * Supported by the Community
> >
> > The PDP can be found at:
> >
> > https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/pdp/
> >
> > Draft Policies and Proposals under discussion can be found at:
> >
> > https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Eddie Diego
> > Policy Analyst
> > American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)
> >
> >
> > Draft Policy 2026-1: Taking IP To Other Planets (TIPTOP)
> >
> > Problem Statement:
> >
> > Organizations conducting space exploration missions are deploying
> IP-based networking infrastructure beyond Earth orbit, including on the
> Moon and in other deep-space environments. These networks currently utilize
> address space allocated independently from multiple RIRs, including ARIN.
> >
> > As international missions expand and networks operated by multiple
> agencies interconnect to share communications infrastructure and provide
> operational redundancy, the use of unrelated terrestrial address
> allocations introduces routing scalability concerns. Existing allocations
> are not aligned with the topology of outer space communications networks,
> which may require the advertisement of numerous disaggregated prefixes when
> networks interconnect.
> >
> > Outer space communications infrastructure is expected to develop around
> natural clusters near celestial bodies, with limited communication links
> between those regions. Addressing structures that reflect these topological
> boundaries could improve route aggregation and long-term routing
> scalability.
> >
> > Implementation of any such addressing framework would depend upon
> broader coordination within the Internet technical and registry
> communities, including determination by the IETF and IANA that dedicated
> address resources and registry coordination are necessary, concurrence
> among the RIRs regarding operational responsibilities, and a determination
> by the ARIN Board of Trustees that participation is consistent with ARIN’s
> mission.
> >
> > For the purposes of this policy, outer space includes the Moon and
> regions beyond Earth orbit, but excludes low Earth orbit (LEO) and
> geostationary Earth orbit (GEO).
> >
> > Policy Statement:
> >
> > ARIN may allocate IPv4 and IPv6 address space to organizations operating
> IP networking infrastructure in outer space, including beyond Earth orbit
> and on the Moon. Allocations are intended to support interagency
> connectivity, operational redundancy, and scalable routing in emerging
> space networks.
> >
> > Addressing structures should be organized hierarchically to reflect
> major celestial regions—such as the Moon, Earth–Moon Lagrange points, and
> other planetary systems—enabling route aggregation where feasible.
> Participation in aggregation is voluntary, and organizations may advertise
> more specific prefixes when necessary.
> >
> > This policy applies to government, research, and commercial space
> operators, and encourages coordination among agencies to facilitate
> efficient address usage and scalable routing for outer space networks.
> >
> > Definitions (Add to NRPM Section 2)
> >
> > 2.xx Extra-Terrestrial Network (ETN) An ETN is defined as any IP-based
> networking infrastructure operating physically beyond the Geostationary
> Earth Orbit (GEO) arc, including but not limited to Lunar, Martian, or
> deep-space deployments.
> >
> > IPv4 Policy (Add to NRPM Section 4)
> >
> > 4.11 IPv4 Allocations for Extra-Terrestrial Networks ARIN shall maintain
> a dedicated pool or specific registration guidelines for organizations
> operating ETNs to ensure routing scalability.
> >
> > 4.11.1 Eligibility: Applicants must demonstrate a direct operational
> requirement for networking infrastructure located beyond Earth’s orbit.
> Eligible entities include government agencies, research institutions, and
> commercial operators.
> >
> > 4.11.2 Topological Hierarchy: To prevent global routing table
> exhaustion, allocations for ETNs should be issued from contiguous blocks
> where possible, designated by "Celestial Regions" (e.g., Luna, Mars,
> Lagrange Points).
> >
> > 4.11.3 Utilization Requirements: Standard utilization requirements
> (Section 4.2.4) apply, but ARIN may grant exceptions for high-latency "cold
> storage" nodes or orbital relay constellations where traditional "active
> host" pings are impractical for verification.
> >
> > IPv6 Policy (Add to NRPM Section 6)
> >
> > 6.12 IPv6 Allocations for Extra-Terrestrial Networks Due to the vast
> distances and high-latency nature of deep-space communications, IPv6 is the
> preferred protocol for ETN deployments.
> >
> > 6.12.1 Minimum Allocation: The minimum allocation size for an ETN
> operator shall be a /48, or a size sufficient to allow for hierarchical
> subnetting per celestial body.
> >
> > 6.12.2 Planetary Aggregation: Organizations are encouraged to aggregate
> all prefixes within a specific gravity well or orbital system to a single
> aggregate route for advertisement back to Terrestrial Ground Stations (TGS).
> >
> > 6.12.3 Sparse Allocation: ARIN will employ sparse allocation techniques
> within the ETN block to allow for the future growth of lunar and planetary
> colonies without fragmenting the space.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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._______________________________________________
> 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.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20260527/5f5aa9ff/attachment-0001.htm>