<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body style="overflow-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;"><div><br></div>Hi John,<div><br></div><div><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div><div style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 14px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; text-decoration: none;"><div>Actually, there are zero external routes for the agency network operating along its own interplanetary links, and only additional routes for the specific missions of other agencies currently being transit to meet joint mission requirements - i.e. additional routes, but controlled and temporary in nature to reflect scope and mission duration. </div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>That doesn’t match my understanding. NASA’s DSN is shared across multiple missions, so should be considered independent of any celestial body. The missions that we’re talking about are currently temporary, but over time will certainly attempt to become permanent, thus, any unaggregated routes will effectively be permanent.</div><div><br></div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div><div style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 14px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; text-decoration: none;"><blockquote type="cite"><div><div style="overflow-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;"><div><div><div>By doing allocation along celestial bodies, each agency will be able to get a prefix for their network from the common block for that specific body. These can then be aggregated when they hit interplanetary links, resulting in minimal overhead.</div></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div></div><span style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 14px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; text-decoration: none; float: none; display: inline !important;">Aggregated by whom? Is there a presumption that an agency network will step up and serve as the default transport provider for each given celestial body? </span></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>There are certainly going to be per-body relays that interact with the DSN. That would be an ideal place to aggregate. These could be operated by various agencies.</div><div><br></div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div><div style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 14px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; text-decoration: none;">Note that aggregation with celestial body allocations if and only if – a) all the entities in that deep-space region have rich connectivity between themselves and b) one of those entities announces a covering prefix for the entire body address space, and then c) all traffic traffic goes via that single connection and no agency network announces their more specifics for their their own network. </div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>Those aren’t real requirements. Those would be necessary if the goal was perfect aggregation, which its not (and never is). If aggregation is not perfect, there will be additional routes. But that’s actually not relevant to the discussion because you would still be better off than having zero aggregation.</div><div><br></div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div><div style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 14px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; text-decoration: none;"><div>There is zero aggregation with your proposed architecture unless there’s agreement up front to have designated service providers for each deep space body/region, and further than agency networks do not interconnect or route individual components with one other except thru the default service providers for that the deep space region/body - i.e. the party announcing the covering route via its communications links. </div></div></div></blockquote><br></div><div><br></div><div>That’s utter nonsense. The architecture provide per-body aggregation and ample opportunity for the agencies to aggregate through the shared nework. There does not need to be a single network provider. Multiple providers can interconnect and aggregate. </div><div><br></div><div>Tony</div><div><br></div><br></div></body></html>