<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 Matthew,<div><br></div><div><div><blockquote type="cite"><div><div style="overflow-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;"><font face="Avenir-Book">Perhaps these are dumb questions...</font>
</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div><br></div>Decidedly not.</div><div><br></div><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div><div style="overflow-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;"><div>
<div><font face="Avenir-Book">Is this a policy proposal uniquely for ARIN, or is it being proposed simultaneously in other RIRs? If so, what feedback have you had?</font></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>I have submitted this to RIPE and to the NRO NC. Neither have had any notable feedback.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div><div style="overflow-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;"><div>
<div><font face="Avenir-Book">Is this really only an operational problem and not specifically a policy problem? For example, couldn’t different project groups agree on which resources are obtained from whom in concertation to avoid the issues highlighted, given
they are often inherently international in nature already? (i.e. Project management decides on which RIR resources are attributed to which programs: NASA, for example, could use ARIN resources, and the ESA RIPE, etc. Private programs similarly nominate which
RIR resources as appropriate, perhaps with fewer constraints. All adhereing to an MoU on use and allocations) I guess I’m asking why a policy is *absolutely* required?</font></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>Policy is not strictly required, but would be extremely helpful in encouraging routing aggregation. The agencies are not inclined to do non-standard things, so unless explicitly instructed, they will simply follow the instructions. Non-policy suggestions that contradict policy will be viewed with great suspicion and likely ignored.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div><div style="overflow-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;"><div>
<div><font face="Avenir-Book">That’s very interesting about v4 vs v6 constraints and pretty much justfies v4 use IMO. I agree that a simple carve-out for v4 in each RIR would respond to the demand. Why only space programs? However, shouldn't high-importance
terestrial programs also have similar privileges? I.e., are we opening the door to have a carve out for “special” resources?</font></div>
</div></div></div></blockquote><br></div><div><br></div><div>Two good reasons: first, it’s hard enough putting routers into space. Finding ones with more resources makes things harder. In the long term, we do not to have infrastructure that does not scale. Router upgrades are pretty much out of the question, so whatever capacity is initially launched has to last for the lifetime of the device, which is hopefully long.</div><div><br></div><div>Second, the terrestrail situation is already a mess. In my career, we’ve gone from 5K routes to 1.25M routes. I’ve tried to get folks to aggregate more, but all forces are aligned the other way. I will happily joust at windmills, but I also know when I have lost. So space is not about importance, it’s because it’s a technical boon and technically not a well-defined solution today.</div><div><br></div><div>Tony</div><div><br></div><br></div></body></html>