> > 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 < [email protected]> 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 ([email protected]). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
