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 <[email protected]> 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 < > [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.
