From Localization to Globalization: Challenges and Evolution of LEO Satellite Communication on RIR Geographic Allocation Principles

Home / Blogs

From Localization to Globalization: Challenges and Evolution of LEO Satellite Communication on RIR Geographic Allocation Principles

	By Kenny Huang Board Chair of TWNIC
	January 15, 2026 Views: 5,912 Comments: 1

In the traditional architecture of the Internet, the allocation of IP addresses has been deeply intertwined with geographical boundaries. The five Regional Internet Registries (RIRs, such as APNIC and ARIN) manage IP resources based on specific geographic regions. However, the rise of Low Earth Orbit (LEO) satellite communication is systematically dismantling this logic. When signals transmitted from space cross national borders in mere milliseconds, the traditional principle of “localized” management faces an unprecedented challenge.

The Foundations of RIR IP Resource Allocation

For a long time, the operation of RIRs has been based on a core assumption: that the physical location of IP address usage coincides with the location of the entity to which they were allocated.

Territorial Management: Telecommunication providers (ISPs) operate within specific economies, apply for addresses from their respective RIR, and announce routes within those national borders.
IP Geolocation: Content providers (CDNs, streaming services) and security systems (banking, firewalls) rely heavily on IP databases to determine a user’s location to enforce copyright controls or perform risk assessments.

The Impact of LEO Satellite Communication

The architecture of LEO satellite networks is fundamentally different from traditional terrestrial ISPs, leading to three key conflicts:

“Decentralization” and “Global Drift” of IP Addresses

LEO operators possess global IP address pools. A user in Taiwan may have their traffic transmitted via Inter-Satellite Links (ISL) and finally egress to the Internet through a Ground Station (PoP) located in Japan or Guam. In this scenario, the user might be assigned an IP from ARIN (North America) or APNIC (Asia-Pacific), making “User in Taiwan, IP abroad” a common occurrence, thus breaking the regional divisions of RIRs.

Geolocation Failures – Taking Starlink as an example, users frequently encounter “Geofencing” issues. Because LEO satellites move at high speeds (switching satellites approximately every 15 seconds) and ground stations may be hundreds of kilometers away from the user—sometimes across borders—it leads to:

Application Layer Failures: Users cannot access local TV channels, or are locked out by banking systems that misidentify the login as an unauthorized remote access.
Management Complexity: Updates to Starlink’s GeoFeed (geographic information source) often suffer from latency and lack a DNS-like TTL (Time to Live) mechanism, causing global databases to be filled with inaccurate mapping data.

CGNAT and the Globalization of Shared Risk

To conserve IPv4 resources, LEO operators rely heavily on Carrier-Grade NAT (CGNAT). This means thousands of users across different countries may share a single public IP. If one user launches an attack and the IP is blacklisted, the impact transcends borders, affecting innocent users worldwide.

Evolution and Challenges in Routing Security

Cross-RIR allocation also complicates BGP (Border Gateway Protocol) routing security:

RPKI Validation Dilemmas: When IPs are frequently announced across different RIR jurisdictions, if ROA (Route Origin Authorization) records are not updated in real-time, routes may be flagged as “Invalid,” leading to connectivity outages.
BGP Hijacking Risks: Globalized IP allocation reduces management transparency, making it easier for malicious third parties to exploit this cross-border confusion for BGP hijacking.

Future Directions: The Path Forward

In response to these challenges, the internet community and satellite operators are exploring the following solutions:

Promoting Dynamic GeoFeed Standardization: Driving more precise, real-time geographic announcement mechanisms through the IETF, allowing content providers to identify the true physical location of satellite users instantly.
Full Transition to IPv6: The vast address space of IPv6 can reduce reliance on CGNAT, providing each satellite terminal with a unique global routing address, thereby simplifying traceability and security management.
Edge Computing and Local PoPs: As LEO operators build ground stations (PoPs) in more countries, traffic will increasingly egress “locally,” reducing the side effects brought by cross-RIR allocation.

Conclusion: Reshaping Network Geography

LEO satellites represent more than just a revolution in communication technology; they are a challenge to the existing Internet governance system. In the transition from “localization” to “globalization,” RIRs and ISPs must rethink how to define “location” on the network. The internet map of the future will no longer be defined solely by national borders, but will be woven together by satellite orbits and global routing nodes.

NORDVPN DISCOUNT - CircleID x NordVPN
Get NordVPN [74% +3 extra months, from $2.99/month]

By Kenny Huang, Board Chair of TWNIC

Filed Under

Comments

Should we take the leading 'R' out of "Regional Internet Registries" Karl Auerbach – Jan 20, 2026 1:27 PM

My last conversation with Jon Postel was about the nature of IP address allocations, the desire (and need) to aggregate IP address prefixes so that the routing tables in routers do not explode in size, and whether the then new notion of Regional IP address Registries should be fluid (based on changes in major inter-region connectivity).

At that time, Jon and I could easily see on maps of the world that physical network connectivity fell into essentially continental sized regions (with Africa being largely a piece dangling off of New York.)

But we could also see that developments in undersea cables and satellite paths was eroding that notion of the Internet as zones of good internal connectivity (and thus, hopefully, of blocks of IP addresses that could be aggregated for routing purposes) and weaker inter-zone connectivity.

So we asked ourselves - given that such changes in connectivity were even then quite foreseeable, whether the hard geographic address allocation bodies - ARIN, RIP, APNIC, etc - should be replaced by a more fluid system that followed changes in major internet connectivity.

Given the rise of satellite and the increased richness of undersea cables, both Jon and I felt that the ability to aggregate IP routing prefixes would diminish to the extent where we might need a single worldwide IP address allocation body and, also, like in IPv6 a less strong notion of “ownership” of IP blocks (so that a user could have an existing block replaced by a block that worked better for aggregation purposes.)

Such changes would not be easy, but the growth in the number of IPv4 and IPv6 routing prefixes - requiring router memory and table-lookup overhead, and increased BGP traffic and route-update propagation times - has, at least so far, been met with bigger and more expensive routers and faster BGP links. But it is open to question how much longer we can depend on bigger/better hardware to accommodate that growth and, thus, how long we can forestall a more integrated address allocation system and the possibility of even more mandatory renumbering by users.

# 1 Reply | Link | Report Problems

The Weekly Wrap

More and more professionals are choosing to publish critical posts on CircleID from all corners of the Internet industry. If you find it hard to keep up daily, consider subscribing to our weekly digest. We will provide you a convenient summary report once a week sent directly to your inbox. It's a quick and easy read.