[arin-ppml] ARIN Multiple Discrete Networks Policy

[Owen DeLong]

On Sep 30, 2011, at 10:11 PM, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:

> On Sat, Oct 01, 2011 at 03:15:20AM +0000, John Curran wrote:
>> 
>> I did not say that it has no effect on aggregation.  I said that the 
>> point of the policy is not to improve aggregation; the policy exists 
>> to allow organizations to readily obtain address space as a single 
>> organization under criteria applicable when there are multiple 
>> discrete networks for a compelling reason.
> ...
>> I'd recommend either redefining "multiple discrete networks" to have a 
>> clear technical definition in the policy, or refining the existing 
>> examples so one of them directly meets your specific needs (e.g. 
>> removal of the term "autonomous" or changing it to an AS reference 
>> instead.)
> 
> Ok, let me see if I can summarize this.
> 
> You're saying that if someone has a compelling reason for running 
> multiple discrete networks, it means that they are incapable of 
> announcing their single allocation as an aggregate, and therefore need 
> the MDN policy to provide multiple blocks which they CAN announce as 
> aggregates.
> 
I believe that if MDN allocations are aggregable, that is a chance coincidence
and not a specific effect that ARIN strives for. Perhaps this is where you
are misunderstanding the situation in assuming that ARIN always issues
aggergable blocks to MDNs?

> You then go on to say that if someone benefits from the aggregation 
> being provided in the previous statement, since aggregation is not an 
> intended effect of the policy they therefore don't qualify to use it.
> 

Since your first statement doesn't accurately reflect the situation, this
statement is a fundamentally flawed conclusion as a result.

> Do you not see the circular logic here? I feel like I need to flowchart 
> this or something. :)
> 

I don't see it as circular, though I could sort of see that if your initial
assumption had been correct.

Owen