[arin-ppml] ARIN Multiple Discrete Networks Policy
owen at delong.com
Sun Oct 2 01:08:26 EDT 2011
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
> 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
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.
More information about the ARIN-PPML