[arin-ppml] ARIN Multiple Discrete Networks Policy
Richard A Steenbergen
ras at e-gerbil.net
Sun Oct 2 17:02:24 EDT 2011
On Sun, Oct 02, 2011 at 12:07:43AM +0000, John Curran wrote:
> Correct. I was pointing out that if the policy is changed to simply
> require a well-defined "state" then no examples would be needed. If
> the policy is only changed to equate "discrete" networks to "networks
> with unique routing policies", then there would still need to
> judgement regarding whether there was a compelling need for the
> networks to have unique routing policies.
Uhm... How could you possibly propose to change the definition of a
discrete network to eliminate the need to justify using them? These two
things have absolutely nothing to do with each other, this is a total
> The current policy says "multiple discrete networks" not "networks
> with unique routing policies" You've asserted that they are the same
> and that is not the case accordingly to the current policy.
You asked for an explicit definition and I gave you a perfectly sensible
one. Are you now claiming that this policy can't be applied because
nobody knows what a discrete network is? Why not, I guess it's the only
possible argument left which hasn't already been defeated.
I suppose we could start with the context provided by the policy itself,
> Some organizations have requirements for multiple discrete networks
> that need individual address allocations. Discrete networks must often
> have separate unique globally routable address space and will often
> grow at different rates. In order for organizations with multiple
> discrete networks to request additional address space under a single
> maintainer ID, the organization must use the following criteria:
So far we know that whatever they are, they must often have separate
unique global routable address space, and will often grow at different
rates. Any why might an organization need separate unique globally
routable address space which can grow at a different rate? The ONLY
benefit to this would be if they are required to implement unique
routing policies for each discrete network, and thus require unique
globally routable address space to do so. If you have another
explanation, I'm all ears. Otherwise, I'm going to say that this acts as
the basis for defining what they are, multiple networks which must
implement unique routing policies.
The policy then goes on to say that you need to have a good reason for
> The organization must have compelling criteria for creating discrete
> networks. Examples:
> * regulatory restrictions for data transmission
> * geographic distance and diversity between networks
> * autonomous multi-homed discrete networks
These three specific examples are all reasons why one may need to
implement unique routing policies. One assumes that if you situation can
be shown to match one of the example "compelling reasons" for doing
this, and if you have a need for separate unique globally routable
address space which grows at different rates, you would infact be able
to use the $%^&ing policy that says these exact words!
> Networks that cannot readily reallocate their existing allocations
> (for compelling reasons such as those shown in the examples, e.g.
> regulatory restrictions on interconnection, geographic restrictions,
> being discontiguous or those that are autonomous by nature) have been
> judged to be "discrete networks". Organizations that acknowledge that
> they can readily reallocate their existing allocations across
> interconnected network infrastructure have been determined NOT to have
> "multiple discrete networks", even if such reallocation would result
> in a routing impact.
Again, you're adding an exclusion which DOES NOT EXIST IN THE POLICY.
The policy doesn't say ANYTHING about this, but what it does do is list
some problems, state some requirements, and then provide a solution. If
your problem matches the example problems, and you have a good reason to
do it which matches the requirements, then how does ARIN possibly
justify adding random new exclusions which don't exist in the policy?
Or, let me try another approach. If this is really the position you want
to take, I hearby call on ARIN to apply the (newly invented) rules
consistently, and stop giving out allocations under the multiple
discrete network policy to anyone who could potentially solve their need
to implement unique routing policies with deaggregation. I believe this
will exclude almost everyone, including the #1 example "intended user"
that keeps getting cited, someone with two or more physically
discontiguous networks. Unless they have some other random situation,
like not being able to work swip because of a bizaare corporate
structure as you've been trying to point out in the past, they should
clearly be able to solve this with deaggregation and thus no longer
qualify. Does that seem sensible to you?
Richard A Steenbergen <ras at e-gerbil.net> http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras
GPG Key ID: 0xF8B12CBC (7535 7F59 8204 ED1F CC1C 53AF 4C41 5ECA F8B1 2CBC)
More information about the ARIN-PPML