[arin-ppml] ARIN Multiple Discrete Networks Policy

[Owen DeLong]

On Oct 2, 2011, at 9:59 AM, Jimmy Hess wrote:

> On Sun, Oct 2, 2011 at 12:14 AM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
>> If the networks can be announced in an aggregate, then, they are
>> not discrete in the meaning of the policy.
> 
> I would say networks are not discrete if they  _ARE_ announced as an aggregate.
> Networks that are not announced as an aggregate but could be are still discrete.
> 
> The question to the operator should be in that case...  do you have a
> compelling reason that they are not announced  as an aggregate?
> 

Now we're getting into subtle flavors of the difference between can and cannot.

If there's a compelling reason not to announce them as an aggregate, they are
discrete. If there is not a compelling reason, then, they are not discrete.

> If the networks are not interconnected,   then  that would be a reason
> they should not be announced as an aggregate.    The  operator  should
> then have a compelling reason that they haven't built a tunnel or
> interconnected the  two networks.
> 

Even with a tunnel, it's still compelling IMHO. I can't imagine a scenario
where I'd want to accept traffic for network B at site A only to ship it across
a tunnel to site B. Basically discrete networks are networks which are either
A: Not connected by an interior backbone
or B: Connected by an interior backbone that is insufficient for passing the
	level of traffic expected to be received via the internet.

If the two networks can share a common routing policy, then, they are not
discrete.

> If purchasing an additional link to connect the two networks is an
> option, perhaps they should be denied the option of utilizing the MDN
> policy.

I disagree. This would constitute ARIN wading into the business decisions
and inflicting cost structures on organizations which are, IMHO, not
within the purview of ARIN policy.

Owen