[arin-ppml] ARIN Multiple Discrete Networks Policy

[John Curran]

On Oct 3, 2011, at 8:56 AM, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:

> a) You need a compelling reason to operate multiple discrete networks.

Yes.

> b) The policy defines some examples compelling reasons for this.

Yes.

> c) Not having a common routing policy equates to discrete networks.

That is not expressed in the policy.  Having "Autonomous multihomed 
discrete networks" certainly is delineated as an example.  

> What John is saying is that, in addition to the compelling REASON 
> criteria of the policy, there is also a phantom compelling NEED 
> criteria.

Incorrect.   You need a compelling reason, and there's no policy 
language that denotes lack of common routing policy as a compelling
reason for discrete networks.

> This shifts the burdon of proof from "show us that you have a 
> good reason for doing this" to "show us that you have an absolutely NEED 
> to do this", language which doesn't exist in the policy at all.

Incorrect. Show us that you have a _compelling reason_ for doing this.

That's not "absolute need", but it is certainly a high standard than
some "good reason" as you assert above.

If you'd like to add an example for "lack of common routing policy"
(which would match your earlier incorrect assertion about this being
the very goal of the policy), then feel free to submit an appropriate
policy proposal.

Thanks!
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN