[arin-ppml] ARIN Multiple Discrete Networks Policy
owen at delong.com
Mon Oct 3 19:23:13 EDT 2011
On Oct 3, 2011, at 8:28 AM, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 03, 2011 at 07:44:26AM -0700, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> Nope... I'm saying that criteria equates to NEED in the policy and in
>> the policy intent.
>> You're saying that it does not. That's where I agree with John and
>> where you and I appear to disagree.
> Do you or do you not believe that meeting the criteria established by
> the policy as an example of a compelling reason equates to
> justification for using the policy?
I believe that if you meet the criteria established as an example because
you cannot do otherwise. If you have adequate backbone between the
sites, I would argue they do not meet the "discrete" criteria.
>> Apparently not since you just reinterpreted it differently than I did.
>> However, I will submit a proposal to correct this discrepancy. Thank
>> you for bringing the issue to my attention.
> I'm not sure how that's possible, considering:
> 1) I suggested a definition of discrete network based on the applicants
> requirement to implement unique routing policies.
Requirement being the particularly relevant word here. In your opinion,
the requirement is merely the desire to do so. In my opinion, the
requirement needs to be somewhat external either due to prohibitive
cost to run an otherwise unnecessary backbone or inability to adequately
connect the two sites.
> 2) John said that this isn't the definition at all, and that his
> definition also adds "and that you can't possibly work around it any
> other way, such as with deaggregation".
I think this is a misunderstanding of what he actually said. I can't tell whether
your obstinance on this point is a legitimate failure to communicate or a
driven desire to mold things to your world view.
> 3) You then proposed a policy to change the definition of a discrete
> network to exactly what I said in 1).
Not exactly how I see it.
More information about the ARIN-PPML