[arin-ppml] ARIN Multiple Discrete Networks Policy

John Curran jcurran at arin.net
Sat Oct 1 12:13:41 EDT 2011

On Oct 1, 2011, at 11:29 AM, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:

> On Sat, Oct 01, 2011 at 01:11:52PM +0000, John Curran wrote:
>> Reason #2 is the difficulty, whereas ARIN staff has to effectively 
>> make a judgement of the "compelling" criteria based on 3 illustrative 
>> examples.  I recommend that the policy be so that there is a clear 
>> technical definition of "discrete network" is added to the policy, and 
>> further that any organization which has multiple "discrete networks" 
>> would qualify for use of the policy, regardless of the compelling or 
>> otherwise reasoning behind their architectural decision.
> Ok so, your current position is that matching an example from the 
> specifically defined list of example compelling reasons is not a 
> compelling reason, because of an exclusionary rule which doesn't exist 
> anywhere in the policy (namely that you can't possibly solve the problem 
> with deaggregation) that you're making up on the spot? 

Incorrect.  If an organization can demonstrate a compelling need 
for multiple discrete networks (along the lines of the examples),
it can make use of the MDN policy. This is as the policy requires.

Refining the examples is also an option for improving the clarity
of the policy, but that still leaves ARIN staff having to make a 
judgement call regarding what constitutes "compelling criteria."
I believe that the more certain outcome would be to change the 
policy to specifically include a clear technical definition of 
what constitutes "multiple discrete networks" in the policy text.

Richard - Can you propose an appropriate definition of 
"multiple discrete networks" that could be added to the 


John Curran
President and CEO

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list