[arin-ppml] ARIN Multiple Discrete Networks Policy

John Curran jcurran at arin.net
Sat Oct 1 20:07:43 EDT 2011

On Oct 1, 2011, at 7:05 PM, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:

> On Sat, Oct 01, 2011 at 10:45:32PM +0000, John Curran wrote:
>> Richard - Hopefully, we don't need examples of compelling reasons if
>> a clear technical definition of "discrete networks" is added (as it 
>> would remove the requirement for judgement of "compelling reason")
> Er, yes you do... Discrete networks is a state, not a reason.

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.

> The current policy says you need to demonstrate a) that you are using them 
> (the same A you were talking about in your other question) and b) that 
> you have a compelling reason to run them (the same B).  Nothing in the 
> definition of discrete network affects this in any way!

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.

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.

> Correct, B is a judgement call. Fortunately there is a specific list of 
> example compelling reasons already in the policy, so it is the job of 
> the applicant to show that they meet one of those examples.

Agreed.  I'd prefer policy that is defined on a clear factual state as 
opposed to judgement calls, since there it makes for more predictable
outcomes for applicants. However, we will continue to administer per the 
examples in the existing policy text, even if requires judgement calls 
to be made with regard to what constitutes "multiple discrete networks."


John Curran
President and CEO

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list