[arin-ppml] ARIN Multiple Discrete Networks Policy

John Curran jcurran at arin.net
Sun Oct 2 17:57:57 EDT 2011

On Oct 2, 2011, at 5:39 PM, Jimmy Hess wrote:

> n Sat, Oct 1, 2011 at 7:07 PM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
> [snip]
>> 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.
> The determination is flawwed.   First of all, it's not mentioned in
> the policy that
> "networks that are capable of readily reallocating their existing
> allocations across interconnected
> network infrastructure with routing impact"    are to be considered
> non-discrete.

Jimmy - Read the policy text. There is no definition of a _discrete_
network contained therein.  It's fairly easy to distinguish some
discrete networks from the examples, but it is not clear at all 
how interconnected network infrastructure qualifies as "discrete".

> If the applicant can determine that their networks are discrete based
> on the criteria
> for operating discrete networks, then their networks are discrete,
> regardless of the
> technical possibility of reallocating existing allocations.

Correct, as I note above.

> Second,   just because it's technically feasible for "existing
> allocations to be reallocated"
> across interconnected network infrastructure,  does not mean it would
> be appropriate
> to do so.  There may be a performance or cost impact that causes this
> to be extremely
> problematic.     There may be a reliability impact with regards to the
> operator's network
> design, and survivability requirements,   there might be legal issues, etc.

Exactly, and we ask exactly those type of questions searching for a
compelling need for their treatment of their interconnected network 
infrastructure as "multiple discrete networks".


John Curran
President and CEO

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list