[arin-ppml] ARIN Multiple Discrete Networks Policy

Richard A Steenbergen ras at e-gerbil.net
Mon Oct 3 08:56:53 EDT 2011

On Mon, Oct 03, 2011 at 12:10:06AM -0700, Owen DeLong wrote:
> Admittedly, it uses the word criteria instead of reason, but, I think 
> picking apart the synonyms really isn't necessary. The meaning seems 
> relatively clear to me and it indicates that you need a compelling 
> reason (criteria) for not giving the networks a common routing policy.

Owen, please read what I said again, I think we're actually in complete 
agreement here.

So far what you've said is:

a) You need a compelling reason to operate multiple discrete networks.
b) The policy defines some examples compelling reasons for this.
c) Not having a common routing policy equates to discrete networks.

I couldn't agree more with any of the above.

What John is saying is that, in addition to the compelling REASON 
criteria of the policy, there is also a phantom compelling NEED 
criteria. 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. He then 
goes on to say that there is no definition equating having unique 
routing policies with "discrete networks", and therefore he gets to make 
up any definition for "discrete network" that he likes, and the 
definition he uses just happens to include this non-existant compelling 
NEED logic.

You're absolutely right, the meaning of the policy is QUITE clear and we 
both have the same interpretation of it. The problem is that ARIN does 
not agree.

Richard A Steenbergen <ras at e-gerbil.net>       http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras
GPG Key ID: 0xF8B12CBC (7535 7F59 8204 ED1F CC1C 53AF 4C41 5ECA F8B1 2CBC)

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list