[arin-ppml] ARIN Multiple Discrete Networks Policy

John Curran jcurran at arin.net
Mon Oct 3 18:29:06 EDT 2011

On Oct 3, 2011, at 5:00 PM, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:

> On Mon, Oct 03, 2011 at 04:56:51PM +0000, John Curran wrote:
>> Do you have a compelling reason to implement _discrete_ networks
>> or simply unique routing policies?  You have again equated the
>> two, despite lack of any policy language which supports that.
>> As written, the policy doesn't provide any basis for consideration of 
>> the routing as a basis for _discrete networks_. There is a basis for 
>> viewing regulatory restrictions for data transmission, geographic 
>> distance and diversity requirements, and autonomous multihomed 
>> discrete networks as being compelling reasons for discrete networks:
> Annnnnnd now we go back to that other argument again, weeee....
> 1) So far everyone who has responded to this thread has said that a 
> requirement to implement unique routing policies *IS* what defines a 
> discrete network.

The policy text does not reference unique routing policies.

> 2) The policy itself DOES provide a link between the need for unique 
> routing policies and the need to implement discrete networks, right 
> here:
>> Some organizations have requirements for multiple discrete networks 
>> that need individual address allocations. Discrete networks must often 
>> have separate unique globally routable address space and will often 
>> grow at different rates.

Did you cut and paste the wrong section?  Please resend the section
which refers to "unique routing policies".   You quoted a section 
regarding "Separate unique 'globally routable' address space' "

> Geographic distance and diversity requirements:
>>  "While I do have what appears to be a single network, I've already
>>   allocated address blocks to my POPs which I cannot rearrange and 
>>   I cannot transit traffic between these two sets of POP due to 
>>   the geographic distance and latency would result, and/or the lack
>>   of redundancy in the my services that would result... Hence, we
>>   consider those two sets of POPs to be discrete networks."
> What does "I've already allocated address blocks to my POPs, which I 
> cannot rearrange", have to do with "geographic distance and diversity 
> requirements"? Where does this language come from? What is your basis in 
> the policy to support this claim?

You need a 'compelling reason' to have your infrastructure considered
_multiple discrete networks_

> When has this claim ever been applied 
> to any other MDN applicant? And for the record, that part *IS* 
> completely true in my specific situation, so it's not even a blocker, 
> but it's also complete nonsense too, and needs to be called out as such.

Richard - If that part is completely true in your situation, then please 
reapply asap. You indicated otherwise on your last request to ARIN for 
space under the MDN policy.

>> *These are all COMPELLING REASONS for treating the infrastructure as 
>> having _discrete networks_ precisely because they preclude the use of 
>> network routing to make the existing allocation serve all of the 
>> POPs.*
> They are compelling reasons *BECAUSE*... wait for it... they require you 
> to implement unique routing policies... Welcome to the definition of 
> discrete network!

Again, they are compelling reasons for treating your infrastructure as 
_multiple discrete networks_.   There is no reference to unique routing 
policies in the MDN policy.

> To be clear, I really don't give a $%^(* about the allocation itself. I 
> *CAN* get plenty of address space by doing things the hard way, I'm just 
> trying to explain how woefully confused you are in the interests of not 
> creating an even bigger mess for the Internet in general.

If that's the case, then the most constructive path would be to propose 
unequivocal text for an MDN policy change.  If you believe that "discrete
networks" are "networks that implement unique routing policies" then that
would be a fine change.   That would also result in the elimination of ARIN 
having to determine if a "compelling reason" was present at all, since with 
such a definition, since we would simply be able to ask:  "Do you have two 
or more networks with unique routing policies?", and if the applicant said 
"yes", then they would meet the MDN policy by having _multiple discrete 
networks_ per definition of _discrete network_.


John Curran
President and CEO

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list