[arin-ppml] ARIN Multiple Discrete Networks Policy

Heather Schiller heather.skanks at gmail.com
Thu Oct 6 01:42:52 EDT 2011

I read the full thread, but feel like there is some other part of the
picture here that we are not seeing...

You are claiming geographic distance and diversity..for a single
network, under a single ASN, with a location at X and a location at Y
(presumably very far apart, with different providers servicing them?)
..and until now, you had a single allocation or assignment, that was
subnetted between X and Y.   Now X needs space and Y has some
available space - are you saying that because of routing policy you
can not pull address space from Y for X?  or is it because of your
existing utilization/subnetting design that you can't use space from Y
for X?   Are the netblocks you have available in Y smaller than /24?
Is that part of why they can't be moved?  If so, I could understand
saying "I can't move the available space across the country, because
the block would be too small to be globally announced by my upstream-
resulting in off net traffic being drawn to my other location/provider
resulting in a suboptimal path (if any..)"  Or is it just that you
don't want to deaggregate the prefix you currently have?  How is the
diversity of your connectivity forcing you to have a unique routing

Part of me thinks that MDN for IPv4 has seen its time, and the policy
should be obsoleted.  We are at rearranging the deckchairs time for
IPv4 and massive deaggregation is very likely going to be the next
step.  Folks should be making the most efficient use of the space they
have, where they can, possibly sacrificing some aggregation in the
process.  I think that day is coming, just not sure if its here
already or not.  I suppose that depends on how altruistic we feel
about being efficient with what we've already been allocated, so that
resources are available for others.


On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 8:33 PM, Richard A Steenbergen <ras at e-gerbil.net> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 03, 2011 at 10:29:06PM +0000, John Curran wrote:
>> The policy text does not reference unique routing policies.
> Even Owen, who is trying desperately to disagree with me (I'll pass on
> any particular speculations as to why :P), has stated that a discrete
> network is one which must implement unique routing policies.
> Since I apparently need to cite examples from every previous e-mail
> every time now, allow me to point out his attempt to "clarify the
> current defintion":
>> Insert new 4.5.3: Discrete networks are separate networks which have
>> cannot usefully share a common routing policy. Examples might include
>> networks with any of the following characteristics:
> So, if a network has one of the (previously defined in the policy
> language) characteristics, and thus cannot usefully hsare a common
> routing policy, they have discrete networks AND good justification for
> running discrete networks. I'm more than happy to have this
> clarification passed as a policy change, since it's just restating how
> it "already is".
>> 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' "
> I believe I outlined how "separate unique globally routable address
> space" equates to "unique routing policies" in a previous e-mail, but
> let me know if you didn't understand it and I'll be happy to try and
> explain it again.
>> > 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_
> Uh huh... Funny, I would have thought that meeting one of the example
> "compelling reasons" listed in the policy would serve as proof that you
> have a compelling reason. Meanwhile, you seem to feel that you need to
> add new, undocumented conditions to the example "compelling reasons" in
> order to justify a compelling reason. I fail to see how this makes any
> kind of sense, or can be justified under the current policy.
>> > 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.
> No really I didn't, and this is the part you keep failing to understand!
> All I said was that I could potentially work around the need for this
> policy by doing something in a suboptimal way, but in the SAME WAY that
> everyone else could be too. If you think that everyone else can't do it
> too, you're confused, but fortunately the policy says NOTHING about "you
> must not be able to do this any other way". Maybe I should have just
> lied and saved myself the trouble, but I was trying to educate you on
> the practical realities of routing on the Internet. I guess no good deed
> goes unpunished, and all of that.
>> 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.
> I believe Owen has already done this for us, and I'm happy to support
> his proposal.
>> 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_.
> *NO* it absolutely would not! The fact that you keep saying this
> indicates a clear and massive misunderstanding somewhere, which is what
> I keep trying to correct!
> Having a network with a unique routing policy is a STATE OF BEING. It is
> EASY to do, all you have to do is GO CONFIGURE IT AS SUCH. This is in NO
> WAY justification for doing so, and it is certainly not justification
> for obtaining any kind of special treatment from ARIN. For that, you
> need to have a COMPELLING REASON to *BE* in that state, which the
> current policy defines (quite well too, if you would stop trying to make
> up random undocumented rules just because you think you should be :P).
> --
> 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)
> _______________________________________________
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list