[arin-ppml] ARIN Multiple Discrete Networks Policy

[John Curran]

On Sep 29, 2011, at 10:10 PM, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:

> On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 01:30:58PM -0700, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> As one involved in the authorship of said policy, permit me to clarify?
>> 
>> The actual intent of the policy is not related to aggregation, but, is 
>> so that, for example, an entity that ran multiple content source data 
>> centers that grew at different paces and operated independently from 
>> each other without necessarily having (adequate) bandwidth connecting 
>> those data centers could get separate allocations for each datacenter 
>> that allowed them to get additional space for the one that was at 80% 
>> while the others might still be nowhere near "efficient utilization".
>> 
>> Specifically, this is designed to address the circumstance where the 
>> allocations cannot be aggregated and must be announced separately.
> 
> I understand the point of the policy, and agree with it completely, but 
> that isn't the issue.
> 
> Lets consider your specific example, 2 discrete networks which operate 
> independantly from each other, where one grows at a faster pace than the 
> other and needs more IPs before the aggregate utilization of both 
> networks would otherwise provide justification. ARIN is essentially 
> saying that if you "CAN" solve this problem by "stealing" space from 
> discrete network #1 and announcing it via discrete network #2, even if 
> this means flooding the Internet with a bunch of deaggregates in the 
> process, then you don't "NEED" the policy and therefore don't qualify. 
> My point is that almost every network "CAN" do this today, but that 
> doesn't mean that they SHOULD. :)

Richard - In the example, are the two hypothetical networks operating
without any significant common authority (e.g. as seen by corporations 
with distinct business units for different networks, i.e. autonomous) 
or simply operated by different teams

If the former, then the MDN policy clearly notes "Autonomous multihomed 
discrete networks" as an example of a compelling reason.  As Owen noted,
the policy was designed to "to address the circumstance where the allocations 
*cannot* (emphasis added) be aggregated and must be announced separately.
In the past, ISPs in such situations either could not obtain additional
space or had to resort to asserting multiple maintainer organizations.

Obviously, we can change the policy to also address the case where the 
default ISP additional space policy results in having to finely divide
allocations in small pieces among POPs (in order to handle differing POP
growth rates), but that should be discussed by the community first to 
determine it is a desirable policy change.  

Does anyone strong feel that such a change is desirable, or strongly 
feel that it is not desirable, and would like to express their views
(hopefully with their reasoning for such a viewpoint?)

Thanks!
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN