[arin-ppml] ARIN Multiple Discrete Networks Policy

John Curran jcurran at arin.net
Fri Sep 30 23:15:20 EDT 2011

On Sep 30, 2011, at 10:20 PM, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:

> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 10:41:37PM +0000, John Curran wrote:
>> If network #2 is the mobile wireless business unit, it might be next
>> to impossible to reallocate the space once it's been allocated.
> How so? They can't work SWIP? Everyone else manages to do it just fine. 
> Are you saying that every recipient of a multiple discrete network 
> allocation is someone in some goofy circumstance of corporate insanity? 
> Because it seems to me that anyone who can work SWIP and BGP is 
> perfectly capable of having network #1 steal a /24 from network #2's 
> space, and thus by your logic make the MDN policy apply to almost no 
> one.

You are presuming that the two networks are not autonomous.  If they
are truly autonomous, then they don't readily return the space and an
organization cannot overcome running out of space on network #1 unless
there is an MDN policy.

>> Your interpretation is incorrect, but that does not mean that a policy 
>> change to allow for improved aggregation for additional ISP requests 
>> is not worth considering.  Hopefully, we can get some discussion here 
>> of the value of such a change, and whether it should be for all ISPs, 
>> ISPs who have distinct AS routing domains, or some other criteria.
> I'm completely baffled how you can say in one breath "the policy exists 
> to handle the situation where the allocations cannot be aggregated and 
> must be announced separately", and then say "the policy has nothing to 
> do with aggregation" in the next.

I did not say that it has no effect on aggregation.  I said that the
point of the policy is not to improve aggregation; the policy exists
to allow organizations to readily obtain address space as a single
organization under criteria applicable when there are multiple discrete 
networks for a compelling reason.

Again, this is clearly described in the original policy submission: 

> The logic seems blindly clear to me:
> IF you have a compelling reason to run multiple discrete networks
> THEN you have a circumstance where things must be annouced separately
> IF you have a circumstance where things must be announced separately
> THEN the policy exists to help you obtain address space

The actual policy text is much simpler:

  If you meet compelling criteria for creating discrete networks, then the 
  policy exists to help you obtain address space as a single organization.

I'd recommend either redefining "multiple discrete networks" to have 
a clear technical definition in the policy, or refining the existing 
examples so one of them directly meets your specific needs (e.g. removal 
of the term "autonomous" or changing it to an AS reference instead.)


John Curran
President and CEO

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list