[ppml] 2002-02 Address space allocations for experimental pur poses

[Bill Darte]

>From below..........
> 
> 2. Technical Coordination
> 
> ARIN requires that a recognized experimental activity is able to
> demonstrate that the activity is technically coordinated.
> 
>     Technical coordination specifically includes consideration of any
>     potential negative impact of the propsed experiment on the
>     operation of the Internet and its deployed services, and
>     consideration of any related experimental activity.
> 
> ARIN will use a designated expert reviewer to review experimental
> activities to ensure that the activity is technically coordinated. The
> reviewer may liaise with the IETF to complete this review.
> 
I believe that the paragraph above could be stated as follows...

ARIN will review planned experimental activities to ensure that they are
technically coordinated.  
This review will be conducted with ARIN and/or third-party expertise and
will include liaison with the IETF.

This removes the connotation that 'an expert' will be involved rather than
what is more likely a committee of review.
It also states what is implicit.... that the coordination review will take
place prior to the experimental allocation.

If a continuous liaison with IETF is needed to ensure continuing technical
coordination is supported, then the last sentence could read.....
This review will be conducted with ARIN and/or third-party expertise and
will include continuous liaison with the IETF throughout the experiment.

If this helps, I'm gratified. If not, well.... it was only a tweak anyway.

Bill Darte
ARIN AC

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Geoff Huston [mailto:gih at telstra.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2002 8:07 PM
> To: ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [ppml] 2002-02 Address space allocations for experimental
> purposes
> 
> 
> A few comments to Ted's note and a proposed revision/edit to 
> the policy.
> 
> Firstly it is true that there are wide variety of experiments 
> that are 
> conducted on the Internet today that use existing allocated number 
> resources, and the extent to which these experiments are coordinated 
> technically with various folk who perceive that they have 
> some interest in 
> this is a matter for the experimenters. Such activities fall 
> outside the 
> scope of this policy proposal.
> 
> There have been in the past a number of experiments that have 
> some direct 
> relationship with address allocation. The experimental use of 
> 39.0.0.0/8 in 
> the early days of CIDR deployment is a fine example. 
> Experiments in the 
> dynamic behaviour of the  BGP routing system using particular 
> test address 
> prefixes could concievably be another such experiment. (Note that I'm 
> attempting to illustrate the scope of such activities, rather 
> than enter in 
> to a discussion of the metirs or otherwise of such examples)
> 
> The observation is that there is no clear way in the current 
> IETF / IANA / 
> RIR environment for this latter type of experiment to be 
> undertaken. It is 
> my understanding of the worrent working relationships between 
> these bodes 
> that the IETF cannot undertake temporary address alssignments 
> to end users 
> for such experiments, and that the IANA undertakes address 
> allocations to 
> RIRs, so that the IANA is in no position to undertake this 
> role either. And 
> right now there is no RIR policy to undertake such 
> assignments outside of 
> the conventional policies. This policy is intended to allow 
> the RIRs, and 
> in this case ARIN in particular, to undertake such temporary address 
> assignments.
> 
> The basic question here is of course is "what is an 
> experiment in this 
> context"?
> 
> Obviously this is a difficult question to rigidly define in 
> advance, so the 
> proposal attempts instead to document how an experiment that proposes 
> temporary use of Internet number resources should be 
> described. The lowest 
> common denominator is that the use of such resources should 
> be justified in 
> a public experiment proposal.
> 
> Over and above this lowest common denominator there is a 
> stated preference 
> for documented experiments that exhibit some background of technical 
> coordination - obviously there is some reticence by all of us 
> to support 
> experiments that may have some negative impact on the 
> operation of the 
> Internet. The policy proposal points to the IETF as a 
> preferred venue for 
> such technical coordination and uses a reference to 
> experimental RFCs as a 
> demonstration of an experiment proposal that has been subject to some 
> review within the IETF that would include consideration of technical 
> coordination.
> 
> Comments I have received on this preference have included 
> observations of 
> the extended time for an experiment proposal to be published 
> by the IETF as 
> an experimental RFC, and one concrete proposal to address 
> this was to use 
> the wording of a document that has achieved "IETF consensus"  
> where this 
> consensus is described in RFC 2434. This would allow Internet 
> drafts to be 
> referenced, under the specific circumstances where the draft 
> has achieved 
> this consensus. Of course this poses the issue of how the 
> RIRs could, as an 
> external body, clearly identify the difference between a 
> draft that has 
> achieved this consensus and one that has not. One proposed 
> refinement of 
> this is to allow the RIRs to refer such experiment proposals 
> to some form 
> of liaison with the IETF.
> 
> Another comment I've received is that there is an Internet 
> Research Task 
> Force and it too may have a motivation to propose such an 
> experiment. It is 
> not clear that an IRTF proposal along these lines should also need to 
> obtain IESG approval via this proposed RFC 2434 IETF consensus.
> 
> I have also revieved various comments along the lines that "all such 
> proposed experiments should be described in such a RFC 2434 
> IETF consensus 
> document" and other comments that "this is desireable but 
> should not be a 
> mandatory constraint".
> 
>  From all these discussions I've noted that there appears to a rough 
> consensus that some form of technical coordination is prudent and 
> responsible for such experiment proposals, bit some variation 
> on how this 
> technical coordination should be undertaken.
> 
> I would suggest that Ted's suggestion of using the ARIN 
> Advicory Council as 
> a "designated expert reviewer" is a way forward, and if you 
> combine this 
> with the option for the designated expert reviewer to utilize 
> a liaison 
> mechanism with the IETF to obtain specific advice on matters 
> of technical 
> coordination then this could address many of the 
> uncertainties that have 
> been voiced about this proposal (obviously some of the 
> comments have been 
> direct opposites and I'm not claiming that this is a full 
> synthesis of all 
> comments).
> 
> So in that vein I would like to propose, as an individual 
> contribution to 
> this ARIN consideration of this proposed policy, a re-wording 
> of the policy 
> proposal - it attempts to rephrase the first three sections 
> to make them 
> clearer,
> as well as taking into account the considerations noted in 
> text above, and 
> includes the designated expert reviewer role. It also 
> specifically words 
> this as an ARIN policy, as I understand that the other RIRs 
> have / are 
> considering different wording in their regions.
> 
> kind regards,
> 
>    Geoff
> 
> ================================================
> 
> 
> 2002-2: Experimental Internet Resource Allocations
> 
> There have been a number of experimental address allocations
> undertaken in the Internet over the past decade. These experimental
> address allocations have been made by the IANA in coordination with
> the IETF, on an ad hoc basis. There is currently no systematic means
> of receiving other Numbering Resources on a temporary basis as part of
> a recognized experiment in Internet technology deployment. The
> following policy is proposed:
> 
> ARIN will allocate Numbering Resources to entities requiring temporary
> Numbering Resources for a fixed period of time under the terms of
> recognized experimental activity.
> 
> The following criteria for this policy are proposed:
> 
> 1. Documentation of recognized experimental activity
> 
> A Recognized Experimental Activity is one where the experiment's
> objectives and practices are described in a publicly accessible
> document. It is a normal requirement that a Recognized Experimantal
> Activity also includes the undertaking that the experiment's outcomes
> also be published in a publically accessible document.
> 
>      A "publically accessible document" is a document that is publicly
>      and openly available free of charges and free of any constraints
>      of disclosure.
> 
> ARIN will not recognize an experimental activity under this policy if
> the entire research experiment cannot be publicly disclosed.
> 
> ARIN has a strong preference for the recognition of experimental
> activity documentation in the form of a document which has achieved
> "IETF consensus" as described in RFC 2434.
> 
> 2. Technical Coordination
> 
> ARIN requires that a recognized experimental activity is able to
> demonstrate that the activity is technically coordinated.
> 
>     Technical coordination specifically includes consideration of any
>     potential negative impact of the propsed experiment on the
>     operation of the Internet and its deployed services, and
>     consideration of any related experimental activity.
> 
> ARIN will use a designated expert reviewer to review experimental
> activities to ensure that the activity is technically coordinated. The
> reviewer may liaise with the IETF to complete this review.
> 
> 
> 3. Coordination over Resource Use
> 
> When the IETF's standards development process proposes a change in the
> use of Numbering Resources on an experimental basis the IETF should
> use a liaison mechanism with the Regional Internet Registries (RIRs)
> of this proposal. The RIRs will jointly or severally respond to the
> IETF using the same liaison mechanism.
> 
> 
> 4. Resource Allocation Term and Renewal
> 
> The Numbering Resources are allocated on a lease/license basis for a
> period of one year. The allocation can be renewed on application to
> ARIN providing information as per Detail One. The identity and details
> of the applicant and the allocated Numbering Resources will be
> published under the conditions of ARIN's normal publication policy.
> 
> 5. Single Resource Allocation per Experiment
> 
> ARIN will make one-off allocations only, on an annual basis to any
> applicant. Additional allocations to an organization already holding
> experimental activity resources relating to the specified activity
> outside the annual cycle will not be made unless justified by a
> subsequent complete application.
> 
>      It's important for the requesting organization to ensure 
> they have
>      sufficient resources requested as part of their initial
>      application for the proposed experimental use.
> 
> 6. Resource Allocation Fees
> 
> ARIN may charge an administration fee to cover each allocation made of
> these experimental resources. This fee simply covers registration and
> maintenance, rather than the full allocation process for standard ARIN
> members. This administration fee should be as low as possible as these
> requests do not have to undergo the same evaluation process as those
> requested in the normal policy environment.
> 
> 7. Resource Allocation Size
> 
> The Numbering Resources requested come from the global Internet
> Resource space, and are not from private or other non-routable
> Internet Resource space. The allocation size should be consistent with
> the existing ARIN minimum allocation sizes, unless small
> allocations are intended to be explicitly part of the experiment. If
> an organization requires more resource than stipulated by the minimum
> allocation sizes in force at the time of their request, their
> experimental documentation should have clearly described and justified
> why this is required.
> 
> 8. Commercial Use Prohibited
> 
> If there is any evidence that the temporary resource is being used for
> commercial purposes, or is being used for any activities not
> documented in the original experiment description provided to ARIN,
> ARIN reserves the right to immediately withdraw the resource and
> reassign it to the free pool.
> 
> 9. Resource Request Appeal or Arbitration
> 
> ARIN reserves the ability to assess and comment on the objectives of
> the experiment with regard to the requested amount of Numbering
> Resources and its technical coordination. ARIN reserves the ability to
> modify the requested allocation as appropriate, and in agreement with
> the proposer. In the event that the proposed modifications are not
> acceptable, the requesting organization may request an appeal or
> arbitration using the normal ARIN procedures. In this case, the
> original proposer of the experimental activity may be requested to
> provide additional information regarding the experiment, its
> objectives and the manner of technical coordination, to assist in the
> resolution of the appeal.
> 
> ================================================
> 
>