[ppml] 2002-2: Experimental Internet Resource Allocations

Leslie Daigle leslie at thinkingcat.com
Mon Apr 7 14:33:30 EDT 2003

I personally think Geoff Huston's proposed revision (posted to this
mailing list on April 4, 2003) is considerably improved
over this proposal, but I have some general questions/concerns
about the overall concept.

1/  What problem is this proposal intended to solve?
That experimental allocations have been done on an 
ad hoc basis, or that they have been done through IETF/IANA?

I can certainly appreciate the impetus to move beyond
ad hoc mechanisms.  But the proposal (this version & 
Geoff's posted revision) addresses both points above.
Some explanation as to why the IETF involvement should
be deprecated would be helpful.

2/  Context -- are there specific cases histories
that have been problematic (for the RIRs, therefore prompting
this policy proposal)?  

(I don't think an answer to this question would affect
the text of the proposal; but having that as part of the
discussion would help with the "what problem are we trying to
solve?" question).

3/  The proposal (at least Geoff's revised version) suggests
codifying changes to IETF process (that the IETF will liaise
with the RIRs before publishing documents describing
experiments that require experimental allocations).   While
this certainly seems like a good idea, some dialoguing
between the RIRs & the IETF, and probably the publication
of a consensus-based RFC, are required in order to make that

4/  What is "an experiment"?  

a) A measurement effort using deployed standards-based protocols?
  (I.e., an effort requesting experimental allocations because
  the participants will not have the normal channels to obtain
  IP addresses/ASNs, or for which it is advisable/necessary
  to have all addresses from the same block, etc).

b) A testbed for new technology (i.e., not standards)?  (E.g.,
  the 6bone).

If b) (or "a) and b)"), I think further provision for technical
review (in my personal opinion, by the IETF, which is the Internet
protocol standards body) is needed.   The argument is that 
you need input from a broad range of perspectives that understand
impacts on all layers of the Internet to judge whether an experimental
technology will have adverse impact on the Internet at large.
Additionally, experimental deployment of novel technologies
is a pretty short step from enabling de facto standards ("running
code") irrespective of the quality or impact of the technology
itself.  Is ARIN really intending to become an arbiter of deployed
technology choices?


Member Services wrote:
> This policy proposal is being re-posted to the public
> policy mailing list to encourage continued discussion.
> This policy proposal was previously discussed on this
> mailing list and at the ARIN X Public Policy Meeting.
> Following previous discussions on this mailing list
> and at the ARIN X Public Policy Meeting, it has been
> determined consensus to pass this proposal as a new
> policy has not yet been achieved.
> Member Services
> American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)
> ### * ###
> Policy Proposal 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 standards bodies, such as 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 recognised experiment in Internet technology 
> deployment. The following policy is proposed: 
> The RIRs will allocate Numbering Resources to entities requiring 
> temporary Numbering Resources for a fixed period of time under 
> the terms of recognised experimental activity. 
> The following criteria for this policy are proposed: 
> 1. Public Disclosure of Experimental Requests 
> The organisation requesting the resources will have to detail 
> what experimental work they are going to carry out. Such detail 
> can usually be made either: 
>   * by submitting a proposal that references a current IETF 
>     Experimental RFC (Detail Two), or 
>   * by submitting an 'experiment proposal' detailing what 
>     resources are required, and what activities will be 
>     carried out (Detail Three).
> Such experimental proposals will, in the normal course of events 
> be made public upon acceptance of the proposal by an RIR. 
> Consideration will be given to non-disclosure constraints, but 
> this is anticipated to be a prohibitive constraint upon the use 
> of public Numbering Resources, even in an experimental context. 
> The RIR will not allocate resources if the entire research 
> experiment cannot be publicly disclosed as per Details Two and 
> Three following.
> 2. Resource Coordination with Standards Development Bodies
> The IETF from time to time describes experimental activities and 
> associated requirements for resources that will be required by 
> participants in the experiment. It is considered as being 
> acceptable for the organisation to reference a current Experimental 
> RFC and indicate the organisation's participation in the experiment. 
> Organisations such as the IETF, who describe experimental 
> activities as part of their standards development process, need to 
> consider the associated Numbering Resource requirements with any 
> proposed experiment, and under this proposal will need to liaise 
> with the RIRs as part of the process of publishing a draft as an 
> experimental RFC. 
> 3. Resource Coordination with Independent Experiments
> For experimental proposals not covered by Detail Two, the RIR will 
> require the experiment's aims and objectives to be published in a 
> publicly accessible document. 
> The RIRs have a strong preference for the use of an Experimental 
> RFC published through the IETF, but will accept other publication 
> mechanisms where the experiment's objectives and practices are 
> publicly and openly available free of charges and free of any 
> constraints of disclosure. 
> The RIRs would also normally require that the experiment's 
> outcomes be published in an openly and freely available document, 
> again free of charges and free of any constraints of disclosure. 
> 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 the issuing RIR providing information as per in Detail One. The 
> identity and details of the applicant and the allocated Numbering 
> Resources will be published under the conditions of the RIR's 
> normal publication policy (for example, listed as a temporary 
> allocation in the RIR's database). 
> 5. Single Resource Allocation per Experiment 
> The RIR will make one-off allocations only, on an annual basis. 
> Additional allocations outside the annual cycle will not be made 
> unless justified by a subsequent complete application. It's 
> important for the requesting organisation to ensure they have 
> sufficient resources requested as part of their initial application 
> for the proposed experimental use. 
> 6. Resource Allocation Fees
> Each RIR 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 RIR 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 RIR minimum allocation sizes, unless small 
> allocations are intended to be explicitly part of the experiment. 
> If an organisation requires more resource than stipulated by the 
> minimum allocation sizes in force at the time of their request, 
> they should include in their research proposal 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 the 
> RIR, the issuing RIR reserves the right to immediately withdraw 
> the resource and reassign it to the free pool. 
> 9. Resource Request Appeal or Arbitration 
> The RIRs should be in a position to assess and comment on the 
> objectives of the experiment with regard to the requested amount 
> of Numbering Resources. The issuing RIR should be able 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 procedures of the RIR. In this case, 
> the original standards body that endorsed the experimental action 
> may be requested to provide additional information regarding the 
> experiment and its objectives to assist in the resolution of the 
> appeal. 


      Yours to discover."
                                 -- ThinkingCat 

Leslie Daigle
leslie at thinkingcat.com

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list