[ppml] 2002-2: Experimental Internet Resource Allocations
pwilson at apnic.net
Tue Apr 8 23:59:35 EDT 2003
As you may know, APNIC passed an experimental allocations policy last year.
The relevant document is available at:
Here are some comments which I think represent the general thinking on this
in our part of the world.
> 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?
The problem from APNIC's point of view is that APNIC members or others in
this community may have had needs for address space for experimental
purposes, and yet our policies made no accomodation for this. A suggestion
was made that APNIC implement a simple policy recognising this need and
providing resources specifically for the purpose, and specifically a for
limited time basis. This policy was proposed at an APNIC meeting, and at no
stage did anyone suggest that
the policy was inappropriate or outside APNIC's scope.
> 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.
In APNIC's case, it was never the intention that IETF's involvement be
deprecated. In fact section 6.1 of the doc above says specifically that an
allocation can be made where the requirement is described in an experimental
RFC. An early draft of the document included only this provision, however
it was later suggested to add an alternative which is described in 6.2:
6.2 Alternative publication approved by APNIC
Experiments may be eligible for an allocation if they are
described in a document that is available free of charge and
publicly accessible in a forum approved by APNIC.
Under this criterion, APNIC has the sole discretion to
determine whether such an experiment is eligible. To do so,
APNIC may liaise with IETF working groups, other standards
bodies, RIRs, or Internet experts to evaluate the status of
the document, the validity of the experiment it describes,
and the Internet resource requirements of the experiment.
The requestors must specifically refer to the published
document, describe their participation in the experiment, and
provide a summary of the experiment which details their
requirement for Internet resources.
> 2/ Context -- are there specific cases histories
> that have been problematic (for the RIRs, therefore prompting
> this policy proposal)?
Proposed experimental uses have entered into the APNIC request process in
the past, and have been dealt with in accordance with the circumstances.
The proponents of the policy in this case anticipated more such requests,
and although we have not made an experimental allocation yet, I believe that
a couple of requests may be in the pipeline (not yet submitted to APNIC).
> 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).
Surely either would be candidates. The APNIC policy does not attempt to
describe the term precisely; however you will also find that APNIC policies
lack precise descriptions of many important terms, not least "ISP",
"operational network", "multihome" and many others. A critical
responsibility of the RIRs is in fact to make judgements as to how specific
cases can be treated within the policy framework which must be open to some
interpretation. It is simply impossible for us to operate otherwise.
> 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?
As you see, 6.1 of the APNIC policy allows experimental allocations
specifically for the purposes of experimental RFCs, and section 6.2 goives
specific provision for liaison with IETF and/or other standards or expert
bodies. I can certainly imagine requests which relate to some application
which is outside of IETF scope, and in which the IETF would have no opinion
I hope this helps.
From: owner-ppml at arin.net [mailto:owner-ppml at arin.net] On Behalf Of Leslie
Sent: Tuesday, 8 April 2003 4:34 AM
To: ppml at arin.net
Subject: Re: [ppml] 2002-2: Experimental Internet Resource Allocations
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
(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 happen.
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.,
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."
leslie at thinkingcat.com
More information about the ARIN-PPML