Network Working Group V. Cerf
Request for Comments: 1174 CNRI
August 1990
IAB Recommended Policy on Distributing Internet Identifier Assignment
and
IAB Recommended Policy Change to Internet "Connected" Status
Status of this Memo
This informational RFC represents the official view of the Internet
Activities Board (IAB), and describes the recommended policies and
procedures on distributing Internet identifier assignments and
dropping the connected status requirement. This RFC does not specify
a standard. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
Table of Contents
Status of this Memo............................................... 1
Overview.......................................................... 1
1. Recommendation about Internet Identifiers..................... 2
1.1. Summary..................................................... 2
1.2. Introduction................................................ 2
1.3. Proposed Method of Operation................................ 2
2. Recommendation about Connected Status......................... 3
2.1. Summary..................................................... 3
2.2. Introduction................................................ 3
2.3. Recommendations............................................. 4
2.a.1. Attachment 1.............................................. 4
2.a.1.1. Summary................................................. 4
2.a.1.2. Background.............................................. 4
2.a.1.3. Recommendation.......................................... 6
2.a.1.4. Discussion.............................................. 7
2.a.2. Attachment 2.............................................. 8
Security Considerations........................................... 8
Author's Address.................................................. 9
Overview
This RFC includes two recommendations from the IAB to the FNC. The
first is a "Recommended Policy on Distributing Internet Identifier
Assignment", that is, a suggestion to distribute the function of
assigning network and autonomous system numbers. The second is a
"Recommended Policy Change to Internet 'Connected' Status", that is,
a suggestion to drop the notion of connected status in favor of
recording the acceptable use policy and traffic access policy for
each network. Included in this second recommendation is the explict
Cerf [Page 1]
RFC 1174 Identifier Assignment and Connected Status August 1990
suggestion that any registered network may be entered into the DNS
database without regard to connected status.
1. Recommendation about Internet Identifiers
To: Chairman, Federal Networking Council
From: Chairman, Internet Activities Board
CC: IAB, IESG
Subject: Recommended Policy on Distributing Internet
Identifier Assignment
1.1. Summary
This document recommends procedures for distributing assignment of
Internet identifiers (network and autonomous system numbers).
1.2. Introduction
Throughout its entire history, the Internet system has employed a
central Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) for the allocation
and assignment of various numeric identifiers needed for the
operation of the Internet. The IANA function is performed by USC
Information Sciences Institute. The IANA has the discretionary
authority to delegate portions of this responsibility and, with
respect to numeric network and autonomous system identifiers, has
lodged this responsibility with an Internet Registry (IR). This
function is performed by SRI International at its Network Information
Center (DDN-NIC).
With the rapid escalation of the number of networks in the Internet
and its concurrent internationalization, it is timely to consider
further delegation of assignment and registration authority on an
international basis. It is also essential to take into consideration
that such identifiers, particularly network identifiers of class A
and B type, will become an increasingly scarce commodity whose
allocation must be handled with thoughtful care.
1.3. Proposed Method of Operation
It is proposed to retain the centralized IANA and IR functions.
The IR would continue to be the principal registry for all network
and autonomous system numbers. It would also continue to maintain
the list of root Domain Name System servers and a database of
registered nets and autonomous systems.
In addition, however, the IR would also allocate to organizations
approved by the Coordinating Committee for Intercontinental Research
Cerf [Page 2]
RFC 1174 Identifier Assignment and Connected Status August 1990
Networking (CCIRN) blocks of network and autonomous system numbers,
as needed, and delegate to them further assignment authority.
It is recommended that, at least initially, the IR serve as the
default registry in cases where no delegated registration authority
has been identified.
Copies of the aggregate Internet registration database(s) should be
maintained by the IR and copies provided to each delegated registry
to improve redundancy and access to this information. Updates to the
database, however, would still be centralized at the IR with complete
copies redistributed by file transfer or other means on a timely
basis.
It is recommended that candidate delegated registries meet with the
IANA and IR to review operational procedures and requirements and to
produce documentation to be issued as RFCs describing the details of
the proposed distributed mode of operation.
It is recommended that host Domain Name registration continue in its
present form which already accommodates distribution of this
function.
2. Recommendation about Connected Status
To: Chairman, Federal Networking Council (FNC)
From: Chairman, Internet Activities Board
CC: IAB, IESG
Subject: Recommended Policy Change to Internet "Connected" Status
2.1. Summary
This memorandum recommends a change in the current policy for
associating "connected" status to a subset of networks which have
been assigned an Internet identifier.
2.2. Introduction
In the following, the term Internet Assigned Number Authority (IANA)
refers to the organization which has primary authority to allocate
and assign numeric identifiers required for operation of the
Internet. This function is presently performed by USC Information
Sciences Institute. The term Internet Registry (IR) refers to the
organization which has the responsibility for gathering and
registering information about networks to which identifiers (network
numbers, autonomous system numbers) have been assigned by the IR. At
present, SRI International serves as the IR.
Cerf [Page 3]
RFC 1174 Identifier Assignment and Connected Status August 1990
Attachments (1) and (2) outline the rationale for and implications of
changing the current policy for associating "connected" status with
only a subset of networks which have been assigned Internet
identifiers.
2.3. Recommendations
The following actions are recommended:
1. The Internet Registry should be instructed to drop all
reference to "connected" status in its databases and in its forms
for Internet network and autonomous system registration.
2. The Internet Registry should be instructed to request brief
statements of acceptable network usage, access and transit policy
for external traffic (i.e., traffic entering from or exiting to
other networks) from each applicant for a network or autonomous
system identifier. For example, some networks conform to the
National Science Foundation acceptable use guidelines; other
networks will carry any traffic (e.g., common carriers); others
may prohibit transit use. Retrospective statements should be
gathered by the IR for networks already registered. Such
statements should be made available on-line and widely publicized.
3. The Internet Registry should be instructed to allow any
registered networks to be entered into the Domain Name Server
database without regard to "connected" status.
Attachment: (1) Recommendation for replacement of "Connected" Status
(2) Recommendation on DNS and Connectivity
2.a.1. Attachment 1
Recommendation for Replacement of "Connected" Status
2.a.1.1. Summary
A revision of the current Internet procedures controlling connection
to the Internet is recommended to solve urgent problems caused by
Internet growth both in the US and internationally. The
recommendation involves relaxation of the present "connected" status
rule and the creation of a policy database to guide network
administrators.
2.a.1.2. Background
With the demise of the ARPANET and the growth of a global Internet,
the administration and registration of Internet network numbers has
Cerf [Page 4]
RFC 1174 Identifier Assignment and Connected Status August 1990
outgrown its initially conceived client base: military, government
and government-sponsored research organizations. Since the
international growth has extended the Internet community to industry
and a broad range of academic and research institutions, we must re-
evaluate some of the criteria for assignment and use of Internet
network numbers.
In the early phases of the Internet research project, numbers were
assigned only to networks of organizations that were participating in
the research effort. Later, as the system became more stable and
expanded into a widespread infrastructure, other organizations with
networks were assigned network numbers and allowed to interconnect if
they were parts of the U.S. Government or sponsored by a Government
organization. To ensure global uniqueness, a single Internet
Registry (IR) was designated: the Defense Data Net Network
Information Center (DDN-NIC) at SRI International.
As the Internet protocols became popular in the commercial
marketplace, many organizations purchased and installed private
networks that needed network number assignments but were not intended
to be connected to the federally-sponsored system. The IR adopted a
policy of assigning network numbers to all who requested them, while
distinguishing networks permitted to link to the global Internet by
assigning them "connected" status. Essentially, this meant that the
network to which the number was assigned had the sanction of a U.S.
Government sponsoring organization to link to the Internet.
The present day Internet encompasses networks that serve as
intermediaries to access the federally-sponsored backbones. Many of
these intermediate networks were initiated under the sponsorship of
the National Science Foundation. Some have been founded without
federal assistance as consortia of using organizations. The
Government has expressed a desire that all such networks be self-
supporting, without the need for federal subsidy. To achieve this
goal, it has been essential for the intermediate networks to support
an increasingly varied range of users. A great many industrial
participants can be found on the intermediate level networks. Their
use of the federally-sponsored backbones is premised on the basis
that the traffic is in support of academic, scholarly or other
research work. The criteria for use of the intermediate level
networks alone is sometimes more relaxed and, in the cases of the
newly-formed commercial networks, there are no restrictions at all.
In essence, each network needs to be able to determine, on the basis
of its own criteria, with which networks it will interconnect and for
which networks it will support transit service. There is no longer a
simple binary correlation between "connected" status and acceptable
use policy. The matter becomes even more complex as we contemplate
Cerf [Page 5]
RFC 1174 Identifier Assignment and Connected Status August 1990
the large and growing number of non-U.S. networks joining the global
Internet. It is inappropriate to require that all of these networks
adhere to U.S. access and use criteria; rather, it can only be
required that the traffic they send through the federally-sponsored
networks be consistent with the federal criteria.
2.a.1.3. Recommendation
Since the concept of a single, global "connected" status is no longer
meaningful, it is recommended that it be retired and to define new
characteristics that could be used by networks within the Internet to
determine a specific network's eligibility to communicate with other
networks.
Some attributes which might be useful to track and could be used as
criteria to determine the acceptability of Internet traffic for
routing purposes include:
1) Country codes
2) Conformance to acceptable use policy for:
NSFNET, MILNET, NSI, ESnet, NORDUnet, ...
To implement this idea, the IR would update the current Internet-
Number-Template to query applicants for the necessary information.
This information would then be collected in a database containing,
for instance, a matrix of network numbers over policies. Note that
the policies might be presented in narrative form. In addition, the
usage policies of the various networks must be publicly available so
that applicants and other interested parties can be advised of policy
issues as they relate to various networks.
Under this proposal, the IR would be charged with the registration
and administration of the Internet number space but not with the
enforcement of policy. The IR should collect enough information to
permit network administrators to make intelligent decisions as to the
acceptability of traffic destined to or from each and every
legitimate Internet number. Enforcement of policies is discussed
below.
At a later step, we anticipate that it will be desirable to
distribute the IR function among multiple centers, e.g., with centers
on different continents. This should be straight-forward once the IR
function is divorced from policy enforcement.
Cerf [Page 6]
RFC 1174 Identifier Assignment and Connected Status August 1990
2.a.1.4. Discussion
It is already true in the current Internet that there are
restrictions on certain traffic on particular networks. For example,
two intermediate level networks that are willing to carry arbitrary
traffic can link with each other but are barred from passing
commercial traffic or any other traffic that is not for academic or
scholarly purposes across the federally-sponsored backbones.
Routing of traffic based upon acceptable-use policies requires a
technical ability known as "policy-based routing" (PBR). At the
present time, the PBR mechanism available in the Internet operates as
the level of an entire network; all users and hosts on a network are
subject to the same routes for a given destination. Using this PBR
mechanism, a network maintains routes (and provides transit services)
only for networks with compatible use policies. For an intermediate
level network, for example, the routing decisions must be made on the
basis of the network numbers assigned to the organizations; some
might be considered to have traffic conformant with federal use
policies and some might not.
Although it is much more fine-grained than the current "on or off"
rule of connected status, the use of PBR based on networks is still a
very coarse measure of control. Since the decision on acceptability
is made at the network level, one has to assign a set of
characteristics to all traffic emanating from or entering into a
given network to make this access control strategy work. Strict
application of such controls could prevent a commercial organization
from legitimately sending research or scholarly data across the
federal backbone (e.g., IBM needs to communicate with MCI and MERIT
about NSFNET, but other parts of IBM may need to communicate on
commercial matters). Organizations with a variety of uses might have
to artificially define several networks with which to associate
different use policies.
The practical result is that in order to support desirable usage
patterns, government-sponsored networks will sometimes have to depend
upon self-policing by traffic sources, rather than upon strict
mechanical enforcement of acceptable use policies. Higher certainty
on usage will have a cost in terms of limiting desirable access.
An important project now underway in the Internet Engineering Task
Force (IETF) is developing a more general mechanism for PBR that will
allow control at the level of individual hosts and possibly even
user. It will give an end host or user the ability to select routes,
taking into consideration issues such as cost, performance and
reliability of the transit networks.
Cerf [Page 7]
RFC 1174 Identifier Assignment and Connected Status August 1990
2.a.2. Attachment 2
IAB Policy Recommendation on DNS and Connectivity
The Internet Domain Name system (DNS) is an essential part of the
networking infrastructure. It establishes a global distributed
database for mapping host names into IP addresses and for delivering
electronic mail. Its efficient and reliable functioning is vital to
nearly all Internet users.
Some DNS operations depend upon the existence of a complete database
at certain "root" servers, in particular at the Internet Registry
(IP) located at the Defense Data Net Network Information Center at
SRI International (DDN-NIC). The past policy has been to tie
inclusion in this database to approval of Internet interconnection by
a U.S. Government agency. This "connected" status restriction is no
longer viable, and recommendations for its replacement have been put
forward.
In any case, we believe that the DNS database is not the proper
architectural level for enforcement of administrative access
restrictions, e.g., controls over the announcement of networks in the
routing protocols.
The Internet Activities Board (IAB) therefore strongly endorses the
following recommendation from the Federal Engineering Planning Group
to the Federal Networking Council, to provide DNS service regardless
of access control policies:
"There has been a great deal of discussion about domain
nameservers, the IN-ADDR domain, and "connected" status as the
Internet has grown to include many more nations than just the
United States. As we move to a more global Internet, it seems
like it would be a good idea to re-evaluate some of the rules that
have governed the naming and registration policies that exist.
The naming and routing should be completely decoupled. In
particular, it should be possible to register both a name/domain,
as well as address servers within the IN-ADDR domain, independent
of whether the client has "connected" status or not. This should
be implemented immediately by the IR at the DDN-NIC. No U.S.
Government sponsor should be required for domain name/address
registration."
Security Considerations
Security issues are not addressed in this memo.
Cerf [Page 8]
RFC 1174 Identifier Assignment and Connected Status August 1990
Author's Address
Vinton G. Cerf
Corporation for National Research Initiatives
1895 Preston White Drive, Suite 100
Reston, VA 22091
Phone: (703) 620-8990
EMail: vcerf@nri.reston.va.us
Cerf [Page 9]
RFC, FYI, BCP