RFC 1174

Title Block 🎀

Okay bestie, let's get into it ✨ This is RFC 1174, and it's titled "IAB Recommended Policy on Distributing Internet Identifier Assignment and IAB Recommended Policy Change to Internet "Connected" Status". It came from the Network Working Group, the author is V. Cerf of CNRI, and it's dated August 1990. The category is Informational, so it's the official view of the Internet Activities Board (IAB), not a standard 💅 The title block doesn't list any RFCs it obsoletes or updates, so it's standing on its own, no cap 🙈

Status of this Memo 📜

This is an informational RFC 🌸 It 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. It 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 ✨

Okay so this RFC has two recommendations from the IAB to the FNC 👑 The first is the "Recommended Policy on Distributing Internet Identifier Assignment," which is basically a suggestion to spread out the job of assigning network and autonomous system numbers. The second is the "Recommended Policy Change to Internet 'Connected' Status," which suggests dropping the idea of connected status and recording the acceptable use policy and traffic access policy for each network instead 🦋 Part of that second recommendation is an explicit suggestion that any registered network may be entered into the DNS database without regard to connected status 🔥

1. Recommendation about Internet Identifiers 💖

This is the first recommendation, sent from the Chairman of the IAB to the Chairman of the Federal Networking Council 💌

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 the assignment of Internet identifiers (network and autonomous system numbers) ✨

1.2. Introduction 🧚

Throughout its entire history, the Internet has used a central Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) to allocate and assign the numeric identifiers it needs to run 💅 The IANA job is performed by USC Information Sciences Institute. The IANA has the discretionary authority to hand off parts of this responsibility, and for numeric network and autonomous system identifiers, it has given that job to an Internet Registry (IR). The IR is run by SRI International at its Network Information Center (DDN-NIC) 🌈

With the number of networks growing fast and the Internet going international at the same time, it's a good moment to think about delegating assignment and registration authority further, on an international basis 🌸 It's also essential to remember that these identifiers, especially class A and B network identifiers, are becoming an increasingly scarce commodity, so handing them out needs real thought and care 🫶

1.3. Proposed Method of Operation 🦋

The plan is to keep the centralized IANA and IR functions 💜

The IR would keep being the principal registry for all network and autonomous system numbers. It would also keep maintaining the list of root Domain Name System servers and a database of registered nets and autonomous systems 🎀

But there's a new bit too! The IR would also allocate blocks of network and autonomous system numbers, as needed, to organizations approved by the Coordinating Committee for Intercontinental Research Networking (CCIRN), and it would delegate further assignment authority to them 🔥

I'd recommend that, at least initially, the IR serve as the default registry in cases where no delegated registration authority has been identified 🙈

The IR should keep copies of the aggregate Internet registration database(s) and give a copy to each delegated registry, to improve redundancy and access to this information. Updates to the database, though, would still be centralized at the IR, and complete copies would get redistributed by file transfer or other means on a timely basis 🌷

It's 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 🧚‍♀️

Last one! It's recommended that host Domain Name registration continue in its present form, since it already accommodates distribution of this function 💖

2. Recommendation about Connected Status 🌸

And now the second recommendation, also from the IAB Chairman, this time to the FNC 💅

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 to the current policy for associating "connected" status with a subset of the networks that have been assigned an Internet identifier 🦋

2.2. Introduction 🎀

In this document, the term Internet Assigned Number Authority (IANA) refers to the organization with primary authority to allocate and assign the numeric identifiers needed to operate the Internet 🌈 That function is currently performed by USC Information Sciences Institute. The term Internet Registry (IR) refers to the organization responsible for gathering and registering information about networks that have been assigned identifiers (network numbers, autonomous system numbers) by the IR. Right now, SRI International is the IR 💜

Attachments (1) and (2) lay out the reasoning behind, and the implications of, changing the current policy that ties "connected" status to only a subset of the networks that have been assigned Internet identifiers 🫶

2.3. Recommendations 🍓

Okay, here are the actions recommended (this part's giving checklist energy ✅):

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), and 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 relaxing the present "connected" status rule and creating a policy database to guide network administrators 🧚

2.a.1.2. Background ✨

okay so the ARPANET is gone 🥀 and the Internet is now a global thing, which means handing out Internet network numbers has outgrown its original crowd. That crowd was military, government and government-sponsored research orgs. Once international growth pulled in industry and a whole range of academic and research institutions, we had to re-evaluate some of the criteria for assigning and using Internet network numbers. bestie this is a big glow-up 💅

Back in the early days, numbers only went to networks of orgs that were part of the research effort. Later, once the system got stable and turned into a widespread infrastructure, other orgs with networks started getting numbers too. They were allowed to interconnect if they were part of the U.S. Government or sponsored by a Government organization. To keep everything globally unique, one single Internet Registry (IR) was designated: the Defense Data Net Network Information Center (DDN-NIC) at SRI International 🧚

Then the Internet protocols got popular in the commercial marketplace 📈 and loads of organizations bought and installed private networks. Those networks needed number assignments but were never meant to be connected to the federally-sponsored system. The IR chose to assign numbers to everyone who requested them, and it marked the networks permitted to link to the global Internet with "connected" status. Basically, that meant 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 includes networks that act as intermediaries to access the federally-sponsored backbones. Lots of these intermediate networks started under National Science Foundation sponsorship, and some were founded without federal help as consortia of using organizations. The Government has said it wants all of these networks to be self-supporting, with no need for federal subsidy 💸 To get there, the intermediate networks have had to support an increasingly varied range of users. A great many industrial participants are on the intermediate level networks. Their use of the federally-sponsored backbones is premised on the traffic being 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 decide, using its own criteria, which networks it will interconnect with and which networks it will support transit service for. There is no longer a simple binary correlation between "connected" status and acceptable use policy 🙈 It gets even more complex as the large and growing number of non-U.S. networks join the global Internet. It is inappropriate to require that all of these networks adhere to U.S. access and use criteria. Instead, it can only be required that the traffic they send through the federally-sponsored networks be consistent with the federal criteria. no cap, that's the whole vibe 🦋

2.a.1.3. Recommendation 🎀

Since a single, global "connected" status is no longer meaningful, it is recommended that it be retired and that new characteristics be defined. Networks within the Internet could use those characteristics to determine a specific network's eligibility to communicate with other networks 🫶

Some attributes that might be useful to track, and that 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 make this happen, the IR would update the current Internet-Number-Template to query applicants for the necessary information. That 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 about 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 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. 💜

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 they are barred from passing commercial traffic, or any other traffic that is not for academic or scholarly purposes, across the federally-sponsored backbones 🚧

Routing traffic based on acceptable-use policies requires a technical ability known as "policy-based routing" (PBR). Right now, the PBR mechanism available in the Internet operates at 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, using 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 stop 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 to associate with different use policies. bestie, that's a lot of hoops 😭

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. It will allow control at the level of individual hosts and possibly even users. 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. this is the future and I'm obsessed 🔥

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 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. 😳

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