[1663] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Re: The WEIS/AUPPERLE letter
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (the terminal of Geoff Goodfellow)
Mon Dec 9 18:14:53 1991
To: Stephen Wolff <steve@ncri.cise.nsf.gov>
Cc: members@farnet.org, regional-techs@merit.edu, com-priv@psi.com,
In-Reply-To: Your message of Mon, 09 Dec 91 16:32:41 -0500.
Date: Mon, 09 Dec 91 15:02:31 MST
From: the terminal of Geoff Goodfellow <geoff@fernwood.mpk.ca.us>
Steve,
My understanding of FARNET POSITION PAPER #1 attached here to, is that
regional's had already agreed to carry commercial traffic if said
traffic originated on FARNET member network.
I was in the room at the San Diego Supercomputer Center back in January
of 1990 when this was hashed out -- the specific example came up, of
a NYSERnet site (an unrestricted use network) sending commercial
traffic into BARRNet (a restricted use network). Under the terms of
FARNET POSITION PAPER #1, said reception of traffic was specifically allowed.
Why was the agreement between FARNET and its members, antecedent to the
WEIS/AUPPERLE letter, not deemed to cover the handling of commercial
traffic terminating on another network satisfactorily?
Do you FARNET POSITION PAPER #2 as still having any relevance today?
Geoff
FARnet Position Paper #2: (available from farnet.org/farnet_fpp/fpp-no1.txt)
FARNET GUIDELINES ON ACCEPTABLE USE
AND CONNECTION
1.0 Introduction
During the past three years national regional and local networks have
experienced exponential growth. The technical and financial commitments made by
the private and public sectors have been varied and considerable. Use of these
networks is now considered essential by large segments of the American research
and academic communities.
Mechanisms for management have been ad hoc and inconsistent. Currently there
are no published guidelines nor an associated method of adjudication addressing
the use of network resources. Furthermore, inconsistencies exist among
regionals about what is considered acceptable use of national networks. Without
effective management of the use of the network, there exists potential for
severe economic and political problems. Regional networks and the national
backbones receive a considerable amount of federal funding. This subsidy
requires accountability, a means to demonstrate that the federal funds are
being properly applied. Given the strategic importance that the networks have
assumed for national research and development, it is vital that the integrity
of the resource be maintained.
2.0 Intent
The intent of this document is to suggest policies and mechanisms for
determining appropriate use of and connection to networking resources. The
networking environment model is assumed to be a three-tiered hierarchy
consisting of a set of national backbone nets (such as NSFnet and NSN), campus
and corporate networks (such as a campus-wide university network or a corporate
site LAN) and, connecting these components, mid-level networks that offer sites
in states or geographic regions access to national nets. It should be noted
that mid-level networks may in turn be made up of several layers of state and
regional networks.
This document specifically addresses traffic that is exchanged among mid-level
networks that are members of FARnet, whether across a national backbone or on a
publicly subsidized direct regional connection. It does not preclude additional
requirements that a national backbone might establish. This document may also
serve as a basis for acceptable use policies within a mid-level network.
3.0 Definition of Terms
Appropriate use refers to whether the use of the network is consistent with the
guidelines for each network that the traffic traverses. This applies both to
standard applications (e.g., electronic mail, file transfers, and remote login)
and nonstandard uses (chat, experimental protocols, etc) Acceptable connection
refers to the specific authority and terms by which a user accesses the
network. Issues that are addressed here include restrictions on access (for
security purposes), resale of connectivity, etc. Acceptable use and acceptable
connection, while related, are separate issues. It is possible for acceptable
connections to be used for unacceptable use, and for acceptable use to be
performed on an unacceptable connection.
4.0 Acceptable Use Policy
Given both the volatile nature of the technology employed and the demand that
users make of the network, determining acceptable use is a dynamic and
iterative process. In evaluating whether a particular use of the network is
appropriate, several factors should be considered:
Traffic between mid-levels should be restricted to research or academic
purposes, or to direct administrative support of such efforts. Organizations
whose connection to the internet is sponsored by a FRICC agency can use the
network in support of the sponsored activities. Traffic whose content is solely
commercial is not acceptable. Malicious use is not acceptable. Use should be
consistent with guiding ethical statements and accepted community standards.
Use of the internet in a manner that precludes or significantly hampers the use
by others should not be allowed
Each mid-level network should establish a regional acceptable use policy that
permits, at a minimum, the transit of any traffic that is acceptable to an
attached national backbone. Mid-level networks may establish additional
requirements as are appropriate to the regional mission.
FARnet recommends that each regional accept traffic from other regionals if
the use was determined to be acceptable under these guidelines by the
originating network.
Decisions made by mid-level networks or backbone providers regarding specific
instances of acceptable and unacceptable use should be widely circulated to
encourage consistency. FARnet can and will act as a vehicle for the
distribution and maintenance of such information. Each mid-level network should
designate an individual to participate in the exchange of this information.
5.0 Acceptable connection
Mid-level networks should insure that the connections made to them are
consistent with the effective use and protection of a shared resource. The
mid-levels should know what networks are connected and what use is being made
of the network. Mid-level networks should instruct members on current
guidelines for acceptable use. Access to the internet should be protected
through the use of prudent security measures. Unauthorized connections to the
internet should not be permitted. "Third party" connections (such as internet
access being provided by research parks or through resale by a mid-level
subscriber) should be done only with the approval of the mid-level networks.
Connections which create routing patterns that are inconsistent with the
effective and shared use of the network should not be established.
6.0 Adjudication
Mid-level networks should distribute this statement to member institutions and
request members to inform their communities about these issues.
Responsibility for the determination of whether a proposed use of the network
is acceptable begins with the initiating user. If the user is uncertain, the
associated connecting authority or mid-level should be contacted.
Mid-level networks should consult with backbone providers and FARnet as needed
to determine if an intended use of a backbone is consistent with the policies
of the provider. The results of these deliberations should be distributed among
the mid-level networks to encourage consistent policy. FARnet should be active
in implementing this process.
If disagreements arise among mid-level networks concerning their direct
connections, FARnet should attempt to act as a reconciliatory agent.
7.0 Enforcement
In instances where particular traffic is determined to be an abuse, the
mid-level network that originated the traffic will be held responsible for both
admonishing the perpetrator and preventing further abuse. It is assumed that
the mid- level network will, in turn, place similar responsibilities upon its
members.
Mid-level networks should make a good faith effort to enforce the decisions
that emerge from the adjudication process undertaken by FARnet.
