216 lines
10 KiB
Plaintext
216 lines
10 KiB
Plaintext
FARNet Usage Policy
|
|
|
|
January 23, 1990
|
|
|
|
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
|
|
|
|
|
|
FOR MORE INFORMATION:
|
|
Richard Mandelbaum
|
|
(716) 275-2916
|
|
|
|
San Diego, CA, January 9, 1990 - In a move towards the establishment of a more
|
|
coordinated national research and education network environment, the Federation
|
|
of American Research Networks (FARNet) has adopted the first in a series of
|
|
guidelines, or FARNet Position Papers (FPP). The two documents approved at the
|
|
just-concluded San Diego conference address the following: FPP Development and
|
|
Approval Process (FPP #1) and Guidelines on Acceptable Use and Connection (FPP
|
|
#2).
|
|
|
|
FARNet is an organization currently consisting of twenty-five regional
|
|
and state networks, who provide access from local networks to the national
|
|
research and education network community (the Internet). The purpose of the
|
|
Federation is the advancement of science and education through the aiding of
|
|
communication among research and educational organizations. The Federation
|
|
endorses the coordination and interconnection of regional and backbone networks
|
|
to encourage the formation of a unified network environment, thus providing
|
|
enhanced access to scientific and educational resources, both nationally and
|
|
internationally.
|
|
|
|
During the past three years, networks serving the needs of research,
|
|
education, and science have experienced explosive growth. The growth has
|
|
occurred at the campus, local, regional, national, and international levels.
|
|
Technical and financial investments by both the public and private sectors have
|
|
been considerable. Utilization of these networks has become essential to large
|
|
segments of the American research and academic communities, and continues to
|
|
grow at a startling rate, over 500% in the last 18 months! Guidelines for the
|
|
orderly development and interconnection of these varied facilities are
|
|
essential for the integrity of the networks and continued provision of high
|
|
quality services to educators, researchers, scholars, and administrators. For
|
|
this reason, the FARNet Guidelines on Acceptable Use and Connection were
|
|
unanimously approved.
|
|
|
|
In summary, the Guidelines govern inter-regional traffic and recommend
|
|
that traffic between the FARnet-Member networks be restricted to research or
|
|
academic purposes, or to direct administrative support of such efforts.
|
|
(Intra-regional traffic is governed by the guidelines set by each regional.)
|
|
The position was adopted because the networks represented by the members of
|
|
FARNet are, in many instances, at least partially funded by grants from state
|
|
or federal agencies. Activities that are beyond the scope of research or
|
|
academia are not considered acceptable. For example, Richard Mandelbaum,
|
|
FARNet's Chairperson, summarizes from the Guidelines, "It is not acceptable to
|
|
send invoices between two commercial entities on different regional networks
|
|
across a national backbone."
|
|
|
|
Future FARNet Position Papers are to include such issues as network
|
|
design and engineering, international interaction, commercialization of
|
|
services, network management models, value-added services, and methods of more
|
|
accurately addressing the information movement needs of researchers, scholars
|
|
and educators. (For further information, contact Richard Mandelbaum (716)
|
|
275-2916.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
-------
|
|
|
|
|
|
FARnet Position Paper #2:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|