guideline for name-based web hosting justification

Mike Horwath wrote:
> 
> Thing is, 'tomorrows way of web hosting' really is tomorrow.
> 
> Or don't you get it?

I don't think I do, since I'm not sure what you're getting at.

> 
> But why not put all dialups behind NAT, I mean, hell, fuck'em, they
> don't need to play games on the 'net, do Netmeeting, ICQ and such, and
> this would save me a couple thousand IPs and would save UUNET (and
> other big boys) /14s and more of IP space.

Your sarcasm notwithstanding, I think the issues of placing dialup (or any
end-users for that matter) behind a NAT out-number the issues of using
name-based virtual hosting for entry-level web accounts.

> 
> Yep, it isn't new and many of us use name based virtual hosting
> techniques when we can.
> 
> Thing is, it doesn't work all the time.

I agree with you 100% on that count.

And I think the ARIN policy should be re-worded so that it is more flexible.

See, the IP 'waste' that the membership was specifically concerned about
when crafting this policy is the mom-and-pop shops that only get a few
thousand hits per month and don't use SSL for their site.  There are tens of
thousands of those sites out there now (probably more) and there is no
reason in the world why they shouldn't be on name-based virtual hosts. 
Then, there are some sites that are so huge that for a variety of reasons it
is just unfeasible to put them on name-based virtual hosts.  I think the
policy should be re-crafted to objectively define that in some way.

The point of my previous posts was to point out that there are ways to move
the name-based/IP-based line in the sand further out so that we can get even
better IP utilization.

Alec

-- 
Alec H. Peterson - ahp at hilander.com
Staff Scientist
CenterGate Research Group - http://www.centergate.com
"Technology so advanced, even _we_ don't understand it!"