guideline for name-based web hosting justification

On Tue, Sep 12, 2000 at 01:07:19PM -0600, Alec H. Peterson wrote:
> Mury wrote:
> > Instead of putting the clamps on the ISPs why not focus on:
> > 
> > 1) Reclaiming unused IP space to hold us out a little longer
> 
> That's already being done, but there's a big problem.  ARIN doesn't
> have authority over the major offenders (legacy /8s and /16s).  The
> AC has had long, involved discussions about how is best to do this,
> and we're working on it.  For example, our first goal is to re-claim
> address space of companies that have gone out of business.  If you
> have some ideas on how we can do this we'd _love_ to hear them.

Push the guidelines.

Give them a warning explaining that their usage doesn't fit guidelines
(which we have all lived by for a long time), give'em time to fix it,
then yank the space if they don't do anything.

Like I said, I have customers with decent sized blocks assigned but
they don't use'em all by any means.

I am sure I am not alone.

> > I'm not bitching just to bitch.  I'm looking out for my ecommerce
> > customers.  90% of my revenue comes from businesses.  If I don't watch out
> > for their bottom line, they sure the hell aren't going to look out for
> > mine.  If I switch them to a name-based system, before the world is ready
> > for it and they lose hits do to software incompatibilites, or don't notice
> > that their traffic died, or they can't see how effective a commercial was
> > by using real-time accounting stats, or one of my customers gets DOSed and
> > I can't control the traffic at my core routers or at my upstream so I have
> > to take everyone down because they all share an IP, they are going to host
> > with someone who cheats the system and gets them an IP.
> 
> Those are legitimate gripes.
> 
> Can we come up with reasonable solutions to them?

I am hoping so.

> And as far as being labled a trouble-maker, I know plenty of people
> who have been far more vocal about ARIN policy than you and have had
> no problem getting address space.  Please don't spread the
> mis-conception that ARIN is anything other than an objective
> organization.  It isn't true and it makes everyone's life much more
> difficult in getting support for the organization.

I'll save this email :)

> > 2) Do real time web accounting.  Remember we buy bandwidth by the Mbit, so
> > we need to sell it by the Mbit
> 
> Doing bandwidth (as opposed to bytes transfered per period of time)
> billing is tough, although it sounds like more and more vendors are
> starting to sell equipment that handles this.

Perhaps.

But from what I have seen of the Alteon and Foundry systems, you can't
get statistics on the VIP in a fasion that works for bandwidth billing
(and I would *love* to be corrected).

By doing it via multiple IPs...we can.

> > 3) Provide controls against DOS attacks.  No we don't host porn sites
> 
> But those are the money-makers! :-)
> 
> Seriously, I understand the DOS issue all too well, and it does need
> to be addressed.  Not sure how to at this point, except to say that
> this policy is really targeted towards the bottom-of-the-line web
> hosting accounts.  If you have a customer who has a lot of traffic,
> pays you a lot of money and can't afford to be off the air then it
> makes perfect sense to have him on a dedicated IP (I think at
> least).

But who decides where that line will be drawn?

> Perhaps that's a bad analogy, but my point is that ARIN recognizes
> ISPs have made great strides in conserving IP space.  However, as
> more and more companies and users hook up to the 'net every month,
> we need to do as much as we can.

Reclaim!!!!

> > Almost all my account are $50/month.  Is this considered cheap?  Do you
> > have to be a IBM selling $2500 accounts to gain the exception?  Or, are
> > the $19.95 joints where the cutoff would be drawn?  Just curious.
> 
> That's a very good question, I'm not sure what the answer is.

I agree.

> > Alec, I understand your and ARIN's points.  However if a "policy" is going
> > to be created and enforced I think we some of these issues need to be
> > better addressed and defined so legit ISPs don't have to wait over a
> > month to get new IP space and go through a process of defending web
> > hosting IP space.
> 
> Which is why we really need more participation.  Fortunately this
> policy change has brought more of it forward, but as I said above we
> need a better way to tally opinions in a fair manner...

Well, at least we are now participating, at least that is something
positive.

-- 
Mike Horwath           IRC: Drechsau         drechsau at Geeks.ORG
Home: 763-540-6815  1901 Sumter Ave N, Golden Valley, MN  55427
Opinions stated in this message, or any message posted by myself
through my Geeks.ORG address, are mine and mine alone, period.