From memsvcs at arin.net Sun Apr 1 15:03:21 2001 From: memsvcs at arin.net (Member Services) Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2001 15:03:21 -0400 (EDT) Subject: ARIN Internet Resource Policy Evaluation Process Message-ID: At the ARIN Public Policy and Member meetings in October, the ARIN Board of Trustees announced that they would document the process for making policy in the ARIN region. This has been completed. The policy has been posted to the ARIN web site and is available from a link on the home page. The policy document is in both English and Spanish. Additionally, there is a flow chart of the process. Ray Plzak President ARIN From memsvcs at arin.net Wed Apr 4 14:25:39 2001 From: memsvcs at arin.net (Member Services) Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 14:25:39 -0400 (EDT) Subject: RIR Comparative Policy Overview Document Message-ID: <200104041825.OAA20308@ops.arin.net> APNIC, ARIN, and RIPE NCC have coordinated to produce the first draft of the RIR Comparative Policy Overview document. The goal of this document is to provide a comparative overview of the policies in the RIR system. It is not a policy statement by the RIRs, but is intended to serve as a reference for the Internet community. This is a public document that will be reviewed and revised through the coordinated effort of the RIRs. This document is available at: http://www.ripe.net/ripencc/mem-services/registration/rir-comp-matrix-rev.html Member Services American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) From Clay at exodus.net Wed Apr 4 15:14:41 2001 From: Clay at exodus.net (Clay) Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 12:14:41 -0700 Subject: Proposal for Rewording Virtual Webhosting Standards In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <054a01c0bd3b$80b1f400$ac00ff0a@CLAMBERTW2KD> I disagree. It does. -Clay -----Original Message----- From: owner-ppml at arin.net [mailto:owner-ppml at arin.net]On Behalf Of J Bacher Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2001 6:13 PM To: Clay Cc: ppml at arin.net Subject: RE: Proposal for Rewording Virtual Webhosting Standards On Thu, 29 Mar 2001, Clay wrote: This: > To isolate Webhosting companies with a specific requirement for them to > conserve is not fair. > > ALL "Service Providers" should have to adhere to the same policy, and it > should go something like this: Does not agree with this: > Efficient use of IP address space is defined as: One publicly > addressable IP address per each physical device connected to the > Internet. From Jill.Kulpinski at exodus.net Fri Apr 6 12:12:32 2001 From: Jill.Kulpinski at exodus.net (Jill Kulpinski) Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2001 09:12:32 -0700 Subject: Wording of the Virtual Webhosting Standards Policy Message-ID: <7FB4DD7DDD40D411986D00508BAC57D40206F7FA@SCL4MLBX07> Hello, After attending the ARIN conference this week, we have thought more about a suggested wording for the Virtual Webhosting Policy. This would be a change to what is proposed. It reads as follows: When a Service Provider submits a request for public IPv4 address space, ARIN or the upstream provider will review the requesting organization's application and justification information to confirm they investigated the use of HTTP1.1-host header (name-based) virtual hosting or other efficient methodologies whenever and wherever possible. If there is reason why HTTP1.1 host-header (name-based) virtual hosting cannot be utilized, appropriate documentation explaining the technical justification, must be supplied. Specific description of sufficient documentation is to be determined by ARIN or the upstream provider. Definitions: Service Provider: Any provider of products or services via the internet Efficient methodology: any technology or protocol allowing not more than one public IPv4 address per device, connected to the internet directly. Please make any comments as soon as possible. There really needs to be a change here regarding this policy, and it would be very frustrating to have it continue to be 'suspended' for any greater length of time. Thanks very much, Jill From lhoward at UU.NET Fri Apr 6 17:09:56 2001 From: lhoward at UU.NET (Lee Howard) Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2001 17:09:56 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Wording of the Virtual Webhosting Standards Policy (fwd) Message-ID: I think ARIN should avoid specifying what a Service Provider is or might be. What we're talking about is the maintainer who provides IP addresses to another organization, or the organization providing web hosting. - Organizations providing web hosting services must document efficient utilization of existing IPv4 assignments. Where possible, name-based virtual hosting should be provided using HTTP1.1-host headers. If such name-based virtual hosting is not possible, documentation explaining why it is not possible should be provided in the application. - I think the justification should be in the form of: Web Servers Using Name-Based Web Hosting 192.168.10.1 FOO.COM BAR.COM BAZ.COM 192.168.10.2 FOO.NET BAR.NET BAZ.NET Web Servers Not Using Name-Based Web Hosting 192.168.11.1 FOOBAR.COM SSL-based page 192.168.11.2 FOOBAR.NET customer server doesn't support Should this be moved to vwp at arin.net? Lee ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2001 09:12:32 -0700 From: Jill Kulpinski To: "'ppml at arin.net'" Cc: Jill Kulpinski Subject: Wording of the Virtual Webhosting Standards Policy Hello, After attending the ARIN conference this week, we have thought more about a suggested wording for the Virtual Webhosting Policy. This would be a change to what is proposed. It reads as follows: When a Service Provider submits a request for public IPv4 address space, ARIN or the upstream provider will review the requesting organization's application and justification information to confirm they investigated the use of HTTP1.1-host header (name-based) virtual hosting or other efficient methodologies whenever and wherever possible. If there is reason why HTTP1.1 host-header (name-based) virtual hosting cannot be utilized, appropriate documentation explaining the technical justification, must be supplied. Specific description of sufficient documentation is to be determined by ARIN or the upstream provider. Definitions: Service Provider: Any provider of products or services via the internet Efficient methodology: any technology or protocol allowing not more than one public IPv4 address per device, connected to the internet directly. Please make any comments as soon as possible. There really needs to be a change here regarding this policy, and it would be very frustrating to have it continue to be 'suspended' for any greater length of time. Thanks very much, Jill From huberman at gblx.net Fri Apr 6 17:43:01 2001 From: huberman at gblx.net (David R Huberman) Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2001 14:43:01 -0700 (MST) Subject: Wording of the Virtual Webhosting Standards Policy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > I think ARIN should avoid specifying what a Service Provider is or might > be. ARIN already defines an ISP for its own purposes and for clarity in its policy language. An ISP is any organization which assigns or allocates IP address space downstream. Any organization which is the end-point of IP address usage is defined as a non-ISP, or end-user. > Organizations providing web hosting services must document efficient > utilization of existing IPv4 assignments. Where possible, name-based > virtual hosting should be provided using HTTP1.1-host headers. If such > name-based virtual hosting is not possible, documentation explaining why > it is not possible should be provided in the application. I like the clarity of Lee's policy statment, but if I may change this passage around just a tad: In the interests of IPv4 address conservation, ARIN strongly encourages the use of name-based virtual hosting utilizing HTTP 1.1-host headers. ISPs providing web hosting services who are unable to implement name-based virtual hosting must provide technically compelling documentation which clearly demonstrates efficient utilization of their previous IPv4 assignments. Maybe Lee's wording is better. You decide. /david From uibekwe at earthlink.net Fri Apr 6 20:50:40 2001 From: uibekwe at earthlink.net (Uchenna Ibekwe) Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2001 20:50:40 -0400 Subject: Wording of the Virtual Webhosting Standards Policy (fwd) References: Message-ID: <001d01c0befc$d32aafc0$2454f4d1@uibekwe> I agree , I don't think that RAIN should be concerned with legalities of what the addresses are used for , as long as they put to devices . It would only be important for internet documentation , not for domain documentation. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Lee Howard" To: Sent: Friday, April 06, 2001 5:09 PM Subject: Wording of the Virtual Webhosting Standards Policy (fwd) I think ARIN should avoid specifying what a Service Provider is or might be. What we're talking about is the maintainer who provides IP addresses to another organization, or the organization providing web hosting. - Organizations providing web hosting services must document efficient utilization of existing IPv4 assignments. Where possible, name-based virtual hosting should be provided using HTTP1.1-host headers. If such name-based virtual hosting is not possible, documentation explaining why it is not possible should be provided in the application. - I think the justification should be in the form of: Web Servers Using Name-Based Web Hosting 192.168.10.1 FOO.COM BAR.COM BAZ.COM 192.168.10.2 FOO.NET BAR.NET BAZ.NET Web Servers Not Using Name-Based Web Hosting 192.168.11.1 FOOBAR.COM SSL-based page 192.168.11.2 FOOBAR.NET customer server doesn't support Should this be moved to vwp at arin.net? Lee ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2001 09:12:32 -0700 From: Jill Kulpinski To: "'ppml at arin.net'" Cc: Jill Kulpinski Subject: Wording of the Virtual Webhosting Standards Policy Hello, After attending the ARIN conference this week, we have thought more about a suggested wording for the Virtual Webhosting Policy. This would be a change to what is proposed. It reads as follows: When a Service Provider submits a request for public IPv4 address space, ARIN or the upstream provider will review the requesting organization's application and justification information to confirm they investigated the use of HTTP1.1-host header (name-based) virtual hosting or other efficient methodologies whenever and wherever possible. If there is reason why HTTP1.1 host-header (name-based) virtual hosting cannot be utilized, appropriate documentation explaining the technical justification, must be supplied. Specific description of sufficient documentation is to be determined by ARIN or the upstream provider. Definitions: Service Provider: Any provider of products or services via the internet Efficient methodology: any technology or protocol allowing not more than one public IPv4 address per device, connected to the internet directly. Please make any comments as soon as possible. There really needs to be a change here regarding this policy, and it would be very frustrating to have it continue to be 'suspended' for any greater length of time. Thanks very much, Jill From huberman at gblx.net Fri Apr 6 22:29:01 2001 From: huberman at gblx.net (David R Huberman) Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2001 19:29:01 -0700 (MST) Subject: Wording of the Virtual Webhosting Standards Policy In-Reply-To: <000401c0bf09$c17476a0$a2f31740@nascorp.com> Message-ID: Hello Chris, > The "technically compelling documentation" language concerns me. [snip] > Therefore, I fear, with the addition of more strict language requiring > proof of the technical unfeasibility of using named-based hosting when > a hosting customer needs ip's for his clients using SSL on their > websites seems to present an unnecessary burden on the upstream > provider and the ip recipient (the web host). [snip] The consensus that I gleaned at the recent ARIN open public policy meeting clearly agreed that a fairly strict policy is supported by the community. The burden to conserve address space is undeniably placed on the ISP. Those providers who require using IP-based hosting will need to explain themselves in some technically compelling manner. And that's the point of the language I attempted to craft: any technically compelling reason must be sufficient for ARIN to accept the address utilization. ARIN cannot just blithely state that "here are certain technical exceptions - do you fit one of them?" The lack of specificity in my policy statement affords ARIN staff the necessary flexibility in determining the needs and goals of the requesting provider - a situation in which everyone wins, in my opinion. Again, my policy proposal: > In the interests of IPv4 address conservation, ARIN strongly encourages > the use of name-based virtual hosting utilizing HTTP 1.1-host headers. > ISPs providing web hosting services who are unable to implement name-based > virtual hosting must provide technically compelling documentation which > clearly demonstrates efficient utilization of their previous IPv4 > assignments. /david *--------------------------------* | Global Crossing IP Engineering | | Manager, Global IP Addressing | | TEL: (908) 720-6182 | | FAX: (703) 464-0802 | *--------------------------------* From sigma at pair.com Mon Apr 9 13:20:59 2001 From: sigma at pair.com (sigma at pair.com) Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 13:20:59 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Wording of the Virtual Webhosting Standards Policy (fwd) Message-ID: <20010409172059.1514.qmail@smx.pair.com> If you use "technically compelling" wording, then you're back to where we were early last year, when the policy was vigorously protested. Downstream allocators will regard that as a blanket excuse to deny space to their customers, regardless of how ARIN chooses to interpret it for their own allocations. It seemed at the meeting that the intent of requiring any reason at all was so that ARIN could gather data for future use - not to restrict allocation. This policy was supposed to be scaled back to a recommendation. Kevin ----- Forwarded message from David R Huberman ----- >The consensus that I gleaned at the recent ARIN open public policy meeting >clearly agreed that a fairly strict policy is supported by the community. >The burden to conserve address space is undeniably placed on the >ISP. Those providers who require using IP-based hosting will need to >explain themselves in some technically compelling manner. And that's the point of the language I attempted to craft: any technically compelling reason must be sufficient for ARIN to accept the address utilization. ARIN cannot just blithely state that "here are certain technical exceptions - do you fit one of them?" The lack of specificity in my policy statement affords ARIN staff the necessary flexibility in determining the needs and goals of the requesting provider - a situation in which everyone wins, in my opinion. Again, my policy proposal: > In the interests of IPv4 address conservation, ARIN strongly encourages > the use of name-based virtual hosting utilizing HTTP 1.1-host headers. > ISPs providing web hosting services who are unable to implement name-based > virtual hosting must provide technically compelling documentation which > clearly demonstrates efficient utilization of their previous IPv4 > assignments. /david *--------------------------------* | Global Crossing IP Engineering | | Manager, Global IP Addressing | | TEL: (908) 720-6182 | | FAX: (703) 464-0802 | *--------------------------------* ----- End of forwarded message from David R Huberman ----- From huberman at gblx.net Mon Apr 9 14:02:40 2001 From: huberman at gblx.net (David R Huberman) Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 11:02:40 -0700 (MST) Subject: Wording of the Virtual Webhosting Standards Policy In-Reply-To: <20010409172059.1514.qmail@smx.pair.com> Message-ID: Hello Kevin, > If you use "technically compelling" wording, then you're back to where we > were early last year, when the policy was vigorously protested. Downstream > allocators will regard that as a blanket excuse to deny space to their > customers, regardless of how ARIN chooses to interpret it for their own > allocations. I don't understand what you're saying here. If a web-hosting organization petitions their upstream for address space and is denied based on some inchoate interpretation of an ARIN-published recommendation, that is indicative of a much larger problem. The organization can either attempt to convince the upstream to assign them address space or it can do what would seem to be the smarter choice: change upstreams. I don't know how anyone else would feel, but if I'm working with an upstream and they are denying me address space to which I feel I am justified, I'm changing upstreams as quickly as I can to a more clueful, customer-friendly provider. I don't see how irresponsible, customer-unfriendly providers misusing a proposed ARIN policy recommendation is relevant to the discussion we're having. If you feel it is, please help me to understand why. > It seemed at the meeting that the intent of requiring any reason at all was > so that ARIN could gather data for future use - not to restrict allocation. > This policy was supposed to be scaled back to a recommendation. Yes, I too believe it is supposed to be a recommendation, not a strict policy. My policy wording does not seem to reflect that belief. Hrm. How to reconcile?? /david *--------------------------------* | Global Crossing IP Engineering | | Manager, Global IP Addressing | | TEL: (908) 720-6182 | | FAX: (703) 464-0802 | *--------------------------------* From sigma at pair.com Mon Apr 9 14:04:56 2001 From: sigma at pair.com (sigma at pair.com) Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 14:04:56 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Wording of the Virtual Webhosting Standards Policy In-Reply-To: from David R Huberman at "Apr 9, 1 11:02:40 am" Message-ID: <20010409180456.3339.qmail@smx.pair.com> > If a web-hosting organization petitions their upstream for address space > and is denied based on some inchoate interpretation of an ARIN-published > recommendation, that is indicative of a much larger problem. The > organization can either attempt to convince the upstream to assign them > address space or it can do what would seem to be the smarter choice: > change upstreams. I believe this point was raised at the open mike during both previous meetings. I'm simply mentioning it again. The organizations that have to reallocate space don't appreciate being in an uncertain situation either. > > It seemed at the meeting that the intent of requiring any reason at all was > > so that ARIN could gather data for future use - not to restrict allocation. > > This policy was supposed to be scaled back to a recommendation. > > Yes, I too believe it is supposed to be a recommendation, not a strict > policy. My policy wording does not seem to reflect that belief. Hrm. > How to reconcile?? Presumably by altering the wording to better correspond to the consensus reached at the meetings. I was objecting to the wording primarily on those grounds. Kevin From Jill.Kulpinski at exodus.net Mon Apr 9 14:49:52 2001 From: Jill.Kulpinski at exodus.net (Jill Kulpinski) Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 11:49:52 -0700 Subject: Wording of the Virtual Webhosting Standards Policy Message-ID: <7FB4DD7DDD40D411986D00508BAC57D40206F82F@SCL4MLBX07> Hello there, This whole writing back and forth thing gets very confusing. At this point, I feel we need to get some clear suggestions by the people concerned (those writing in), as to exactly what they want the policy to say. This way we can make direct comments on a proposed document and hopefully get something agreed upon, voted on, and enacted. Jill -----Original Message----- From: sigma at pair.com [mailto:sigma at pair.com] Sent: Monday, April 09, 2001 11:05 AM To: ppml at arin.net Subject: Re: Wording of the Virtual Webhosting Standards Policy > If a web-hosting organization petitions their upstream for address space > and is denied based on some inchoate interpretation of an ARIN-published > recommendation, that is indicative of a much larger problem. The > organization can either attempt to convince the upstream to assign them > address space or it can do what would seem to be the smarter choice: > change upstreams. I believe this point was raised at the open mike during both previous meetings. I'm simply mentioning it again. The organizations that have to reallocate space don't appreciate being in an uncertain situation either. > > It seemed at the meeting that the intent of requiring any reason at all was > > so that ARIN could gather data for future use - not to restrict allocation. > > This policy was supposed to be scaled back to a recommendation. > > Yes, I too believe it is supposed to be a recommendation, not a strict > policy. My policy wording does not seem to reflect that belief. Hrm. > How to reconcile?? Presumably by altering the wording to better correspond to the consensus reached at the meetings. I was objecting to the wording primarily on those grounds. Kevin From billd at cait.wustl.edu Mon Apr 9 15:03:18 2001 From: billd at cait.wustl.edu (Bill Darte) Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 14:03:18 -0500 Subject: Wording of the Virtual Webhosting Standards Policy (fwd) Message-ID: > It seemed at the meeting that the intent of requiring any > reason at all was > so that ARIN could gather data for future use - not to > restrict allocation. > This policy was supposed to be scaled back to a recommendation. > > Kevin > Yes, I believe the sense was that ARIN should have a policy for the capture of data so that the 'strong recommendation' to use name-based webhosting could be reviewed with those data to determine whether a strong response was needed. The data gathered would be upon a technical rather than business reason for not using name-based webhosting. Bill Darte AC From huberman at gblx.net Mon Apr 9 15:07:56 2001 From: huberman at gblx.net (David R Huberman) Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 12:07:56 -0700 (MST) Subject: Wording of the Virtual Webhosting Standards Policy In-Reply-To: <7FB4DD7DDD40D411986D00508BAC57D40206F82F@SCL4MLBX07> Message-ID: On Mon, 9 Apr 2001, Jill Kulpinski wrote: > This whole writing back and forth thing gets very confusing. At this point, > I feel we need to get some clear suggestions by the people concerned (those > writing in), as to exactly what they want the policy to say. Since ARIN VII, we have had *three* distinct policy proposals published on this list (one from Exodus, one from UUNET, and one from Global Crossing), with ancillary commentary from myself on UUNET's policy proposal and from Kevin on my policy proposal. Other than additional commentary from those lurking out there, what else do you want? The thread so far seems, in my opinion, quite useful as an outgrowth of a year's-worth of discussion to-date. /david From Jill.Kulpinski at exodus.net Mon Apr 9 15:30:09 2001 From: Jill.Kulpinski at exodus.net (Jill Kulpinski) Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 12:30:09 -0700 Subject: Wording of the Virtual Webhosting Standards Policy Message-ID: <7FB4DD7DDD40D411986D00508BAC57D40206F832@SCL4MLBX07> Okay I am a little more clear regarding what is going on here now. Here is the UUNET proposal: Organizations providing web hosting services must document efficient utilization of existing IPv4 assignments. Where possible, name-based virtual hosting should be provided using HTTP1.1-host headers. If such name-based virtual hosting is not possible, documentation explaining why it is not possible should be provided in the application. Here are my comments: I think that this is a succint, clear, to the point statement, but I am not sure that I like 'organizations providing web hosting services'. Basically, ALL organizations need to show efficient use of any IPv4 subnet space. How about just 'organizations'? Jill -----Original Message----- From: David R Huberman [mailto:huberman at gblx.net] Sent: Monday, April 09, 2001 12:08 PM Cc: ppml at arin.net Subject: RE: Wording of the Virtual Webhosting Standards Policy On Mon, 9 Apr 2001, Jill Kulpinski wrote: > This whole writing back and forth thing gets very confusing. At this point, > I feel we need to get some clear suggestions by the people concerned (those > writing in), as to exactly what they want the policy to say. Since ARIN VII, we have had *three* distinct policy proposals published on this list (one from Exodus, one from UUNET, and one from Global Crossing), with ancillary commentary from myself on UUNET's policy proposal and from Kevin on my policy proposal. Other than additional commentary from those lurking out there, what else do you want? The thread so far seems, in my opinion, quite useful as an outgrowth of a year's-worth of discussion to-date. /david From lhoward at UU.NET Mon Apr 9 16:11:21 2001 From: lhoward at UU.NET (Lee Howard) Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 16:11:21 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Wording of the Virtual Webhosting Standards Policy In-Reply-To: <7FB4DD7DDD40D411986D00508BAC57D40206F832@SCL4MLBX07> Message-ID: As a matter of keeping me out of hot water, can this be the "Lee Howard proposal" rather than the "UUNET proposal"? I think you're right, so let me try rewording it thus: All organizations applying for IPv4 address space must document efficient utilization of existing IPv4 assignments. When addresses are used for web hosting, name-based virtual hosting should be provided using HTTP1.1 host headers whenever possible. If such name-based virtual hosting is not possible, documentation explaining why it is not possible should be provided in the application. I think this is consistent with general opinion on gathering more data through documentation, but will also let Clay (for instance) be as strict as he wants, by saying, "Your documentation is insufficient; this application can support name-based virtual hosting." Lee On Mon, 9 Apr 2001, Jill Kulpinski wrote: > Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 12:30:09 -0700 > From: Jill Kulpinski > To: 'David R Huberman' > Cc: ppml at arin.net > Subject: RE: Wording of the Virtual Webhosting Standards Policy > > Okay I am a little more clear regarding what is going on here now. Here is > the UUNET proposal: > Organizations providing web hosting services must document efficient > utilization of existing IPv4 assignments. Where possible, name-based > virtual hosting should be provided using HTTP1.1-host headers. If such > name-based virtual hosting is not possible, documentation explaining why > it is not possible should be provided in the application. > > Here are my comments: > I think that this is a succint, clear, to the point statement, but I am not > sure that I like 'organizations providing web hosting services'. Basically, > ALL organizations need to show efficient use of any IPv4 subnet space. How > about just 'organizations'? > > Jill > > -----Original Message----- > From: David R Huberman [mailto:huberman at gblx.net] > Sent: Monday, April 09, 2001 12:08 PM > Cc: ppml at arin.net > Subject: RE: Wording of the Virtual Webhosting Standards Policy > > > > On Mon, 9 Apr 2001, Jill Kulpinski wrote: > > > This whole writing back and forth thing gets very confusing. At this > point, > > I feel we need to get some clear suggestions by the people concerned > (those > > writing in), as to exactly what they want the policy to say. > > Since ARIN VII, we have had *three* distinct policy proposals published on > this list (one from Exodus, one from UUNET, and one from Global Crossing), > with ancillary commentary from myself on UUNET's policy proposal and from > Kevin on my policy proposal. > > Other than additional commentary from those lurking out there, what else > do you want? The thread so far seems, in my opinion, quite useful as an > outgrowth of a year's-worth of discussion to-date. > > /david > From Jill.Kulpinski at exodus.net Mon Apr 9 17:40:12 2001 From: Jill.Kulpinski at exodus.net (Jill Kulpinski) Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 14:40:12 -0700 Subject: Wording of the Virtual Webhosting Standards Policy Message-ID: <7FB4DD7DDD40D411986D00508BAC57D40206F83C@SCL4MLBX07> How about: All organizations applying for IPv4 address space must document efficient utilization of existing IPv4 assignments. This includes use of HTTP1.1-host header (name-based) virtual hosting or other efficient methodologies of address conservation whenever and wherever possible. If such name-based virtual hosting is not possible, documentation explaining the technical justification for any incompatibilities must be supplied with the application. What do you all think of this? Thanks, Jill -----Original Message----- From: Lee Howard [mailto:lhoward at UU.NET] Sent: Monday, April 09, 2001 1:11 PM To: Jill Kulpinski Cc: 'David R Huberman'; ppml at arin.net Subject: RE: Wording of the Virtual Webhosting Standards Policy As a matter of keeping me out of hot water, can this be the "Lee Howard proposal" rather than the "UUNET proposal"? I think you're right, so let me try rewording it thus: All organizations applying for IPv4 address space must document efficient utilization of existing IPv4 assignments. When addresses are used for web hosting, name-based virtual hosting should be provided using HTTP1.1 host headers whenever possible. If such name-based virtual hosting is not possible, documentation explaining why it is not possible should be provided in the application. I think this is consistent with general opinion on gathering more data through documentation, but will also let Clay (for instance) be as strict as he wants, by saying, "Your documentation is insufficient; this application can support name-based virtual hosting." Lee On Mon, 9 Apr 2001, Jill Kulpinski wrote: > Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 12:30:09 -0700 > From: Jill Kulpinski > To: 'David R Huberman' > Cc: ppml at arin.net > Subject: RE: Wording of the Virtual Webhosting Standards Policy > > Okay I am a little more clear regarding what is going on here now. Here is > the UUNET proposal: > Organizations providing web hosting services must document efficient > utilization of existing IPv4 assignments. Where possible, name-based > virtual hosting should be provided using HTTP1.1-host headers. If such > name-based virtual hosting is not possible, documentation explaining why > it is not possible should be provided in the application. > > Here are my comments: > I think that this is a succint, clear, to the point statement, but I am not > sure that I like 'organizations providing web hosting services'. Basically, > ALL organizations need to show efficient use of any IPv4 subnet space. How > about just 'organizations'? > > Jill > > -----Original Message----- > From: David R Huberman [mailto:huberman at gblx.net] > Sent: Monday, April 09, 2001 12:08 PM > Cc: ppml at arin.net > Subject: RE: Wording of the Virtual Webhosting Standards Policy > > > > On Mon, 9 Apr 2001, Jill Kulpinski wrote: > > > This whole writing back and forth thing gets very confusing. At this > point, > > I feel we need to get some clear suggestions by the people concerned > (those > > writing in), as to exactly what they want the policy to say. > > Since ARIN VII, we have had *three* distinct policy proposals published on > this list (one from Exodus, one from UUNET, and one from Global Crossing), > with ancillary commentary from myself on UUNET's policy proposal and from > Kevin on my policy proposal. > > Other than additional commentary from those lurking out there, what else > do you want? The thread so far seems, in my opinion, quite useful as an > outgrowth of a year's-worth of discussion to-date. > > /david > From huberman at gblx.net Mon Apr 9 18:01:23 2001 From: huberman at gblx.net (David R Huberman) Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 15:01:23 -0700 (MST) Subject: The Four Virtual Webhosting Proposals so far In-Reply-To: <7FB4DD7DDD40D411986D00508BAC57D40206F83C@SCL4MLBX07> Message-ID: Exodus policy proposal, v.2: ============================ All organizations applying for IPv4 address space must document efficient utilization of existing IPv4 assignments. This includes use of HTTP1.1-host header (name-based) virtual hosting or other efficient methodologies of address conservation whenever and wherever possible. If such name-based virtual hosting is not possible, documentation explaining the technical justification for any incompatibilities must be supplied with the application. Lee Howard policy proposal, v.2: ================================ All organizations applying for IPv4 address space must document efficient utilization of existing IPv4 assignments. When addresses are used for web hosting, name-based virtual hosting should be provided using HTTP1.1 host headers whenever possible. If such name-based virtual hosting is not possible, documentation explaining why it is not possible should be provided in the application. Global Crossing policy proposal, v.1: ===================================== In the interests of IPv4 address conservation, ARIN strongly encourages the use of name-based virtual hosting utilizing HTTP 1.1-host headers. ISPs providing web hosting services who are unable to implement name-based virtual hosting must provide technically compelling documentation which clearly demonstrates efficient utilization of their previous IPv4 assignments. ARIN Advisory Council policy proposal, public v.1: ================================================== When an ISP submits a request for IP address space, ARIN will review all IP-based webhosting requests with the requesting organization to confirm they have investigated the option of name-based webhosting and that there are technical considerations which make IP-based webhosting preferable. From huberman at gblx.net Mon Apr 9 18:18:02 2001 From: huberman at gblx.net (David R Huberman) Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 15:18:02 -0700 (MST) Subject: The Four Virtual Webhosting Proposals so far In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Gee, when I read all four policy proposals together, I find ARIN's the least objectionable and the most "recommendation-like". The other three (including mine) include policy language much stricter than what I would expect from a 'recommendation'. Can someone please refresh my memory on what parts of the ARIN proposal were found objectionable? /david > Exodus policy proposal, v.2: > ============================ > All organizations applying for IPv4 address space must document efficient > utilization of existing IPv4 assignments. This includes use of > HTTP1.1-host header (name-based) virtual hosting or other efficient > methodologies of address conservation whenever and wherever possible. If > such name-based virtual hosting is not possible, documentation explaining > the technical justification for any incompatibilities must be supplied > with the application. > > Lee Howard policy proposal, v.2: > ================================ > All organizations applying for IPv4 address space must document efficient > utilization of existing IPv4 assignments. When addresses are used for web > hosting, name-based virtual hosting should be provided using HTTP1.1 host > headers whenever possible. If such name-based virtual hosting is not > possible, documentation explaining why it is not possible should be > provided in the application. > > Global Crossing policy proposal, v.1: > ===================================== > In the interests of IPv4 address conservation, ARIN strongly encourages > the use of name-based virtual hosting utilizing HTTP 1.1-host headers. > ISPs providing web hosting services who are unable to implement name-based > virtual hosting must provide technically compelling documentation which > clearly demonstrates efficient utilization of their previous IPv4 > assignments. > > ARIN Advisory Council policy proposal, public v.1: > ================================================== > When an ISP submits a request for IP address space, ARIN will review all > IP-based webhosting requests with the requesting organization to confirm > they have investigated the option of name-based webhosting and that there > are technical considerations which make IP-based webhosting preferable. From Clay at exodus.net Mon Apr 9 21:39:31 2001 From: Clay at exodus.net (Clay) Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 18:39:31 -0700 Subject: Wording of the Virtual Webhosting Standards Policy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <06cb01c0c15f$16b68c50$ac00ff0a@CLAMBERTW2KD> It is logical to surmise that since ARIN defines a subset of "service provider" then it would be extremely effective, and helpful and clarifying...For them to define the superset (Service provider). Currently ARIN allocates address space for "end-users" and ISPs. Typically our Enterprise Customers are considered in the end-use catagory. This seems akin to defining diferent users of IP address space. As such, a definition of Service Provider would fit right in, as you already indicated, ARIN does define ISP "users" of address space. I think Jill's policy recommendation is eloquent and clear...It is simple and easy for laymen to follow, but encompassing and difinitive, so the requestor and its upstream provider can anchor their own IP allocation policies upon it. I don't see the need to add words such as "compelling" and "strongly encourage". As you cannot "compel" a provider to even attempt efficient use of address space when the strongest element of the policy only encourages" Clay -----Original Message----- From: owner-ppml at arin.net [mailto:owner-ppml at arin.net]On Behalf Of David R Huberman Sent: Friday, April 06, 2001 2:43 PM Cc: ppml at arin.net Subject: Re: Wording of the Virtual Webhosting Standards Policy > I think ARIN should avoid specifying what a Service Provider is or might > be. ARIN already defines an ISP for its own purposes and for clarity in its policy language. An ISP is any organization which assigns or allocates IP address space downstream. Any organization which is the end-point of IP address usage is defined as a non-ISP, or end-user. > Organizations providing web hosting services must document efficient > utilization of existing IPv4 assignments. Where possible, name-based > virtual hosting should be provided using HTTP1.1-host headers. If such > name-based virtual hosting is not possible, documentation explaining why > it is not possible should be provided in the application. I like the clarity of Lee's policy statment, but if I may change this passage around just a tad: In the interests of IPv4 address conservation, ARIN strongly encourages the use of name-based virtual hosting utilizing HTTP 1.1-host headers. ISPs providing web hosting services who are unable to implement name-based virtual hosting must provide technically compelling documentation which clearly demonstrates efficient utilization of their previous IPv4 assignments. Maybe Lee's wording is better. You decide. /david From cscott at gaslightmedia.com Mon Apr 9 22:00:02 2001 From: cscott at gaslightmedia.com (Charles Scott) Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 22:00:02 -0400 (EDT) Subject: The Four Virtual Webhosting Proposals so far In-Reply-To: Message-ID: David: I personally find the ARIN Advisory Council proposal to be the least objectionable of those already presented. However, and I know I'm going to take abuse for suggesting this again, but I still believe that it should be broadened to include all aspects of address conservation. I also believe that the ARIN wording can easily be construed to mean that ONLY "technical considerations" are valid reasons for IP-based webhosting, which implies that business models which for technical reasons require IP-based webhosting are not sufficient justification. For those reasons, I suggest the following. When an ISP submits a request for IP address space, ARIN will review all requests with the requesting organization to confirm they have investigated the various options available for the conservation address space, such as name-based webhosting and network address translation (possibly insert other significant methods here), and have made a good faith effort to implement those options wherever possible. I think it may also be wise to include language that relates to an obligation of ISP's to advise and counsel their customers requesting assignments on how to impliment address conservation techniques. Chuck Scott On Mon, 9 Apr 2001, David R Huberman wrote: > > ARIN Advisory Council policy proposal, public v.1: > ================================================== > When an ISP submits a request for IP address space, ARIN will review all > IP-based webhosting requests with the requesting organization to confirm > they have investigated the option of name-based webhosting and that there > are technical considerations which make IP-based webhosting preferable. > From Clay at exodus.net Mon Apr 9 22:37:14 2001 From: Clay at exodus.net (Clay) Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 19:37:14 -0700 Subject: Wording of the Virtual Webhosting Standards Policy In-Reply-To: <7FB4DD7DDD40D411986D00508BAC57D40206F83C@SCL4MLBX07> Message-ID: <000501c0c167$27dab210$ac00ff0a@CLAMBERTW2KD> This certainly provides the loophole that all the webhosters are looking for, while stating that its basically okay to waste address space, they'll at least have to tell us why. I prefer the initial policy recommendation that you sent in...It was to the point and it allowed webhosters the opportunity to say 'hey, we can't do it, and here is why'...And the most stringent requirement it mandated was to require a documentation supporting the technical reason for not using efficient methodologies. This seems very straight forward, and completely supportable, because it identifies the policy; do this, get that, done. I detest the term "strongly encourage" it does nothing to further efficient you of address space. If there is no worry about running out of IPv4 address space, then why "strongly encourage" ANY form of efficiency? If the routing tables are much more significantly impacted, due to the rapid growth of routes, then push for a hierarchical IP addressing policy that would be naturally more liberal in the doling out of IPv4 space...but think of the routing table efficiency that would be gained! The conservative trend regarding IPv4 allocation goes against the routing table growth trend... the more granular the allocations, the larger the routing tables...unless allocations are made with routing in mind... just a thought. Clay -----Original Message----- From: owner-ppml at arin.net [mailto:owner-ppml at arin.net]On Behalf Of Jill Kulpinski Sent: Monday, April 09, 2001 2:40 PM To: 'Lee Howard' Cc: 'David R Huberman'; ppml at arin.net Subject: RE: Wording of the Virtual Webhosting Standards Policy How about: All organizations applying for IPv4 address space must document efficient utilization of existing IPv4 assignments. This includes use of HTTP1.1-host header (name-based) virtual hosting or other efficient methodologies of address conservation whenever and wherever possible. If such name-based virtual hosting is not possible, documentation explaining the technical justification for any incompatibilities must be supplied with the application. What do you all think of this? Thanks, Jill -----Original Message----- From: Lee Howard [mailto:lhoward at UU.NET] Sent: Monday, April 09, 2001 1:11 PM To: Jill Kulpinski Cc: 'David R Huberman'; ppml at arin.net Subject: RE: Wording of the Virtual Webhosting Standards Policy As a matter of keeping me out of hot water, can this be the "Lee Howard proposal" rather than the "UUNET proposal"? I think you're right, so let me try rewording it thus: All organizations applying for IPv4 address space must document efficient utilization of existing IPv4 assignments. When addresses are used for web hosting, name-based virtual hosting should be provided using HTTP1.1 host headers whenever possible. If such name-based virtual hosting is not possible, documentation explaining why it is not possible should be provided in the application. I think this is consistent with general opinion on gathering more data through documentation, but will also let Clay (for instance) be as strict as he wants, by saying, "Your documentation is insufficient; this application can support name-based virtual hosting." Lee On Mon, 9 Apr 2001, Jill Kulpinski wrote: > Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 12:30:09 -0700 > From: Jill Kulpinski > To: 'David R Huberman' > Cc: ppml at arin.net > Subject: RE: Wording of the Virtual Webhosting Standards Policy > > Okay I am a little more clear regarding what is going on here now. Here is > the UUNET proposal: > Organizations providing web hosting services must document efficient > utilization of existing IPv4 assignments. Where possible, name-based > virtual hosting should be provided using HTTP1.1-host headers. If such > name-based virtual hosting is not possible, documentation explaining why > it is not possible should be provided in the application. > > Here are my comments: > I think that this is a succint, clear, to the point statement, but I am not > sure that I like 'organizations providing web hosting services'. Basically, > ALL organizations need to show efficient use of any IPv4 subnet space. How > about just 'organizations'? > > Jill > > -----Original Message----- > From: David R Huberman [mailto:huberman at gblx.net] > Sent: Monday, April 09, 2001 12:08 PM > Cc: ppml at arin.net > Subject: RE: Wording of the Virtual Webhosting Standards Policy > > > > On Mon, 9 Apr 2001, Jill Kulpinski wrote: > > > This whole writing back and forth thing gets very confusing. At this > point, > > I feel we need to get some clear suggestions by the people concerned > (those > > writing in), as to exactly what they want the policy to say. > > Since ARIN VII, we have had *three* distinct policy proposals published on > this list (one from Exodus, one from UUNET, and one from Global Crossing), > with ancillary commentary from myself on UUNET's policy proposal and from > Kevin on my policy proposal. > > Other than additional commentary from those lurking out there, what else > do you want? The thread so far seems, in my opinion, quite useful as an > outgrowth of a year's-worth of discussion to-date. > > /david > From mury at goldengate.net Tue Apr 10 17:26:08 2001 From: mury at goldengate.net (Mury) Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 16:26:08 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Wording of the Virtual Webhosting Standards Policy In-Reply-To: <000501c0c167$27dab210$ac00ff0a@CLAMBERTW2KD> Message-ID: Clay, Attitudes like this are as much a part of the problem as anything else. I'm sick of hearing from you how everyone is trying to cheat the system, find loopholes etc. I've known a lot of people in the ISP world and while some of them may be stupid, jerks, unorganized, etc, I have never met one that is intentionally trying to waste IP space. If you treat people like babies, they are going to tend to resent it and become more difficult to work with. ARIN must crack down on IP usage/non-usage abuse, but don't piss the masses off. As I've said from the beginning: 1) Let the community discuss changes in policy (which is happening much better now). 2) Give people time to make adjustments in their operations before a new policy is implemented. As an example in this current discussion, ARIN should word the policy with a recommend tone in it for awhile. Or, ARIN could give it much harder language, but then should post it as a change to be effective in 120 days or so. Surprises are not a pleasant thing when you are already under pressure to obtain more IP space of lose a customer. And this whole thing is kinda bizarre to be making such a big deal of when there is some ridiculous factor of this space be wasted in legacy allocations. Mury On Mon, 9 Apr 2001, Clay wrote: > This certainly provides the loophole that all the webhosters are looking > for, while stating that its basically okay to waste address space, they'll > at least have to tell us why. > > I prefer the initial policy recommendation that you sent in...It was to the > point and it allowed webhosters the opportunity to say 'hey, we can't do it, > and here is why'...And the most stringent requirement it mandated was to > require a documentation supporting the technical reason for not using > efficient methodologies. This seems very straight forward, and completely > supportable, because it identifies the policy; do this, get that, done. > > I detest the term "strongly encourage" it does nothing to further efficient > you of address space. If there is no worry about running out of IPv4 > address space, then why "strongly encourage" ANY form of efficiency? If the > routing tables are much more significantly impacted, due to the rapid growth > of routes, then push for a hierarchical IP addressing policy that would be > naturally more liberal in the doling out of IPv4 space...but think of the > routing table efficiency that would be gained! The conservative trend > regarding IPv4 allocation goes against the routing table growth trend... the > more granular the allocations, the larger the routing tables...unless > allocations are made with routing in mind... > > just a thought. > > Clay > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-ppml at arin.net [mailto:owner-ppml at arin.net]On Behalf Of Jill > Kulpinski > Sent: Monday, April 09, 2001 2:40 PM > To: 'Lee Howard' > Cc: 'David R Huberman'; ppml at arin.net > Subject: RE: Wording of the Virtual Webhosting Standards Policy > > > How about: > All organizations applying for IPv4 address space must document efficient > utilization of existing IPv4 assignments. This includes use of HTTP1.1-host > header (name-based) virtual hosting or other efficient methodologies of > address conservation whenever and wherever possible. If such name-based > virtual hosting is not possible, documentation explaining the technical > justification for any incompatibilities must be supplied with the > application. > > > What do you all think of this? > Thanks, > Jill > -----Original Message----- > From: Lee Howard [mailto:lhoward at UU.NET] > Sent: Monday, April 09, 2001 1:11 PM > To: Jill Kulpinski > Cc: 'David R Huberman'; ppml at arin.net > Subject: RE: Wording of the Virtual Webhosting Standards Policy > > > As a matter of keeping me out of hot water, can this be the "Lee Howard > proposal" rather than the "UUNET proposal"? > > I think you're right, so let me try rewording it thus: > > All organizations applying for IPv4 address space must document efficient > utilization of existing IPv4 assignments. When addresses are used for > web hosting, name-based virtual hosting should be provided using HTTP1.1 > host headers whenever possible. If such name-based virtual hosting is not > possible, documentation explaining why it is not possible should be > provided in the application. > > > I think this is consistent with general opinion on gathering more data > through documentation, but will also let Clay (for instance) be as strict > as he wants, by saying, "Your documentation is insufficient; this > application can support name-based virtual hosting." > > Lee > > > On Mon, 9 Apr 2001, Jill Kulpinski wrote: > > > Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 12:30:09 -0700 > > From: Jill Kulpinski > > To: 'David R Huberman' > > Cc: ppml at arin.net > > Subject: RE: Wording of the Virtual Webhosting Standards Policy > > > > Okay I am a little more clear regarding what is going on here now. Here > is > > the UUNET proposal: > > Organizations providing web hosting services must document efficient > > utilization of existing IPv4 assignments. Where possible, name-based > > virtual hosting should be provided using HTTP1.1-host headers. If such > > name-based virtual hosting is not possible, documentation explaining why > > it is not possible should be provided in the application. > > > > Here are my comments: > > I think that this is a succint, clear, to the point statement, but I am > not > > sure that I like 'organizations providing web hosting services'. > Basically, > > ALL organizations need to show efficient use of any IPv4 subnet space. > How > > about just 'organizations'? > > > > Jill > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: David R Huberman [mailto:huberman at gblx.net] > > Sent: Monday, April 09, 2001 12:08 PM > > Cc: ppml at arin.net > > Subject: RE: Wording of the Virtual Webhosting Standards Policy > > > > > > > > On Mon, 9 Apr 2001, Jill Kulpinski wrote: > > > > > This whole writing back and forth thing gets very confusing. At this > > point, > > > I feel we need to get some clear suggestions by the people concerned > > (those > > > writing in), as to exactly what they want the policy to say. > > > > Since ARIN VII, we have had *three* distinct policy proposals published on > > this list (one from Exodus, one from UUNET, and one from Global Crossing), > > with ancillary commentary from myself on UUNET's policy proposal and from > > Kevin on my policy proposal. > > > > Other than additional commentary from those lurking out there, what else > > do you want? The thread so far seems, in my opinion, quite useful as an > > outgrowth of a year's-worth of discussion to-date. > > > > /david > > > From randy at psg.com Sun Apr 15 13:36:12 2001 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2001 10:36:12 -0700 Subject: The Four Virtual Webhosting Proposals so far References: <7FB4DD7DDD40D411986D00508BAC57D40206F83C@SCL4MLBX07> Message-ID: > ARIN Advisory Council policy proposal, public v.1: > ================================================== > When an ISP submits a request for IP address space, ARIN will review all > IP-based webhosting requests with the requesting organization to confirm > they have investigated the option of name-based webhosting and that there > are technical considerations which make IP-based webhosting preferable. it is simple enough to make sense to me randy From billd at cait.wustl.edu Mon Apr 16 15:22:31 2001 From: billd at cait.wustl.edu (Bill Darte) Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 14:22:31 -0500 Subject: Virtual WebHosting Policy Rewording Message-ID: After consideration of suggested changes in the wording associated with the the Virtual Web Hosting policy voiced on mail lists and the ARIN meetings of April, the Advisory Council suggests the following slight change in wording. Note that the AC considers this a policy to be recomemended to the Board of Trustees after this 'final call' for input. It requires ISPs to provide technical justification for IP address space allocations to be used for IP-based web hosting and ARIN Registration Services staff to collect this information. Over time this information will be aggregated in a fashion which elimates specific customer/vendor references, and used by ARIN and members to review this policy for change. Bill Darte Advisory Council ARIN subscription holders who provide virtual webhosting services to their customers, and organizations that request new address space from ARIN, are strongly encouraged to employ a name-based system of webhosting -- a current best practice method which enables multiple domains to be hosted by a single IP address. In contrast, an IP-based system requires a distinct IP number for each domain, which, where not required for the technical basis of services offered, is an inefficient use of addresses. Widespread use of the name-based system will significantly reduce the number of addresses needed for webhosting and will help to conserve the limited supply of available address space. POLICY When an ISP submits a request for IP address space to be used for IP-based webhosting, they will supply technical justification for this practice. ARIN will collect this data for review of the policy in light of operational experience. From billd at cait.wustl.edu Wed Apr 18 11:14:20 2001 From: billd at cait.wustl.edu (Bill Darte) Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 10:14:20 -0500 Subject: Supporting ISPs with WebHosting Policy Message-ID: Stephen, This is definately a Community Learning and Education Workgroup (CLEW) initiative and I am happy to have you contribute a draft document or outline of such a document to the CLEW mail list. I and others on that list will respond and perhaps we can knock out a substantive document in the near future... Thanks again and I look forward to your draft. Bill Darte AC and CLEW Chair > -----Original Message----- > From: Stephen Elliott [mailto:stephen at hnt.com] > Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2001 9:22 AM > To: Bill Darte > Cc: ARIN Public Policy (E-mail); ARIN Virtual Web Hosting (E-mail) > Subject: Re: Virtual WebHosting Policy Rewording > > > I am glad to see that there is some movement on this. I > agree with the > wording of this, but I would like to see something else; > guidelines for > proper implementation. One of the big problems with changes like this > is that in the past ARIN has kicked out the broad strokes of > the policy, > but individual ISP's then had to craft policies around the framework > provided by ARIN. This is ok in most circumstances, the ISP's for the > most part produce policies that are inline with ARIN and everyone is > happy. Yet some ISP's take tend to take it upon themselves to go the > extra mile and prohibit practices that are completely inline with the > ARIN policies, and then blame ARIN for this, saying it is not them, it > is ARIN. What I would suggest is a document that outlines what this > really means and how policies should be written at ISP's and others > responsible for distributing IP's. I will gladly volunteer > to help out > with a draft that can be read by the group and modify it based on > feedback. It is my hope that we as a group can come up with a policy > that is used industry wide and applied equally... well I can > hope can't > I! > -Stephen > > Bill Darte wrote: > > > > After consideration of suggested changes in the wording > associated with the > > the Virtual Web Hosting policy voiced on mail lists and the > ARIN meetings of > > April, the Advisory Council suggests the following slight > change in wording. > > > > Note that the AC considers this a policy to be recomemended > to the Board of > > Trustees after this 'final call' for input. It requires > ISPs to provide > > technical justification for IP address space allocations to > be used for > > IP-based web hosting and ARIN Registration Services staff > to collect this > > information. Over time this information will be aggregated > in a fashion > > which elimates specific customer/vendor references, and > used by ARIN and > > members to review this policy for change. > > > > Bill Darte > > Advisory Council > > > > > > ARIN subscription holders who provide virtual webhosting > services to their > > customers, and organizations that request new address space > from ARIN, are > > strongly encouraged to employ a name-based system of webhosting -- a > > current best practice method which enables multiple domains > to be hosted > > by a single IP address. In contrast, an IP-based system requires a > > distinct IP number for each domain, which, where not > required for the > > technical basis of services offered, is an inefficient use > of addresses. > > Widespread use of the name-based system will significantly > reduce the > > number of addresses needed for webhosting and will help to > conserve the > > limited supply of available address space. > > > > POLICY > > > > When an ISP submits a request for IP address space to be > used for IP-based > > webhosting, they will supply technical justification for > this practice. ARIN > > will collect this data for review of the policy in light of > operational > > experience. > > -- > Stephen Elliott Harrison & Troxell > Systems & Networking Manager 2 Faneuil Hall Marketplace > Systems & Networking Group Boston, Ma 02109 > (617)227-0494 Phone (617)720-3918 Fax > From vipar at verio.net Wed Apr 18 19:38:47 2001 From: vipar at verio.net (the address keepers) Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 23:38:47 +0000 (GMT) Subject: maintainers at ARIN and rwhois Message-ID: at the last ARIN meeting in San Francisco we discussed the gist of the below policy. Randy Bush and I raised some concerns about it in relationship to companies such as Verio that have an rwhois database and for whose customers this does not apply. Lesley Johnson said that ARIN would make sure that this caveat was taken care of. I realize that this was a canned response that was sent out to a generic question, however the generic customer is a Verio customer, and this does not apply to them. it has created some confusion and general running about by the customer and our lower level support teams. I realize that it would be difficult (if not impossible) to tell who a questioner's upstream ISP was, so I am wondering if a sentence could be added to the message to say that this policy does not apply if the upstream ISP uses rwhois. I realize that this may seem obvious to some, but there are many out there that don't understand the intricacies of the swip process. thanks for your time, lyric --------------------------- lyric apted ip engineering manager, vipar vipar at verio.net verio, inc. --------------------------- > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Reassign Role Account [mailto:reassign at arin.net] > > > Sent: Friday, April 13, 2001 11:53 AM > > > To: rmartin at bhwy.com > > > Subject: Re: your mail > > > > > > Hello, > > > > > > Due to a recent policy change discussed by the ARIN Members, maintainer > > > ID's will no longer be freely applied to downstream reassignments that > > > have been "assigned" as opposed to "allocated". Reassignment records > > > are not permitted to be altered in any way by anyone other than the > > > coordinator of the parental block. > > > > > > It has been decided that downstream customer petition their upstream > > > providers to grant permission to change their reassignment from an > > > assignment to an allocation. In requesting this from your upstream > > > providers, you can give them one of two options available. > > > > > > 1. If a customer who has been assigned address space from their > > > upstream provider wishes to assign address space further downstream, > > > they are encouraged to petition their upstream provider to re-SWIP the > > > address space as an allocation. This involves deleting the original > > > SWIP entry and submitting a new SWIP with the allocation being shown. > > > > > > *Please note, the upstream provider would need to create a new unique > > > net handle for the "re-allocated" block in order for the SWIP request > > > to go through. > > > > > > 2. Customers can also petition their upstream providers to send a > > > confirmation email message into hostmaster at arin.net stating that > > > they would like to have ARIN change the reassignment from assigned > > > to allocate. > > > > > > If the upstream provider is unresponsive in a reasonable amount of > > > time, the downstream customer may petition ARIN to enact this change. > > > ARIN will make it's best attempt to contact the upstream provider to > > > obtain their permission. If the provider declines permission, ARIN > > > will notify the petitioner as such. If the provider is unresponsive > > > after 10 business days, ARIN will accede to the petitioner's request > > > and notify the upstream of the change(s). > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > Registration Services Group > > > American Registry for Internet Numbers > > > =================================================================== > > > email hostmaster at ARIN.NET > > > ftp, whois rs.arin.net > > > website http://www.arin.net > > > =================================================================== > > > > > > > > > > by ops.arin.net (8.9.0/8.9.0) with ESMTP id RAA13914 > > > > for ; Wed, 11 Apr 2001 17:56:39 -0400 (EDT) > > > > Received: from chillywilly.bhwy.net ([209.189.86.252]) > > > > by rs2.arin.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA08078 > > > > for ; Wed, 11 Apr 2001 17:56:38 -0400 (EDT) > > > > Received: from saibabe (xrouter.bhwy.net [209.189.86.250]) > > > > (authenticated) > > > > by chillywilly.bhwy.net (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f3BM3TT09342; > > > > Wed, 11 Apr 2001 15:03:30 -0700 > > > > From: "Bob Martin - BHI" > > > > To: > > > > Cc: "Dave Palais" > > > > Subject: [ARIN-20010411.1637] Broadband Highway, Inc. Address > > Requirements > > > & Maintainer ID > > > > Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 15:00:00 -0700 > > > > Message-ID: > > > > MIME-Version: 1.0 > > > > Content-Type: text/plain; > > > > charset="iso-8859-1" > > > > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > > > X-Priority: 3 (Normal) > > > > X-MSMail-Priority: Normal > > > > X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) > > > > X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 > > > > Importance: Normal > > > > X-MTS-Ticket: 20010411.1637 > > > > X-MTS-Type: reassign > > > > X-MTS-Mode: Unknown > > > > X-MTS-Priority: Normal > > > > X-MTS-Status: Open > > > > X-MTS-Timestamp: 20010411175640 > > > > X-Status: > > > > X-Keywords: > > > > Status: OR > > > > WDB_version:1.4 > > > > --- > > > > ___ > > > > Broadband Highway, Inc. is a small startup ISP who is utilizing Verio as > > > > their upstream ISP. I am writing to get my maintainer ID. > > > > I have downloaded the ARIN web pages, which provides me with information > > I > > > > need to receive my own addresses, although I am confused about some of > > it. > > > > Perhaps you can help me. > > > > We initially started utilizing NAT for many customer connections out to > > > the > > > > Internet. We currently have been assigned 4 non-contiguous class C Ipv4 > > > > address space, which we have started to allocate on a /28 boundary. We > > > need > > > > to drop the NAT methodology due to the increased administrative and > > > > processor overhead. We currently have 31 buildings "lit up", with over > > > 110 > > > > subscribers. Since we have 4 sales people eagerly selling high > > bandwidth > > > > customers, I need to convert them to their own addresses, drop NAT, and > > > > implement BGP since we want to get a second Verio connection, which we > > are > > > > paying for, going ASAP. > > > > Our sales goal is to have 16 subscribers per building by the end of the > > > > second quarter, add 5 more buildings, and if they are allocated on the > > /28 > > > > boundary (basically 16 addresses), then I will need 31 class C address > > > > space. Since all the information, which I read on the Web site, > > requires > > > me > > > > to justify the addresses from past history, I will not be able to do so. > > > I > > > > do, however, feel that we should get our own address space directly from > > > > ARIN. > > > > I appreciate your input. > > > > Sincerely, > > > > Bob Martin > > > > ____ > > > > > > > > Our callback number is (214) 583-6428 (please do not give to customers) > > I am Doug White > > My email address is dwhite at verio.net but please reply to all. > > The date is 4/17/2001 > > The time is 15:32 CST > > > > =-= Verio Premier Support > > > From leslien at arin.net Fri Apr 20 13:55:41 2001 From: leslien at arin.net (Leslie Nobile) Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 13:55:41 -0400 Subject: [ARIN-20010411.1637] maintainers at ARIN and rwhois Message-ID: Hello Lyric- Thank you for your input on this matter. We realize that rwhois was not mentioned in the original policy statement and that this may be causing some confusion. We will review the policy statement below and attempt to clarify the issues mentioned. Thanks again. Regards, Leslie Nobile Director of Registration Services American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) > To: reassign at arin.net > cc: ppml at arin.net, the address keepers > Subject: [ARIN-20010411.1637] maintainers at ARIN and rwhois > Message-ID: > MIME-Version: 1.0 > Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII > X-MTS-Ticket: 20010411.1637 > X-MTS-Type: reassign > X-MTS-Mode: Unknown > X-MTS-Priority: Normal > X-MTS-Status: Open > X-MTS-Timestamp: 20010418193849 > Status: RO > X-Status: > X-Keywords: > at the last ARIN meeting in San Francisco we discussed the gist of the > below policy. Randy Bush and I raised some concerns about it in > relationship to companies such as Verio that have an rwhois database and > for whose customers this does not apply. Lesley Johnson said that ARIN > would make sure that this caveat was taken care of. > I realize that this was a canned response that was sent out to a generic > question, however the generic customer is a Verio customer, and this does > not apply to them. it has created some confusion and general running about > by the customer and our lower level support teams. > I realize that it would be difficult (if not impossible) to tell who a > questioner's upstream ISP was, so I am wondering if a sentence could be > added to the message to say that this policy does not apply if the > upstream ISP uses rwhois. I realize that this may seem obvious to some, > but there are many out there that don't understand the intricacies of the > swip process. > thanks for your time, > lyric > --------------------------- > lyric apted > ip engineering manager, vipar > vipar at verio.net > verio, inc. > --------------------------- > -----Original Message----- > From: Reassign Role Account [mailto:reassign at arin.net] > Sent: Friday, April 13, 2001 11:53 AM > To: rmartin at bhwy.com > Subject: Re: your mail > Hello, > Due to a recent policy change discussed by the ARIN Members, > maintainer > ID's will no longer be freely applied to downstream reassignments that > have been "assigned" as opposed to "allocated". Reassignment records > are not permitted to be altered in any way by anyone other than the > coordinator of the parental block. > It has been decided that downstream customer petition their upstream > providers to grant permission to change their reassignment from an > assignment to an allocation. In requesting this from your upstream > providers, you can give them one of two options available. > 1. If a customer who has been assigned address space from their > upstream provider wishes to assign address space further downstream, > they are encouraged to petition their upstream provider to re-SWIP the > address space as an allocation. This involves deleting the original > SWIP entry and submitting a new SWIP with the allocation being shown. > *Please note, the upstream provider would need to create a new unique > net handle for the "re-allocated" block in order for the SWIP request > to go through. > 2. Customers can also petition their upstream providers to send a > confirmation email message into hostmaster at arin.net stating that > they would like to have ARIN change the reassignment from assigned > to allocate. > If the upstream provider is unresponsive in a reasonable amount of > time, the downstream customer may petition ARIN to enact this change. > ARIN will make it's best attempt to contact the upstream provider to > obtain their permission. If the provider declines permission, ARIN > will notify the petitioner as such. If the provider is unresponsive > after 10 business days, ARIN will accede to the petitioner's request > and notify the upstream of the change(s). > Regards, > Registration Services Group > American Registry for Internet Numbers > =================================================================== > email hostmaster at ARIN.NET > ftp, whois rs.arin.net > website http://www.arin.net > =================================================================== > by ops.arin.net (8.9.0/8.9.0) with ESMTP id RAA13914 > for ; Wed, 11 Apr 2001 17:56:39 -0400 > (EDT) > Received: from chillywilly.bhwy.net ([209.189.86.252]) > by rs2.arin.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA08078 > for ; Wed, 11 Apr 2001 17:56:38 -0400 (EDT) > Received: from saibabe (xrouter.bhwy.net [209.189.86.250]) > (authenticated) > by chillywilly.bhwy.net (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f3BM3TT09342; > Wed, 11 Apr 2001 15:03:30 -0700 > From: "Bob Martin - BHI" > To: > Cc: "Dave Palais" > Subject: [ARIN-20010411.1637] Broadband Highway, Inc. Address > Requirements > & Maintainer ID > Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 15:00:00 -0700 > Message-ID: > MIME-Version: 1.0 > Content-Type: text/plain; > charset="iso-8859-1" > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > X-Priority: 3 (Normal) > X-MSMail-Priority: Normal > X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) > X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 > Importance: Normal > X-MTS-Ticket: 20010411.1637 > X-MTS-Type: reassign > X-MTS-Mode: Unknown > X-MTS-Priority: Normal > X-MTS-Status: Open > X-MTS-Timestamp: 20010411175640 > X-Status: > X-Keywords: > Status: OR > WDB_version:1.4 > --- > ___ > Broadband Highway, Inc. is a small startup ISP who is utilizing > Verio as > their upstream ISP. I am writing to get my maintainer ID. > I have downloaded the ARIN web pages, which provides me with > information > I > need to receive my own addresses, although I am confused about some > of > it. > Perhaps you can help me. > We initially started utilizing NAT for many customer connections out > to > the > Internet. We currently have been assigned 4 non-contiguous class C > Ipv4 > address space, which we have started to allocate on a /28 boundary. > We > need > to drop the NAT methodology due to the increased administrative and > processor overhead. We currently have 31 buildings "lit up", with > over > 110 > subscribers. Since we have 4 sales people eagerly selling high > bandwidth > customers, I need to convert them to their own addresses, drop NAT, > and > implement BGP since we want to get a second Verio connection, which > we > are > paying for, going ASAP. > Our sales goal is to have 16 subscribers per building by the end of > the > second quarter, add 5 more buildings, and if they are allocated on > the > /28 > boundary (basically 16 addresses), then I will need 31 class C > address > space. Since all the information, which I read on the Web site, > requires > me > to justify the addresses from past history, I will not be able to do > so. > I > do, however, feel that we should get our own address space directly > from > ARIN. > I appreciate your input. > Sincerely, > Bob Martin > ____ > Our callback number is (214) 583-6428 (please do not give to customers) > I am Doug White > My email address is dwhite at verio.net but please reply to all. > The date is 4/17/2001 > The time is 15:32 CST > =-= Verio Premier Support > > From thinman at clp.cw.net Tue Apr 24 13:44:32 2001 From: thinman at clp.cw.net (Tanya Hinman) Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 13:44:32 -0400 Subject: Reassignment Proposal Message-ID: We would like to propose the creation of a third reassignment option in conjunction with the current SWIP and RWHOIS options. As companies expand globally, it would be much simpler for them to update WHOIS data in their own one Registry rather than the three RIRs. We would like to create our own WHOIS database within our Routing Registry. This would be similar to the way RIPE represents WHOIS information along with their Routing Registry, and it would be in place of a stand alone RWHOIS database which some of the other ISP's are currently using. 1)If this is accepted by all three RIRs it would be very efficient and it may help to relieve some of the load from the RIR's. 2)If the RIRs were to Mirror the WHOIS data from ours/other ISPs' Registries, it would also allow queries from the RIRs registries rather than referencing the customer's URL like the current RWHOIS reference. 3)It would be much easier to update and keep data accurate if all the data is managed using the same database. 4)Guidelines for the format of this WHOIS option will need to be set in order to implement a standard. Thank you, Tanya Hinman Cable & Wireless From lhoward at UU.NET Tue Apr 24 14:40:18 2001 From: lhoward at UU.NET (Lee Howard) Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 14:40:18 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Reassignment Proposal In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I've been thinking along similar lines for a while. Presumable, eveyone has a database of their IP allocations (for some people, this database is a spreadsheet or spiral-bound notebook). Trying to keep that database in sync with the IRR (whether ARIN, RADB, or internal) and SWIP is difficult, and distributing data queries to the database of record makes a lot of sense to me. Much like DNS, come to think of it. Would you provide responses in RPSL? I seem to recall ARIN announcing the publication of RWHOIS output requirements, but I can't find them (or anything about RWHOIS) on the ARIN site map. RWHOIS is on the agenda for 4/4/2000 Public Policy Meeting, but my meeting notes don't have anything more specific. In fact, there are no meeting minutes on ARIN's site for that meeting. I'm all in favor of a combined RWHOIS/IRR responder. Lee Howard On Tue, 24 Apr 2001, Tanya Hinman wrote: > Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 13:44:32 -0400 > From: Tanya Hinman > To: ppml at arin.net > Subject: Reassignment Proposal > > > We would like to propose the creation of a third reassignment option in > conjunction with the current SWIP and RWHOIS options. As companies expand > globally, it would be much simpler for them to update WHOIS data in their > own one Registry rather than the three RIRs. We would like to create our own > WHOIS database within our Routing Registry. This would be similar to the way > RIPE represents WHOIS information along with their Routing Registry, and it > would be in place of a stand alone RWHOIS database which some of the other > ISP's are currently using. > > 1)If this is accepted by all three RIRs it would be very efficient and it > may help to relieve some of the load from the RIR's. > 2)If the RIRs were to Mirror the WHOIS data from ours/other ISPs' > Registries, it would also allow queries from the RIRs registries rather than > referencing the customer's URL like the current RWHOIS reference. > 3)It would be much easier to update and keep data accurate if all the data > is managed using the same database. > 4)Guidelines for the format of this WHOIS option will need to be set in > order to implement a standard. > > Thank you, > Tanya Hinman > Cable & Wireless > From thinman at clp.cw.net Tue Apr 24 14:52:19 2001 From: thinman at clp.cw.net (Tanya Hinman) Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 14:52:19 -0400 Subject: Reassignment Proposal In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Lee, Thanks for your feedback and yes our responses would be in RPSL. We did discuss RWHOIS briefly at the last ARIN meeting in San Francisco. Most people wanted to see the code upgraded and there was a suggestion that ARIN take that responsibility. I am unsure of what the outcome of that suggestion was though. Talks of RWHOIS and the code upgrade have been going on for a few years now, but it appears that no one wants the job of upgrading the code. Tanya -----Original Message----- From: Lee Howard [mailto:lhoward at UU.NET] Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2001 2:40 PM To: Tanya Hinman Cc: ppml at arin.net Subject: Re: Reassignment Proposal I've been thinking along similar lines for a while. Presumable, eveyone has a database of their IP allocations (for some people, this database is a spreadsheet or spiral-bound notebook). Trying to keep that database in sync with the IRR (whether ARIN, RADB, or internal) and SWIP is difficult, and distributing data queries to the database of record makes a lot of sense to me. Much like DNS, come to think of it. Would you provide responses in RPSL? I seem to recall ARIN announcing the publication of RWHOIS output requirements, but I can't find them (or anything about RWHOIS) on the ARIN site map. RWHOIS is on the agenda for 4/4/2000 Public Policy Meeting, but my meeting notes don't have anything more specific. In fact, there are no meeting minutes on ARIN's site for that meeting. I'm all in favor of a combined RWHOIS/IRR responder. Lee Howard On Tue, 24 Apr 2001, Tanya Hinman wrote: > Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 13:44:32 -0400 > From: Tanya Hinman > To: ppml at arin.net > Subject: Reassignment Proposal > > > We would like to propose the creation of a third reassignment option in > conjunction with the current SWIP and RWHOIS options. As companies expand > globally, it would be much simpler for them to update WHOIS data in their > own one Registry rather than the three RIRs. We would like to create our own > WHOIS database within our Routing Registry. This would be similar to the way > RIPE represents WHOIS information along with their Routing Registry, and it > would be in place of a stand alone RWHOIS database which some of the other > ISP's are currently using. > > 1)If this is accepted by all three RIRs it would be very efficient and it > may help to relieve some of the load from the RIR's. > 2)If the RIRs were to Mirror the WHOIS data from ours/other ISPs' > Registries, it would also allow queries from the RIRs registries rather than > referencing the customer's URL like the current RWHOIS reference. > 3)It would be much easier to update and keep data accurate if all the data > is managed using the same database. > 4)Guidelines for the format of this WHOIS option will need to be set in > order to implement a standard. > > Thank you, > Tanya Hinman > Cable & Wireless > From richardj at arin.net Tue Apr 24 15:55:56 2001 From: richardj at arin.net (Richard Jimmerson) Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 15:55:56 -0400 Subject: Reassignment Proposal In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <003801c0ccf8$94379440$edfc95c0@arin.net> Hello Lee, > I seem to recall ARIN announcing the publication of RWHOIS output > requirements, but I can't find them (or anything about RWHOIS) on the > ARIN site map. This information is available at ftp://ftp.arin.net/pub/rwhois/arin-request-data.txt We will add a link to the ARIN site map. Richard Jimmerson Director of Operations American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-ppml at arin.net [mailto:owner-ppml at arin.net]On Behalf Of Lee > Howard > Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2001 2:40 PM > To: Tanya Hinman > Cc: ppml at arin.net > Subject: Re: Reassignment Proposal > > > I've been thinking along similar lines for a while. > Presumable, eveyone > has a database of their IP allocations (for some people, this database > is a spreadsheet or spiral-bound notebook). Trying to keep > that database > in sync with the IRR (whether ARIN, RADB, or internal) and SWIP is > difficult, and distributing data queries to the database of > record makes > a lot of sense to me. Much like DNS, come to think of it. > > Would you provide responses in RPSL? > > I seem to recall ARIN announcing the publication of RWHOIS output > requirements, but I can't find them (or anything about RWHOIS) on the > ARIN site map. RWHOIS is on the agenda for 4/4/2000 Public Policy > Meeting, but my meeting notes don't have anything more specific. In > fact, there are no meeting minutes on ARIN's site for that meeting. > > I'm all in favor of a combined RWHOIS/IRR responder. > > Lee Howard > > > On Tue, 24 Apr 2001, Tanya Hinman wrote: > > > Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 13:44:32 -0400 > > From: Tanya Hinman > > To: ppml at arin.net > > Subject: Reassignment Proposal > > > > > > We would like to propose the creation of a third > reassignment option in > > conjunction with the current SWIP and RWHOIS options. As > companies expand > > globally, it would be much simpler for them to update WHOIS > data in their > > own one Registry rather than the three RIRs. We would like > to create our own > > WHOIS database within our Routing Registry. This would be > similar to the way > > RIPE represents WHOIS information along with their Routing > Registry, and it > > would be in place of a stand alone RWHOIS database which > some of the other > > ISP's are currently using. > > > > 1)If this is accepted by all three RIRs it would be very > efficient and it > > may help to relieve some of the load from the RIR's. > > 2)If the RIRs were to Mirror the WHOIS data from ours/other ISPs' > > Registries, it would also allow queries from the RIRs > registries rather than > > referencing the customer's URL like the current RWHOIS reference. > > 3)It would be much easier to update and keep data accurate > if all the data > > is managed using the same database. > > 4)Guidelines for the format of this WHOIS option will need > to be set in > > order to implement a standard. > > > > Thank you, > > Tanya Hinman > > Cable & Wireless > > From rmuir at pathnet.net Fri Apr 27 09:22:08 2001 From: rmuir at pathnet.net (Muir, Ronald) Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 09:22:08 -0400 Subject: RWHOIS Message-ID: At the members meeting, on 4/4, I asked that the board consider ARIN taking over the future support and development of RWHOIS. I know that this is not just a simple task of saying we will do it but will involve some negotiations. Richard, Could you give us a status of the RWHOIS project. Has the board decided to pursue this project? What has been accomplished so far? Thanks, Ron ------------------------------------------------- Ron Muir Director, Operations Development Pathnet, Inc. rmuir at pathnet.net 703-390-2820 / ------------------------------------------------- Ron Muir Director, Operations Development Pathnet, Inc. rmuir at pathnet.net 703-390-2820 From shane at time-travellers.org Fri Apr 27 10:55:45 2001 From: shane at time-travellers.org (Shane Kerr) Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 16:55:45 +0200 Subject: RWHOIS In-Reply-To: ; from rmuir@pathnet.net at 2001-04-27 09:22:08 +0000 References: Message-ID: <20010427165541.A20499@mars.lab.time-travellers.org> On 2001-04-27 09:22:08 +0000, Muir, Ronald wrote: > At the members meeting, on 4/4, I asked that the board consider ARIN > taking over the future support and development of RWHOIS. I know that > this is not just a simple task of saying we will do it but will > involve some negotiations. Question: how important is it for the referral to be handled by the client? The reason I ask is that the RIPE Whois server allows the recipient of certain kinds of records in the RIPE database to specify a "referral" to another Whois server when a query for that record is made. For example, the IS domain record in the RIPE database has the following attribute: refer: ripe whois.isnic.is This means that when the server gets a query for an .IS domain, it actually opens a connection to whois.isnic.is and performs the query on behalf of the client, effectively acting as a tunnel. You can try: $ whois linux.is at whois.ripe.net To see how this looks from the user point of view. Now, this kind of server referral is supported in the current RWhois server, but it isn't really the intent (as I understand it). The intent was to allow RWhois to work something like HTTP, where the client actually gets information on which server has the information the user wants, and then queries it directly. Having clients follow referrals is obviously much more efficient (for the Internet at large - for a specific user the server tunnel is often faster). But it requires client software that supports the protocol. Having the server follow referrals allows us to stick with "telnet" as a Whois client. The new RIPE Whois server, in production since April 23, is Much Improved(tm). Currently it only supports referrals for several types of records - network allocations (inetnum) are not among them. It would probably be a lot less work to add this capability than to maintain two seperate database interfaces. Perhaps ARIN should pursue this as a goal instead of taking on maintaining RWhois? After all, the RIPE Whois server is very actively maintained. ;) Your pal in Amsterdam, Shane From richardj at arin.net Fri Apr 27 14:26:34 2001 From: richardj at arin.net (Richard Jimmerson) Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 14:26:34 -0400 Subject: RWHOIS In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000701c0cf47$97d1a360$edfc95c0@arin.net> Hello Ron, > At the members meeting, on 4/4, I asked that the board > consider ARIN taking over the future support and development > of RWHOIS. I know that this is not just a simple task of > saying we will do it but will involve some negotiations. > Could you give us a status of the RWHOIS project. ARIN has determined taking over the future support and development of RWHOIS may require a complete rewrite of the software. There has also been some discussion on this list about the possibility of a third reassignment option. Ginny Listman will be moving this discussion over to the dbwg at arin.net mailing list. -Richard Richard Jimmerson Director of Operations American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-ppml at arin.net [mailto:owner-ppml at arin.net]On > Behalf Of Muir, > Ronald > Sent: Friday, April 27, 2001 9:22 AM > To: ppml at arin.net > Subject: RWHOIS > > > At the members meeting, on 4/4, I asked that the board > consider ARIN taking > over the future support and development of RWHOIS. I know > that this is not > just a simple task of saying we will do it but will involve some > negotiations. > > > Richard, > > Could you give us a status of the RWHOIS project. > > Has the board decided to pursue this project? > What has been accomplished so far? > > Thanks, > > Ron > ------------------------------------------------- > Ron Muir > Director, Operations Development > Pathnet, Inc. > rmuir at pathnet.net > 703-390-2820 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > / > > ------------------------------------------------- > Ron Muir > Director, Operations Development > Pathnet, Inc. > rmuir at pathnet.net > 703-390-2820 From ginny at arin.net Fri Apr 27 14:47:41 2001 From: ginny at arin.net (ginny listman) Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 14:47:41 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Reassignment Proposal Message-ID: Tanya, Since this is more a question of where ARIN should invest resources in developing, and less a policy issue, I would like to move the discussion to the dbwg list. Developing a IRR-like mechanism to monitor reassignments is an excellent idea, and should be discuss further. As you recall, at the Member Meeting, members clearly expressed the desire for ARIN to invest resources in "fixing" RWHOIS. We have done some initial analysis, and we would completely rewrite it, most likely using PERL. Before Engineering proceeds, I would like to take a survey of what reassigment method the membership would most likely use. We can then apply resources accordingly. The choices are: SWIP RWHOIS IRR like method All three have pluses and minuses. Ideally we would like to see a single method that would allow for the maintenance of reassignment information at either the ISP or at ARIN. Realistically, we would need a method to maintain data centrally (SWIP), and a method to maintain data local (RWHOIS, or something else). Of course, the more responses received will give us a better sense of what the membership wants. Ginny Listman Director of Engineering American Registry for Internet Numbers On Tue, 24 Apr 2001, Tanya Hinman wrote: > Lee, > > Thanks for your feedback and yes our responses would be in RPSL. > We did discuss RWHOIS briefly at the last ARIN meeting in San Francisco. > Most people wanted to see the code upgraded and there was a suggestion that > ARIN take that responsibility. I am unsure of what the outcome of that > suggestion was though. Talks of RWHOIS and the code upgrade have been going > on for a few years now, but it appears that no one wants the job of > upgrading the code. > > Tanya > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Lee Howard [mailto:lhoward at UU.NET] > Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2001 2:40 PM > To: Tanya Hinman > Cc: ppml at arin.net > Subject: Re: Reassignment Proposal > > > I've been thinking along similar lines for a while. Presumable, eveyone > has a database of their IP allocations (for some people, this database > is a spreadsheet or spiral-bound notebook). Trying to keep that database > in sync with the IRR (whether ARIN, RADB, or internal) and SWIP is > difficult, and distributing data queries to the database of record makes > a lot of sense to me. Much like DNS, come to think of it. > > Would you provide responses in RPSL? > > I seem to recall ARIN announcing the publication of RWHOIS output > requirements, but I can't find them (or anything about RWHOIS) on the > ARIN site map. RWHOIS is on the agenda for 4/4/2000 Public Policy > Meeting, but my meeting notes don't have anything more specific. In > fact, there are no meeting minutes on ARIN's site for that meeting. > > I'm all in favor of a combined RWHOIS/IRR responder. > > Lee Howard > > > On Tue, 24 Apr 2001, Tanya Hinman wrote: > > > Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 13:44:32 -0400 > > From: Tanya Hinman > > To: ppml at arin.net > > Subject: Reassignment Proposal > > > > > > We would like to propose the creation of a third reassignment option in > > conjunction with the current SWIP and RWHOIS options. As companies expand > > globally, it would be much simpler for them to update WHOIS data in their > > own one Registry rather than the three RIRs. We would like to create our > own > > WHOIS database within our Routing Registry. This would be similar to the > way > > RIPE represents WHOIS information along with their Routing Registry, and > it > > would be in place of a stand alone RWHOIS database which some of the other > > ISP's are currently using. > > > > 1)If this is accepted by all three RIRs it would be very efficient and it > > may help to relieve some of the load from the RIR's. > > 2)If the RIRs were to Mirror the WHOIS data from ours/other ISPs' > > Registries, it would also allow queries from the RIRs registries rather > than > > referencing the customer's URL like the current RWHOIS reference. > > 3)It would be much easier to update and keep data accurate if all the data > > is managed using the same database. > > 4)Guidelines for the format of this WHOIS option will need to be set in > > order to implement a standard. > > > > Thank you, > > Tanya Hinman > > Cable & Wireless > > > > From markk at netsol.com Fri Apr 27 14:51:13 2001 From: markk at netsol.com (Mark Kosters) Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 14:51:13 -0400 Subject: RWHOIS In-Reply-To: <000701c0cf47$97d1a360$edfc95c0@arin.net>; from richardj@arin.net on Fri, Apr 27, 2001 at 02:26:34PM -0400 References: <000701c0cf47$97d1a360$edfc95c0@arin.net> Message-ID: <20010427145113.B12342@slam.admin.cto.netsol.com> On Fri, Apr 27, 2001 at 02:26:34PM -0400, Richard Jimmerson wrote: > ARIN has determined taking over the future support and > development of RWHOIS may require a complete rewrite > of the software. There has also been some discussion on > this list about the possibility of a third reassignment > option. Ginny Listman will be moving this discussion over > to the dbwg at arin.net mailing list. I don't think it needs a complete rewrite. I do however think that the db stuff on the backside needs to be replaced with mysql, oracle, or something else. People can use different tools to update and display info that resides on their database other than using rwhois or cumbersome text editing that is prone to error. Mark From markk at netsol.com Fri Apr 27 15:11:04 2001 From: markk at netsol.com (Mark Kosters) Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 15:11:04 -0400 Subject: RWHOIS In-Reply-To: <20010427165541.A20499@mars.lab.time-travellers.org>; from shane@time-travellers.org on Fri, Apr 27, 2001 at 04:55:45PM +0200 References: <20010427165541.A20499@mars.lab.time-travellers.org> Message-ID: <20010427151104.C12342@slam.admin.cto.netsol.com> On Fri, Apr 27, 2001 at 04:55:45PM +0200, Shane Kerr wrote: > The new RIPE Whois server, in production since April 23, is Much > Improved(tm). Currently it only supports referrals for several types of > records - network allocations (inetnum) are not among them. It would > probably be a lot less work to add this capability than to maintain two > seperate database interfaces. Perhaps ARIN should pursue this as a goal > instead of taking on maintaining RWhois? After all, the RIPE Whois > server is very actively maintained. ;) I'm glad to hear that RIPE has improved their database. Personally, I'd like to see the data distributed and not reliant on a box (or boxes) that have to chase referrals for the distributed info to send back to the client. We do this at the Verisign registrar for the gtld whois stuff and it is non-trivial. Resources to do this at fairly high volume rates is pretty expensive. Work is on-going to replace this creaky system. I hate to see ARIN follow this model and caught a couple of years from now with volumes that they may not want to be able to sustain*. Regards, Mark *there have been proposals from various types of vendors to use the whois data from ARIN et al to improve their services (legit ones - not spammers). Someday they may do so. I hope that we can create the right sort of infrastucture to make it happen without a lot of pain. -- Mark Kosters markk at netsol.com Verisign Applied Research PGP Key fingerprint = 1A 2A 92 F8 8E D3 47 F9 15 65 80 87 68 13 F6 48 From richardj at arin.net Fri Apr 27 15:44:58 2001 From: richardj at arin.net (Richard Jimmerson) Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 15:44:58 -0400 Subject: RWHOIS In-Reply-To: <20010427151104.C12342@slam.admin.cto.netsol.com> Message-ID: <001701c0cf52$8aba31a0$edfc95c0@arin.net> Thank you for participating in this discussion. Please direct your future messages on this subject to the dbwg at arin.net mailing list. -Richard Jimmerson > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-ppml at arin.net [mailto:owner-ppml at arin.net]On > Behalf Of Mark > Kosters > Sent: Friday, April 27, 2001 3:11 PM > To: Shane Kerr > Cc: Muir, Ronald; ppml at arin.net > Subject: Re: RWHOIS > > > On Fri, Apr 27, 2001 at 04:55:45PM +0200, Shane Kerr wrote: > > The new RIPE Whois server, in production since April 23, is Much > > Improved(tm). Currently it only supports referrals for > several types of > > records - network allocations (inetnum) are not among them. > It would > > probably be a lot less work to add this capability than to > maintain two > > seperate database interfaces. Perhaps ARIN should pursue > this as a goal > > instead of taking on maintaining RWhois? After all, the RIPE Whois > > server is very actively maintained. ;) > > I'm glad to hear that RIPE has improved their database. > > Personally, I'd like to see the data distributed and not reliant on > a box (or boxes) that have to chase referrals for the > distributed info to > send back to the client. We do this at the Verisign > registrar for the > gtld whois stuff and it is non-trivial. Resources to do this > at fairly high > volume rates is pretty expensive. > > Work is on-going to replace this creaky system. I hate to see > ARIN follow > this model and caught a couple of years from now with volumes > that they > may not want to be able to sustain*. > > Regards, > Mark > > *there have been proposals from various types of vendors to > use the whois > data from ARIN et al to improve their services (legit ones - > not spammers). > Someday they may do so. I hope that we can create the right sort of > infrastucture to make it happen without a lot of pain. > > -- > > Mark Kosters markk at netsol.com Verisign > Applied Research > PGP Key fingerprint = 1A 2A 92 F8 8E D3 47 F9 15 65 80 87 > 68 13 F6 48 From rmuir at pathnet.net Fri Apr 27 15:46:07 2001 From: rmuir at pathnet.net (Muir, Ronald) Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 15:46:07 -0400 Subject: RWHOIS Message-ID: Let's continue the discussion on the dbwg list. I think Mark's suggestion has a lot of merit. A whole new database architecture is probably the best solution, that way everyone can develop there own client - or use an existing client - to perform updates and query's. This appears to also be a project that will need input from the AC as well as the members. Can we set a deadline for submittal of all input so that we can move forward with this. I would hate to see this be an open ended discussion going on and on ... and on ... I suggest that 60 days for comment and a predetermined period for the AC to provide it's input and then let's get started. Ron ------------------------------------------------- Ron Muir Director, Operations Development Pathnet, Inc. rmuir at pathnet.net 703-390-2820