From bobs at arin.net Thu Mar 1 11:55:50 2001 From: bobs at arin.net (Bob Stratton) Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 11:55:50 -0500 Subject: anual renewal fees In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hi Jon, ARIN has always had its current fee structure with one exception. ARIN no longer charges for upgrades at the time of upgrade, but the annual subscription invoice reflects the new size. To expand on Richard's answer and to illustrate the renewal fee structure, I'll use your original timeline: Year 1: initial allocation...registration fee paid. Year 2: no allocation... organization pays their annual subscription fee based on their level in year 1, due on the anniversary of the initial allocation. Year 3: additional space allocated... If a subscribing organization is approved for additional IP address space, and as a result moves up from one category to the next during its registration period, ARIN will issue an invoice for the new rate when the subscriber's next annual renewal fee is due. If the additional alllocation does not move the ISP to a new category, the annual subscription fee remains the same. Year 4: no allocation... organization pays their annual subscription fee based on their level in year 3. and so it goes. Regards, Bob Stratton Director, Business and Administration ARIN -----Original Message----- From: owner-ppml at arin.net [mailto:owner-ppml at arin.net]On Behalf Of jlewis at lewis.org Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2001 10:19 PM To: Richard Jimmerson Cc: ppml at arin.net Subject: RE: anual renewal fees On Wed, 28 Feb 2001, Richard Jimmerson wrote: > http://www.arin.net/regserv/feeschedule.html > > A registration fee is due annually. The amount of IP address space > allocated in the previous year may have an effect on which registration > category (small, medium, etc.) an organization falls under. I know that's what the web site says now...but was it ever the way I described it?...or is that just my distorted memory? -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Jon Lewis *jlewis at lewis.org*| I route System Administrator | therefore you are Atlantic Net | _________ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key_________ From memsvcs at arin.net Sun Mar 4 11:40:25 2001 From: memsvcs at arin.net (Member Services) Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2001 11:40:25 -0500 (EST) Subject: ARIN Board Action RE: ICANN BOD Nominations Message-ID: In a message to the ARIN membership dated February 6, 2001, the ARIN Board of Trustees made the following statement in regard to identifying candidates for the ICANN Board of Directors: "To date there has been only one nominee from the ARIN region. It is important we have a slate of candidates from the ARIN region for this important position. In order to add at least one other ARIN region candidate to the list of candidates the ARIN Board of Trustees intends to nominate one or more individuals as the ARIN RIR candidate(s). This is provided for in the ASO MOU paragraph (3)(b): "(3) ICANN Directors. (b) ... each RIR signatory to the MOU is entitled to nominate candidates by procedures of its own choosing."" Since that time there have been several candidates that have been nominated outside of the process outlined in the message dated February 6, 2001. These candidates are listed at the following URL: http://www.aso.icann.org/board/comf_board_members.html The ARIN Board of Trustees followed the process as outlined in the February 6 message. A list of candidates was identified by the NOMCOM and presented to the Board of Trustees for consideration. In its deliberation, the Board of Trustees noted the addition of candidates to the list since the February 6 message, and determined that there were several candidates on the list who would provide excellent representation of the Addressing Community in General and the ARIN region in particular. Therefore, the ARIN Board of Trustees has decided not to exercise the RIR entitlement as stated in the MOU to nominate a candidate for the ICANN Board of Directors. The ARIN Board of Trustees strongly encourages all interested parties to examine the list of candidates and either nominate(by 0900 GMT March 5) other individuals to the list or provide a statement of support for the candidates that have been identified. John Curran Chairman ARIN Board of Trustees From jforeman at bbo.com Fri Mar 9 14:34:35 2001 From: jforeman at bbo.com (jforeman at bbo.com) Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2001 14:34:35 -0500 Subject: /24 assignments to multi-homed customers who can't justify the us e of >126 hosts in 3-6 months Message-ID: <4F9E13BCC53ED411A629009027E8D00C03ABA26F@msg001.dcat.ops.broadbandoffice.net> All, For a customer of an ISP that meets the following criteria: 1) has registered an ASN and will be multi-homed to two or more ISPs, 2) cannot reasonably justify the use of a /24 within 3 - 6 months based on ARIN IP allocation policies and 3) the customer is obtaining IP space from one of their ISPs. In my view, such a customer will require at least a /24 so that their network advertisement will be accepted by all ISPs since most ISPs will not accept advertisements from their peers of networks have a netmask any longer than a /24. Is it acceptable, in ARIN's view, to assign a /24 to such a customer? I never came across any documentation at www.arin.net that discusses such a situation. Thanks, Jon Foreman BBO - Data Install jforeman at bbo.com Desk: 703.641.6451 Mobile: 703.403.4263 Pager: 7034034263 at message.bam.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Clay at exodus.net Fri Mar 9 14:59:43 2001 From: Clay at exodus.net (Clay) Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2001 11:59:43 -0800 Subject: /24 assignments to multi-homed customers who can't justify the use of >126 hosts in 3-6 months In-Reply-To: <4F9E13BCC53ED411A629009027E8D00C03ABA26F@msg001.dcat.ops.broadbandoffice.net> Message-ID: <0c9201c0a8d3$7c1ee820$ac00ff0a@CLAMBERTW2KD> The problem with this is that ARIN specifically says that routing is not justification for IP address space. If someone doesn't justify a /24 for actual usage...they don't get it. or, if you do give it to them, you place in jeopardy your future allocations. Clay Lambert Exodus Communications -----Original Message----- From: owner-ppml at arin.net [mailto:owner-ppml at arin.net]On Behalf Of jforeman at bbo.com Sent: Friday, March 09, 2001 11:35 AM To: ppml at arin.net Subject: /24 assignments to multi-homed customers who can't justify the use of >126 hosts in 3-6 months All, For a customer of an ISP that meets the following criteria: 1) has registered an ASN and will be multi-homed to two or more ISPs, 2) cannot reasonably justify the use of a /24 within 3 - 6 months based on ARIN IP allocation policies and 3) the customer is obtaining IP space from one of their ISPs. In my view, such a customer will require at least a /24 so that their network advertisement will be accepted by all ISPs since most ISPs will not accept advertisements from their peers of networks have a netmask any longer than a /24. Is it acceptable, in ARIN's view, to assign a /24 to such a customer? I never came across any documentation at www.arin.net that discusses such a situation. Thanks, Jon Foreman BBO - Data Install jforeman at bbo.com Desk: 703.641.6451 Mobile: 703.403.4263 Pager: 7034034263 at message.bam.com From HRyu at norlight.com Fri Mar 9 15:21:33 2001 From: HRyu at norlight.com (Hyunseog Ryu) Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2001 14:21:33 -0600 Subject: /24 assignments to multi-homed customers who can't justify the use of >126 hosts in 3-6 months Message-ID: Hi, folks This is my opinion for this case. I think there is three options for this. 1) The customer request micro-allocation to ARIN. named-servers can be one of the reason for Micro-allocation. But they need to convince ARIN. I think it will be very small chance for most customers. From ARIN, ARIN makes micro-allocations to infrastructures including public exchange points, gTLDs, ccTLDs, RIRs, and ICANN, as well as all named servers of the domain 2) Apply End-user Multi-homed situation for this customer and convince this to ARIN by ISP. According to ARIN's web site - http://www.arin.net/regserv/ip-assignment.html -, a certain end-user who is multi-homed, but can not meet with /20 minimum assignment can request /20 with /21 justification. If we apply to ISP, I think we can consider /24 as minimum assignment unit for ISP or end-user who already use /25 efficiently, and will renumber it's existing IP address to new one within 18 months. If the customer get /25 from each ISPs, and use those IP address to assign each ISP's IP address to their device for fault tolerant, that will be waste of IP address. 3) Forget it. And use MHSRP and stick with one ISP. :-) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Hyunseog Ryu / CCDA, MCSE Network Engineer/Applications Engineering Norlight Telecommunications, Inc. The Guardians of Data 275 North Corporate Drive Brookfield, WI 53045-5818 Tel. +1.262.792.7965 Fax. +1.262.792.7733 "Clay" , net> cc: (bcc: Hyunseog Ryu/Brookfield/Norlight) Sent by: Fax to: owner-ppml at ar Subject: RE: /24 assignments to multi-homed customers who in.net can't justify the use of >126 hosts in 3-6 months 03/09/2001 01:59 PM Please respond to Clay The problem with this is that ARIN specifically says that routing is not justification for IP address space. If someone doesn't justify a /24 for actual usage...they don't get it. or, if you do give it to them, you place in jeopardy your future allocations. Clay Lambert Exodus Communications -----Original Message----- From: owner-ppml at arin.net [mailto:owner-ppml at arin.net]On Behalf Of jforeman at bbo.com Sent: Friday, March 09, 2001 11:35 AM To: ppml at arin.net Subject: /24 assignments to multi-homed customers who can't justify the use of >126 hosts in 3-6 months All, For a customer of an ISP that meets the following criteria: 1) has registered an ASN and will be multi-homed to two or more ISPs, 2) cannot reasonably justify the use of a /24 within 3 - 6 months based on ARIN IP allocation policies and 3) the customer is obtaining IP space from one of their ISPs. In my view, such a customer will require at least a /24 so that their network advertisement will be accepted by all ISPs since most ISPs will not accept advertisements from their peers of networks have a netmask any longer than a /24. Is it acceptable, in ARIN's view, to assign a /24 to such a customer? I never came across any documentation at www.arin.net that discusses such a situation. Thanks, Jon Foreman BBO - Data Install jforeman at bbo.com Desk: 703.641.6451 Mobile: 703.403.4263 Pager: 7034034263 at message.bam.com From memsvcs at arin.net Mon Mar 12 08:41:03 2001 From: memsvcs at arin.net (Member Services) Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 08:41:03 -0500 (EST) Subject: ARIN IPv6 Policy Proposed Message-ID: After a discussion concerning the IAB/IESG recommendation for IPv6 address space allocation on the ARIN IPv6 WG mail list, the ARIN Advisory Council is proposing that the following be the ARIN policy concerning IPv6 address space allocation: "ARIN will allocate IPv6 addresses according to the Internet Draft . This policy will be regularly reviewed and modified subject to operational experience." Any interested party is invited to comment on this proposed policy on the ARIN IPv6 WG mail list. To subscribe, visit the following URL: http://www.arin.net/members/mailing.htm Your participation and comment, whether you are an ARIN member or not, is very important to the policy development process in the ARIN region, so please take the time to participate in this process. Ray Plzak President ARIN From jfleming at anet.com Mon Mar 12 09:30:12 2001 From: jfleming at anet.com (JIM FLEMING) Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 08:30:12 -0600 Subject: ARIN IPv6 Policy Proposed References: Message-ID: <024001c0ab00$f3afac60$df00a8c0@vaio> http://www.arin.net/members/mailing.htm "ARIN Discussion List Open to ARIN Members Only" @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Member Services" To: ; Sent: Monday, March 12, 2001 7:41 AM Subject: ARIN IPv6 Policy Proposed > > After a discussion concerning the IAB/IESG recommendation for IPv6 address > space allocation on the ARIN IPv6 WG mail list, the ARIN Advisory Council > is proposing that the following be the ARIN policy concerning IPv6 address > space allocation: > > "ARIN will allocate IPv6 addresses according to the Internet Draft > . > This policy will be regularly reviewed and modified subject to operational > experience." > > Any interested party is invited to comment on this proposed policy on the > ARIN IPv6 WG mail list. To subscribe, visit the following URL: > > http://www.arin.net/members/mailing.htm > > Your participation and comment, whether you are an ARIN member or not, > is very important to the policy development process in the ARIN region, > so please take the time to participate in this process. > > Ray Plzak > President > ARIN > > > > > From smarcus at genuity.com Mon Mar 12 09:53:40 2001 From: smarcus at genuity.com (J. Scott Marcus) Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 09:53:40 -0500 Subject: ARIN IPv6 Policy Proposed In-Reply-To: <024001c0ab00$f3afac60$df00a8c0@vaio> References: Message-ID: <3.0.5.32.20010312095340.00910650@pobox3.genuity.com> At 08:30 03/12/2001 -0600, JIM FLEMING wrote: >http://www.arin.net/members/mailing.htm >"ARIN Discussion List >Open to ARIN Members Only" >@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ Jim, I'd encourage you to READ the page in question. The first words on it are, "ARIN manages several mailing lists that are open to the ARIN membership or the general public." Some ARIN lists deal with ARIN business, and are for ARIN members. Those that deal with public policy issues are usually open to the general public. Near the bottom of the page you'll see the entry in question: "IPv6 Working Group: Open to the general public". From John.Sweeting at teleglobe.com Mon Mar 12 10:01:35 2001 From: John.Sweeting at teleglobe.com (Sweeting, John) Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 10:01:35 -0500 Subject: ARIN IPv6 Policy Proposed Message-ID: <170E5E7779BCD3118C2A0008C7F40C1901344548@usresms03.teleglobe.com> Fleming, try the IPv6 Working Group list as Ray's email stated. Thanks. -----Original Message----- From: JIM FLEMING [mailto:jfleming at anet.com] Sent: Monday, March 12, 2001 9:30 AM To: Member Services; ppml at arin.net Subject: Re: ARIN IPv6 Policy Proposed http://www.arin.net/members/mailing.htm "ARIN Discussion List Open to ARIN Members Only" @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Member Services" To: ; Sent: Monday, March 12, 2001 7:41 AM Subject: ARIN IPv6 Policy Proposed > > After a discussion concerning the IAB/IESG recommendation for IPv6 address > space allocation on the ARIN IPv6 WG mail list, the ARIN Advisory Council > is proposing that the following be the ARIN policy concerning IPv6 address > space allocation: > > "ARIN will allocate IPv6 addresses according to the Internet Draft > . > This policy will be regularly reviewed and modified subject to operational > experience." > > Any interested party is invited to comment on this proposed policy on the > ARIN IPv6 WG mail list. To subscribe, visit the following URL: > > http://www.arin.net/members/mailing.htm > > Your participation and comment, whether you are an ARIN member or not, > is very important to the policy development process in the ARIN region, > so please take the time to participate in this process. > > Ray Plzak > President > ARIN > > > > > From jforeman at bbo.com Thu Mar 15 13:51:07 2001 From: jforeman at bbo.com (jforeman at bbo.com) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 13:51:07 -0500 Subject: /24 assignments to multi-homed customers who can't justify th e us e of >126 hosts in 3-6 months Message-ID: <4F9E13BCC53ED411A629009027E8D00C03ABA2C9@msg001.dcat.ops.broadbandoffice.net> Hi, I received some informative responses from members of this list regarding the initial message I sent (see below). Could someone from ARIN please respond with your thoughts on this matter? I sent email directly to ARIN and also phoned the registration help desk. In both situations I was informed that ARIN does not allocate or allow others to allocate netblocks based on routing needs. As far as I see it, for the Internet community as a whole, there are two solutions: 1) ARIN needs to change its policy to accommodate institutions that have a need to be multi-homed, or, 2) ISPs need to modify their routing policies to allow advertisements longer than a /24. In my opinion, the most viable solution is the first one mentioned above. In order to implement solution #2, you'd have to get all of the ISPs that are out there to change their routing policies. This is much more difficult than having one organization (ARIN) make the change. The additional problem with solution #2 is: if ISPs change their routing policies to allow advertisements longer than a /24, can their routers accommodate the increased size of the Internet routing table? Probably not, since that is why the /24 policies are in place. Of course, the main problem with solution #1 is that certain netblocks will be inefficiently allocated. However, most customers that are multi-homed typically have enough hosts to require a /24 netblock or larger, so in all likelihood, there probably won't be many institutions that can't justify a /24 but need to be multi-homed. It would be interesting if ARIN could share the number of ASNs that have been registered within the last year. Based on my experience over the last 2 years installing BGP customers at ISPs, I would estimate that, at the very high end, 10% of institutions that aim to be multi-homed will require a larger netblock than they can justify in order to accommodate those routing needs. If the appropriate parties at ARIN could project the number of ASNs that will be registered over the next few years.. you could calculate how many networks/IPs will be inefficiently allocated and see what sort of impact a policy change would have. Thanks, Jon Foreman BBO - Service Activation Engineer jforeman at bbo.com Desk: 703.641.6451 Mobile: 703.403.4263 Pager: 7034034263 at message.bam.com -----Original Message----- From: jforeman at bbo.com [mailto:jforeman at bbo.com] Sent: Friday, March 09, 2001 2:35 PM To: ppml at arin.net Subject: /24 assignments to multi-homed customers who can't justify the us e of >126 hosts in 3-6 months All, For a customer of an ISP that meets the following criteria: 1) has registered an ASN and will be multi-homed to two or more ISPs, 2) cannot reasonably justify the use of a /24 within 3 - 6 months based on ARIN IP allocation policies and 3) the customer is obtaining IP space from one of their ISPs. In my view, such a customer will require at least a /24 so that their network advertisement will be accepted by all ISPs since most ISPs will not accept advertisements from their peers of networks have a netmask any longer than a /24. Is it acceptable, in ARIN's view, to assign a /24 to such a customer? I never came across any documentation at www.arin.net that discusses such a situation. Thanks, Jon Foreman BBO - Data Install jforeman at bbo.com Desk: 703.641.6451 Mobile: 703.403.4263 Pager: 7034034263 at message.bam.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From richardj at arin.net Thu Mar 15 15:28:24 2001 From: richardj at arin.net (Richard Jimmerson) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 15:28:24 -0500 Subject: /24 assignments to multi-homed customers who can't justify the us e of >126 hosts in 3-6 months In-Reply-To: <4F9E13BCC53ED411A629009027E8D00C03ABA2C9@msg001.dcat.ops.broadbandoffice.net> Message-ID: <005801c0ad8e$7cd3f200$f1fc95c0@arin.net> /24 assignments to multi-homed customers who can't justify the use of >126 hosts in 3-6 monthsHello Jon, Thank you for posting your messages to the ARIN public policy mailing list. > I sent email directly to ARIN and also phoned the registration help desk. In both situations I was > informed that ARIN does not allocate or allow others to allocate netblocks based on routing needs. This is an accurate account of the current situation. ARIN follows the assignment guidelines outlined in RFC 2050, paragraph 3.1. In summary, end-users will be assigned a block of IP address space based on their immediate requirements and one year projections. The organization needs to demonstrate 25% of their assignment will be utilized immediately and that they have a projected one year need for 50% of the assignment size they receive. This is the guideline ARIN follows when reviewing the reassignments ISPs have made to their downstream end-user customers. > As far as I see it, for the Internet community as a whole, there are two solutions: > 1) ARIN needs to change its policy to accommodate institutions that have a need to be multi-homed, or, > 2) ISPs need to modify their routing policies to allow advertisements longer than a /24. Of course, ARIN is not in a position to comment on the second proposed solution listed above. In regard to the first proposed solution, however, ARIN welcomes comments from all interested parties. Policies in the ARIN region are formed through open policy discussions that take place on mailing lists like this one and public policy meetings held twice yearly. The next public policy meeting will be held early next month. Information about this meeting can be found at http://www.arin.net/meetings/index.html To be clear, is your first proposal above to consider /24 assignments by ISPs justified based solely on the multi-homing requirements of the customer? > It would be interesting if ARIN could share the number of ASNs that have been registered within the last year. This information is available at http://www.arin.net/regserv/IPStats.html > If the appropriate parties at ARIN could project the number of ASNs that will be registered > over the next few years.. A presentation entitled, "AS Number Depletion," was presented by Scott Marcus at the ARIN public policy meeting in October 2000. This presentation may provide some of the information you are looking for. It can be found at http://www.arin.net/minutes/public/arinvi/ARIN_VI_PPM.htm Again, thank you for posting your messages to the public policy mailing list. All parties interested in this subject are invited to make comments. 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 jforeman at bbo.com Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2001 1:51 PM To: ppml at arin.net Subject: RE: /24 assignments to multi-homed customers who can't justify the us e of >126 hosts in 3-6 months Hi, I received some informative responses from members of this list regarding the initial message I sent (see below). Could someone from ARIN please respond with your thoughts on this matter? I sent email directly to ARIN and also phoned the registration help desk. In both situations I was informed that ARIN does not allocate or allow others to allocate netblocks based on routing needs. As far as I see it, for the Internet community as a whole, there are two solutions: 1) ARIN needs to change its policy to accommodate institutions that have a need to be multi-homed, or, 2) ISPs need to modify their routing policies to allow advertisements longer than a /24. In my opinion, the most viable solution is the first one mentioned above. In order to implement solution #2, you'd have to get all of the ISPs that are out there to change their routing policies. This is much more difficult than having one organization (ARIN) make the change. The additional problem with solution #2 is: if ISPs change their routing policies to allow advertisements longer than a /24, can their routers accommodate the increased size of the Internet routing table? Probably not, since that is why the /24 policies are in place. Of course, the main problem with solution #1 is that certain netblocks will be inefficiently allocated. However, most customers that are multi-homed typically have enough hosts to require a /24 netblock or larger, so in all likelihood, there probably won't be many institutions that can't justify a /24 but need to be multi-homed. It would be interesting if ARIN could share the number of ASNs that have been registered within the last year. Based on my experience over the last 2 years installing BGP customers at ISPs, I would estimate that, at the very high end, 10% of institutions that aim to be multi-homed will require a larger netblock than they can justify in order to accommodate those routing needs. If the appropriate parties at ARIN could project the number of ASNs that will be registered over the next few years.. you could calculate how many networks/IPs will be inefficiently allocated and see what sort of impact a policy change would have. Thanks, Jon Foreman BBO - Service Activation Engineer jforeman at bbo.com Desk: 703.641.6451 Mobile: 703.403.4263 Pager: 7034034263 at message.bam.com -----Original Message----- From: jforeman at bbo.com [mailto:jforeman at bbo.com] Sent: Friday, March 09, 2001 2:35 PM To: ppml at arin.net Subject: /24 assignments to multi-homed customers who can't justify the us e of >126 hosts in 3-6 months All, For a customer of an ISP that meets the following criteria: 1) has registered an ASN and will be multi-homed to two or more ISPs, 2) cannot reasonably justify the use of a /24 within 3 - 6 months based on ARIN IP allocation policies and 3) the customer is obtaining IP space from one of their ISPs. In my view, such a customer will require at least a /24 so that their network advertisement will be accepted by all ISPs since most ISPs will not accept advertisements from their peers of networks have a netmask any longer than a /24. Is it acceptable, in ARIN's view, to assign a /24 to such a customer? I never came across any documentation at www.arin.net that discusses such a situation. Thanks, Jon Foreman BBO - Data Install jforeman at bbo.com Desk: 703.641.6451 Mobile: 703.403.4263 Pager: 7034034263 at message.bam.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jforeman at bbo.com Thu Mar 15 15:40:51 2001 From: jforeman at bbo.com (jforeman at bbo.com) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 15:40:51 -0500 Subject: /24 assignments to multi-homed customers who can't justify th e us e of >126 hosts in 3-6 months Message-ID: <4F9E13BCC53ED411A629009027E8D00C03ABA2D8@msg001.dcat.ops.broadbandoffice.net> Richard, Thanks for the info, in regards to your question: >To be clear, is your first proposal above to consider /24 assignments by >ISPs justified based solely on the multi-homing requirements of the customer? Yes. Jon Foreman BBO - Service Activation Engineer jforeman at bbo.com Desk: 703.641.6451 Mobile: 703.403.4263 Pager: 7034034263 at message.bam.com -----Original Message----- From: Richard Jimmerson [mailto:richardj at arin.net] Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2001 3:28 PM To: jforeman at bbo.com; ppml at arin.net Subject: RE: /24 assignments to multi-homed customers who can't justify the us e of >126 hosts in 3-6 months Hello Jon, Thank you for posting your messages to the ARIN public policy mailing list. > I sent email directly to ARIN and also phoned the registration help desk. In both situations I was > informed that ARIN does not allocate or allow others to allocate netblocks based on routing needs. This is an accurate account of the current situation. ARIN follows the assignment guidelines outlined in RFC 2050, paragraph 3.1. In summary, end-users will be assigned a block of IP address space based on their immediate requirements and one year projections. The organization needs to demonstrate 25% of their assignment will be utilized immediately and that they have a projected one year need for 50% of the assignment size they receive. This is the guideline ARIN follows when reviewing the reassignments ISPs have made to their downstream end-user customers. > As far as I see it, for the Internet community as a whole, there are two solutions: > 1) ARIN needs to change its policy to accommodate institutions that have a need to be multi-homed, or, > 2) ISPs need to modify their routing policies to allow advertisements longer than a /24. Of course, ARIN is not in a position to comment on the second proposed solution listed above. In regard to the first proposed solution, however, ARIN welcomes comments from all interested parties. Policies in the ARIN region are formed through open policy discussions that take place on mailing lists like this one and public policy meetings held twice yearly. The next public policy meeting will be held early next month. Information about this meeting can be found at http://www.arin.net/meetings/index.html To be clear, is your first proposal above to consider /24 assignments by ISPs justified based solely on the multi-homing requirements of the customer? > It would be interesting if ARIN could share the number of ASNs that have been registered within the last year. This information is available at http://www.arin.net/regserv/IPStats.html > If the appropriate parties at ARIN could project the number of ASNs that will be registered > over the next few years.. A presentation entitled, "AS Number Depletion," was presented by Scott Marcus at the ARIN public policy meeting in October 2000. This presentation may provide some of the information you are looking for. It can be found at http://www.arin.net/minutes/public/arinvi/ARIN_VI_PPM.htm Again, thank you for posting your messages to the public policy mailing list. All parties interested in this subject are invited to make comments. 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 jforeman at bbo.com Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2001 1:51 PM To: ppml at arin.net Subject: RE: /24 assignments to multi-homed customers who can't justify the us e of >126 hosts in 3-6 months Hi, I received some informative responses from members of this list regarding the initial message I sent (see below). Could someone from ARIN please respond with your thoughts on this matter? I sent email directly to ARIN and also phoned the registration help desk. In both situations I was informed that ARIN does not allocate or allow others to allocate netblocks based on routing needs. As far as I see it, for the Internet community as a whole, there are two solutions: 1) ARIN needs to change its policy to accommodate institutions that have a need to be multi-homed, or, 2) ISPs need to modify their routing policies to allow advertisements longer than a /24. In my opinion, the most viable solution is the first one mentioned above. In order to implement solution #2, you'd have to get all of the ISPs that are out there to change their routing policies. This is much more difficult than having one organization (ARIN) make the change. The additional problem with solution #2 is: if ISPs change their routing policies to allow advertisements longer than a /24, can their routers accommodate the increased size of the Internet routing table? Probably not, since that is why the /24 policies are in place. Of course, the main problem with solution #1 is that certain netblocks will be inefficiently allocated. However, most customers that are multi-homed typically have enough hosts to require a /24 netblock or larger, so in all likelihood, there probably won't be many institutions that can't justify a /24 but need to be multi-homed. It would be interesting if ARIN could share the number of ASNs that have been registered within the last year. Based on my experience over the last 2 years installing BGP customers at ISPs, I would estimate that, at the very high end, 10% of institutions that aim to be multi-homed will require a larger netblock than they can justify in order to accommodate those routing needs. If the appropriate parties at ARIN could project the number of ASNs that will be registered over the next few years.. you could calculate how many networks/IPs will be inefficiently allocated and see what sort of impact a policy change would have. Thanks, Jon Foreman BBO - Service Activation Engineer jforeman at bbo.com Desk: 703.641.6451 Mobile: 703.403.4263 Pager: 7034034263 at message.bam.com -----Original Message----- From: jforeman at bbo.com [mailto:jforeman at bbo.com] Sent: Friday, March 09, 2001 2:35 PM To: ppml at arin.net Subject: /24 assignments to multi-homed customers who can't justify the us e of >126 hosts in 3-6 months All, For a customer of an ISP that meets the following criteria: 1) has registered an ASN and will be multi-homed to two or more ISPs, 2) cannot reasonably justify the use of a /24 within 3 - 6 months based on ARIN IP allocation policies and 3) the customer is obtaining IP space from one of their ISPs. In my view, such a customer will require at least a /24 so that their network advertisement will be accepted by all ISPs since most ISPs will not accept advertisements from their peers of networks have a netmask any longer than a /24. Is it acceptable, in ARIN's view, to assign a /24 to such a customer? I never came across any documentation at www.arin.net that discusses such a situation. Thanks, Jon Foreman BBO - Data Install jforeman at bbo.com Desk: 703.641.6451 Mobile: 703.403.4263 Pager: 7034034263 at message.bam.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ahp at hilander.com Thu Mar 29 15:37:56 2001 From: ahp at hilander.com (Alec H. Peterson) Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 13:37:56 -0700 Subject: Proposal for Rewording Virtual Webhosting Standards Message-ID: <3AC39D24.E702E59C@hilander.com> The ARIN Advisory Council recommends the following action regarding webhosting policy: 1) Remove language from the IP address application instructions for requiring name-based virtual webhosting 2) Retain language from the IP address application instructions which indicates that name-based virtual webhosting is a "best practice" and that ARIN strongly urges customers to consider this practice. ------------ Existing language: ARIN INSTRUCTIONS FOR USING NAME-BASED VIRTUAL WEBHOSTING ARIN subscription holders who provide virtual webhosting services to their customers, and organizations that request new address space from ARIN, are encouraged to employ a name-based system of webhosting -- a 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 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. Name-based hosting also helps to simplify large operational web servers where allocation of many IP addresses to a single host has proven to be problematic in some cases. Where security is a concern, name-based hosting is capable of supporting the transmission of sensitive materials with some servers. POLICY When an ISP submits a request for IP address space, ARIN will not accept IP-based webhosting as justification for an allocation, unless an exception is warranted. Along with the request, organizations must provide appropriate details demonstrating their virtual webhosting customer base. Exceptions may be made for ISPs that provide justification for requiring static addresses. ARIN will determine, on a case-by-case basis, whether an exception is appropriate. ------------ Recommended Language: ARIN INSTRUCTIONS FOR USING NAME-BASED VIRTUAL WEBHOSTING 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, 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. Alec -- Alec H. Peterson - ahp at hilander.com Staff Scientist CenterGate Research Group - http://www.centergate.com "Technology so advanced, even _we_ don't understand it!" From mury at goldengate.net Thu Mar 29 16:52:07 2001 From: mury at goldengate.net (Mury) Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 15:52:07 -0600 (CST) Subject: Proposal for Rewording Virtual Webhosting Standards In-Reply-To: <3AC39D24.E702E59C@hilander.com> Message-ID: Alec, That sure looks much more reasonable to me. As one of the vocal people in the discussion last fall I thought I should give my thumbs up. Mury GoldenGate Internet Services On Thu, 29 Mar 2001, Alec H. Peterson wrote: > The ARIN Advisory Council recommends the following action regarding > webhosting policy: > > 1) Remove language from the IP address application instructions for > requiring name-based virtual webhosting > > 2) Retain language from the IP address application instructions which > indicates that name-based virtual webhosting is a "best practice" and that > ARIN strongly urges customers to consider this practice. > > ------------ > Existing language: > ARIN INSTRUCTIONS FOR USING NAME-BASED VIRTUAL WEBHOSTING > > ARIN subscription holders who provide virtual webhosting services to their > customers, and organizations that request new address space from ARIN, are > encouraged to employ a name-based system of webhosting -- a 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 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. > > Name-based hosting also helps to simplify large operational web servers > where allocation of many IP addresses to a single host has proven to be > problematic in some cases. Where security is a concern, name-based hosting > is capable of supporting the transmission of sensitive materials with some > servers. > > POLICY > When an ISP submits a request for IP address space, ARIN will not accept > IP-based webhosting as justification for an allocation, unless an > exception is warranted. Along with the request, organizations must provide > appropriate details demonstrating their virtual webhosting customer base. > Exceptions may be made for ISPs that provide justification for requiring > static addresses. ARIN will determine, on a case-by-case basis, whether an > exception is appropriate. > > ------------ > Recommended Language: > > ARIN INSTRUCTIONS FOR USING NAME-BASED VIRTUAL WEBHOSTING > > 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, 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. > > Alec > > -- > Alec H. Peterson - ahp at hilander.com > Staff Scientist > CenterGate Research Group - http://www.centergate.com > "Technology so advanced, even _we_ don't understand it!" > From Clay at exodus.net Thu Mar 29 18:02:23 2001 From: Clay at exodus.net (Clay) Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 15:02:23 -0800 Subject: Proposal for Rewording Virtual Webhosting Standards In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <039a01c0b8a4$518c2420$ac00ff0a@CLAMBERTW2KD> I think you are completely wrong on this (with your 1. and 2. copied below). A regulatory policy is simply not effective when it only "suggests" or "strongly encourages" a practice. This may not be true in all cases but it is very much the truth respective to IP address conservation. You can strongly encourage your son or daughter, when you are out there trying to teach them how to ride a bicycle...But that only works if they WANT to learn how to ride that bicycle. Additionally, that bicycle can go back and forth down the same chunk of sidewalk. We do NOT have that luxury when dealing with IPv4, it is finite. The shortage of IP space (and the gross numbers consumed) is not specific to the webhosting sector alone. Webhosters and other service providers are currently quite happy burning thru huge chunks of IP address space, since it suits their needs, but there is a price we may end up paying. This argument parallels the current politically hot topic of Social Security...and we are akin to the politicians...Will we bury our heads in the sand and push the problem out a few years, until it is beyond our immediate concern? I hope I am wrong with all this doom and gloom but I think prudence is called for here, regarding conservation of IPv4 space. We all know how slow and bogged-down the IPv6 protocol process (both technical and political) is moving. The scope of the policy should be expanded, not contracted as you suggest. There is no point in attempting to conserve IP address space if we do not have the ability to enforce policies that actually make efforts to CONSERVE address space. If a service provider has a LEGITIMATE need for burning thru large ranges of IP address space, then they should not have a problem with documenting that need (and providing that documentation to their IP address space provider). A policy that enforces efficient use of IP address space has to allow for protocol limitations that require an actual unique public IP address PER service (in the case of anonymous-FTP and some security protocols). This is a very legitimate point. And, I believe it is not too much to ask the service provider to document his/her legitimate technical limitations, in this case. Having the service provider submit this documentation is a SMALL price to pay, considering the conservation of IP address space this will provide. Additionally, we should NOT base regulatory policy upon VENDOR SPECIFIC LIMITATIONS...This means that we shouldn't create a policy structured upon Microsoft's (or anybody else's) virtualhosting limitations. Technical limitations should be defined via STANDARD PROTOCOL LIMITATIONS only. Any legitimate need for IP address space is provided for with a policy such as 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: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------- Service Providers shall utilize efficient protocols and commonly recognized technologies to assure conservation of IP address space. HTTP 1.1 protocol shall be utilized wherever applicable. HTTP 1.1 (Host headers), and other accepted standard protocols, shall be utilized for virtual devices/services unless definite technological limitations dictate otherwise. Service Provider is defined as: an entity that provides services, either virtual or physical, that utilize the Internet for connectivity or access. Service Provider is not limited to ISP services and includes, but is not limited to: Webhosting (service provider) Internet (service provider) Applications (service provider) Security (service provider) managed (service provider) Efficient use of IP address space is defined as: One publicly addressable IP address per each physical device connected to the Internet. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------- Clayton Lambert Exodus Communications -----Original Message----- From: owner-ppml at arin.net [mailto:owner-ppml at arin.net]On Behalf Of Mury Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2001 1:52 PM To: Alec H. Peterson Cc: ppml at arin.net Subject: Re: Proposal for Rewording Virtual Webhosting Standards Alec, That sure looks much more reasonable to me. As one of the vocal people in the discussion last fall I thought I should give my thumbs up. Mury GoldenGate Internet Services On Thu, 29 Mar 2001, Alec H. Peterson wrote: > The ARIN Advisory Council recommends the following action regarding > webhosting policy: > > 1) Remove language from the IP address application instructions for > requiring name-based virtual webhosting > > 2) Retain language from the IP address application instructions which > indicates that name-based virtual webhosting is a "best practice" and that > ARIN strongly urges customers to consider this practice. > > ------------ > Existing language: > ARIN INSTRUCTIONS FOR USING NAME-BASED VIRTUAL WEBHOSTING > > ARIN subscription holders who provide virtual webhosting services to their > customers, and organizations that request new address space from ARIN, are > encouraged to employ a name-based system of webhosting -- a 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 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. > > Name-based hosting also helps to simplify large operational web servers > where allocation of many IP addresses to a single host has proven to be > problematic in some cases. Where security is a concern, name-based hosting > is capable of supporting the transmission of sensitive materials with some > servers. > > POLICY > When an ISP submits a request for IP address space, ARIN will not accept > IP-based webhosting as justification for an allocation, unless an > exception is warranted. Along with the request, organizations must provide > appropriate details demonstrating their virtual webhosting customer base. > Exceptions may be made for ISPs that provide justification for requiring > static addresses. ARIN will determine, on a case-by-case basis, whether an > exception is appropriate. > > ------------ > Recommended Language: > > ARIN INSTRUCTIONS FOR USING NAME-BASED VIRTUAL WEBHOSTING > > 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, 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. > > Alec > > -- > Alec H. Peterson - ahp at hilander.com > Staff Scientist > CenterGate Research Group - http://www.centergate.com > "Technology so advanced, even _we_ don't understand it!" > From Clay at exodus.net Thu Mar 29 18:53:08 2001 From: Clay at exodus.net (Clay) Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 15:53:08 -0800 Subject: Proposal for Rewording Virtual Webhosting Standards In-Reply-To: <3AC39D24.E702E59C@hilander.com> Message-ID: <03a501c0b8ab$68a84330$ac00ff0a@CLAMBERTW2KD> More suggestions regarding the Advisory Council recommendation: ---recommended policy--- POLICY 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. ------- This is an ambiguous, non-binding, non-enforceable, MEANINGLESS, reallllllllyyyyy looooong sentence. I cannot believe this is the "recommendation" the Advisory Board has come up with. Is this a joke? It looks like a joke. At least the previous policy said SOMETHING. What is the point of this recommended "policy"? What a joke. Clayton Lambert Exodus Communications -----Original Message----- From: owner-ppml at arin.net [mailto:owner-ppml at arin.net]On Behalf Of Alec H. Peterson Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2001 12:38 PM To: ppml at arin.net Subject: Proposal for Rewording Virtual Webhosting Standards The ARIN Advisory Council recommends the following action regarding webhosting policy: 1) Remove language from the IP address application instructions for requiring name-based virtual webhosting 2) Retain language from the IP address application instructions which indicates that name-based virtual webhosting is a "best practice" and that ARIN strongly urges customers to consider this practice. ------------ Existing language: ARIN INSTRUCTIONS FOR USING NAME-BASED VIRTUAL WEBHOSTING ARIN subscription holders who provide virtual webhosting services to their customers, and organizations that request new address space from ARIN, are encouraged to employ a name-based system of webhosting -- a 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 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. Name-based hosting also helps to simplify large operational web servers where allocation of many IP addresses to a single host has proven to be problematic in some cases. Where security is a concern, name-based hosting is capable of supporting the transmission of sensitive materials with some servers. POLICY When an ISP submits a request for IP address space, ARIN will not accept IP-based webhosting as justification for an allocation, unless an exception is warranted. Along with the request, organizations must provide appropriate details demonstrating their virtual webhosting customer base. Exceptions may be made for ISPs that provide justification for requiring static addresses. ARIN will determine, on a case-by-case basis, whether an exception is appropriate. ------------ Recommended Language: ARIN INSTRUCTIONS FOR USING NAME-BASED VIRTUAL WEBHOSTING 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, 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. Alec -- Alec H. Peterson - ahp at hilander.com Staff Scientist CenterGate Research Group - http://www.centergate.com "Technology so advanced, even _we_ don't understand it!" From jb at jbacher.com Thu Mar 29 21:13:11 2001 From: jb at jbacher.com (J Bacher) Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 20:13:11 -0600 (CST) Subject: Proposal for Rewording Virtual Webhosting Standards In-Reply-To: <039a01c0b8a4$518c2420$ac00ff0a@CLAMBERTW2KD> Message-ID: 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 mury at goldengate.net Thu Mar 29 21:22:51 2001 From: mury at goldengate.net (Mury) Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 20:22:51 -0600 (CST) Subject: Proposal for Rewording Virtual Webhosting Standards In-Reply-To: <03a501c0b8ab$68a84330$ac00ff0a@CLAMBERTW2KD> Message-ID: It's not a joke. The recommend policy puts IP address space holders on alert. It gives everyone time to make changes, develop technology, etc. It really sucks to be blindsided by a new policy, this is a nice compromise letting the community know that changes need to happen more rapidly. For some unaware parties it also points to another place where they can assist with IP conservation. Not everyone is out to cheat the system. Mury On Thu, 29 Mar 2001, Clay wrote: > More suggestions regarding the Advisory Council recommendation: > > ---recommended policy--- > POLICY > 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. > ------- > > This is an ambiguous, non-binding, non-enforceable, MEANINGLESS, > reallllllllyyyyy looooong sentence. > I cannot believe this is the "recommendation" the Advisory Board has come up > with. Is this a joke? It looks like a joke. > > At least the previous policy said SOMETHING. What is the point of this > recommended "policy"? > > What a joke. > > > Clayton Lambert > Exodus Communications > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-ppml at arin.net [mailto:owner-ppml at arin.net]On Behalf Of Alec > H. Peterson > Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2001 12:38 PM > To: ppml at arin.net > Subject: Proposal for Rewording Virtual Webhosting Standards > > > The ARIN Advisory Council recommends the following action regarding > webhosting policy: > > 1) Remove language from the IP address application instructions for > requiring name-based virtual webhosting > > 2) Retain language from the IP address application instructions which > indicates that name-based virtual webhosting is a "best practice" and that > ARIN strongly urges customers to consider this practice. > > ------------ > Existing language: > ARIN INSTRUCTIONS FOR USING NAME-BASED VIRTUAL WEBHOSTING > > ARIN subscription holders who provide virtual webhosting services to their > customers, and organizations that request new address space from ARIN, are > encouraged to employ a name-based system of webhosting -- a 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 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. > > Name-based hosting also helps to simplify large operational web servers > where allocation of many IP addresses to a single host has proven to be > problematic in some cases. Where security is a concern, name-based hosting > is capable of supporting the transmission of sensitive materials with some > servers. > > POLICY > When an ISP submits a request for IP address space, ARIN will not accept > IP-based webhosting as justification for an allocation, unless an > exception is warranted. Along with the request, organizations must provide > appropriate details demonstrating their virtual webhosting customer base. > Exceptions may be made for ISPs that provide justification for requiring > static addresses. ARIN will determine, on a case-by-case basis, whether an > exception is appropriate. > > ------------ > Recommended Language: > > ARIN INSTRUCTIONS FOR USING NAME-BASED VIRTUAL WEBHOSTING > > 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, 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. > > Alec > > -- > Alec H. Peterson - ahp at hilander.com > Staff Scientist > CenterGate Research Group - http://www.centergate.com > "Technology so advanced, even _we_ don't understand it!" >