From richardj at arin.net Tue Aug 1 09:19:48 2000 From: richardj at arin.net (Richard Jimmerson) Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2000 09:19:48 -0400 Subject: Questions on IP Address policies In-Reply-To: <20000729001106.74895.qmail@hotmail.com> Message-ID: <000001bffbbb$2b5f3860$bdfc95c0@ARINNET> Hello Lenis, Please keep in mind our response to your message is made without the knowledge of the specific Class B you are referring to. >If a company "owned" (or had been allotted) a class B since >the early 90's, how is this classified by ARIN? If it is still viewable via ARIN WHOIS we consider it a valid registration to the organization name listed on the registration record. >In either case, if the company wanted to start sub-allocating >(or assigning) these addresses to its customers, would it be >able to do so without reclassifying the space? IP addresses should be utilized in the manner they were justified. It would be difficult for ARIN to answer this question further without knowledge of the specific range of IP addresses you are referring to. If you would like to correspond about this off this public list, please send email to hostmaster at arin.net >When does (if at all) ARIN consider taking space back from an >organization? ARIN doesn't have a specific policy at this time about "taking back" IP address space, but if an organization is not utilizing their IP addresses it would be good for them to return them. >If the company assigns a subnet of its Class B to one of its >customers, and the customer multi-homes with another ISP, will >his subnet be diversly reachable through both the company's >network and the other ISP whom he is multi-homed with? In >other words, will the Internet routing community advertise and >accept routes that represent a partial Class B network. This is not for ARIN to decide and is strictly up to the policies of each individual ISP. Regards, Richard Jimmerson American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) >-----Original Message----- >From: policy-request at arin.net [mailto:policy-request at arin.net]On Behalf >Of Lenis Charles >Sent: Friday, July 28, 2000 8:11 PM >To: policy at arin.net >Subject: Questions on IP Address policies > > >If this list is not the correct place to ask these questions, >please accept >my apology for the inconvenience. If you could direct me to >the correct >person or list to ask, I would greatly appreciate it. > >If a company "owned" (or had been allotted) a class B since >the early 90's, >how is this classified by ARIN? > >Is it assigned to the company (as an end user organization) or is it >allocated to the company (as an ISP org for furthur >suballocation)? Or does >it not fall into neither of these categories since the >allocation occurred >before the current SWIP (allocation) policies were instituted. > >In either case, if the company wanted to start sub-allocating >(or assigning) >these addresses to its customers, would it be able to do so without >reclassifying the space? > >When does (if at all) ARIN consider taking space back from an >organization? > >If the company assigns a subnet of its Class B to one of its >customers, and >the customer multi-homes with another ISP, will his subnet be diversly >reachable through both the company's network and the other ISP >whom he is >multi-homed with? In other words, will the Internet routing community >advertise and accept routes that represent a partial Class B network. > >FYI: When I say a CLASS B network, I am speaking of a CLASS B >network and >not just a /16 CLASS B equivalent. > >_______________________________________________________________ >_________ >Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com From richardj at arin.net Tue Aug 1 09:19:48 2000 From: richardj at arin.net (Richard Jimmerson) Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2000 09:19:48 -0400 Subject: Questions on IP Address policies In-Reply-To: <20000729001106.74895.qmail@hotmail.com> Message-ID: <000001bffbbb$2b5f3860$bdfc95c0@ARINNET> Hello Lenis, Please keep in mind our response to your message is made without the knowledge of the specific Class B you are referring to. >If a company "owned" (or had been allotted) a class B since >the early 90's, how is this classified by ARIN? If it is still viewable via ARIN WHOIS we consider it a valid registration to the organization name listed on the registration record. >In either case, if the company wanted to start sub-allocating >(or assigning) these addresses to its customers, would it be >able to do so without reclassifying the space? IP addresses should be utilized in the manner they were justified. It would be difficult for ARIN to answer this question further without knowledge of the specific range of IP addresses you are referring to. If you would like to correspond about this off this public list, please send email to hostmaster at arin.net >When does (if at all) ARIN consider taking space back from an >organization? ARIN doesn't have a specific policy at this time about "taking back" IP address space, but if an organization is not utilizing their IP addresses it would be good for them to return them. >If the company assigns a subnet of its Class B to one of its >customers, and the customer multi-homes with another ISP, will >his subnet be diversly reachable through both the company's >network and the other ISP whom he is multi-homed with? In >other words, will the Internet routing community advertise and >accept routes that represent a partial Class B network. This is not for ARIN to decide and is strictly up to the policies of each individual ISP. Regards, Richard Jimmerson American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) >-----Original Message----- >From: policy-request at arin.net [mailto:policy-request at arin.net]On Behalf >Of Lenis Charles >Sent: Friday, July 28, 2000 8:11 PM >To: policy at arin.net >Subject: Questions on IP Address policies > > >If this list is not the correct place to ask these questions, >please accept >my apology for the inconvenience. If you could direct me to >the correct >person or list to ask, I would greatly appreciate it. > >If a company "owned" (or had been allotted) a class B since >the early 90's, >how is this classified by ARIN? > >Is it assigned to the company (as an end user organization) or is it >allocated to the company (as an ISP org for furthur >suballocation)? Or does >it not fall into neither of these categories since the >allocation occurred >before the current SWIP (allocation) policies were instituted. > >In either case, if the company wanted to start sub-allocating >(or assigning) >these addresses to its customers, would it be able to do so without >reclassifying the space? > >When does (if at all) ARIN consider taking space back from an >organization? > >If the company assigns a subnet of its Class B to one of its >customers, and >the customer multi-homes with another ISP, will his subnet be diversly >reachable through both the company's network and the other ISP >whom he is >multi-homed with? In other words, will the Internet routing community >advertise and accept routes that represent a partial Class B network. > >FYI: When I say a CLASS B network, I am speaking of a CLASS B >network and >not just a /16 CLASS B equivalent. > >_______________________________________________________________ >_________ >Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com From ceo at REGSEARCH.COM Wed Aug 2 02:14:45 2000 From: ceo at REGSEARCH.COM (AveHost.com Staff) Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2000 02:14:45 -0400 Subject: We disagree with recent restrictions on ip allocation aimed at attacking the "little hosts" Message-ID: We feel the recent policy change regarding ip allocations for web hosting activities is unfair to the smaller web hosts of the world which do not have all the technological capitalization to smoothly implement host header routing without putting undue burdens on the consumer. Therefore, we feel this policy change is directed at protecting the larger hosts from loosing clients as fewer potential clients are going to be willing to experience "downtime" as a result of switching hosts if the move will not be a seamless one--it will NOT be seamless if IP-less hosting is forced upon smaller web hosts because there will not be enough free IP's for potential clients to post the website they are moving to the new host byway of an IP address, but, rather, they will have to wait for the domain name to be transferred via the NSI registry before they can even publish the website files; and then their site will be visible in some places in the world and not others over that 24-48 hours that it takes the Internet's DNS system to propagate. Hmmm, my dad was a class action plaintiff's attorney and the one thing I picked-up from him was when you can spot a great class action suit in-the-making!!!!!!!!! AveHost.com Staff AveHost.com, a service of RegSearch International From meltzer at villageworld.com Wed Aug 2 02:13:13 2000 From: meltzer at villageworld.com (Jeffrey Meltzer) Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2000 02:13:13 -0400 (EDT) Subject: We disagree with recent restrictions on ip allocation aimed at attacking the "little hosts" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: IMHO, Non IP Intensive hosting has it's good points, but for ISP webhosting isn't good, for the simple fact that lets say there is some type of proxy/filter that blocks out, say vitamin website, and you have a vitamin website client, and the proxy/filter blocks on IP. Wham, they just blocked out your entire customer base. It's a "what if", but hey, "what if". Try explaining it off to the customers, if say, someone as large as Bess begin doing it. Note, lots of filters block on things as simple as sports. Have a local soccer club that you donated a site to? Etc, things like that. Whatever happened to IPV6 :) -- Jeffrey Meltzer Sr. Network Administrator VillageWorld.com, Inc. Public PGP Key: http://www.meltzer.org/pgp.asc On Wed, 2 Aug 2000, AveHost.com Staff wrote: > Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2000 02:14:45 -0400 > From: AveHost.com Staff > Reply-To: info at avehost.com > To: policy at arin.net > Subject: We disagree with recent restrictions on ip allocation aimed at > attacking the "little hosts" > > > We feel the recent policy change regarding ip allocations for web hosting > activities is unfair to the smaller web hosts of the world which do not have > all the technological capitalization to smoothly implement host header > routing without putting undue burdens on the consumer. Therefore, we feel > this policy change is directed at protecting the larger hosts from loosing > clients as fewer potential clients are going to be willing to experience > "downtime" as a result of switching hosts if the move will not be a seamless > one--it will NOT be seamless if IP-less hosting is forced upon smaller web > hosts because there will not be enough free IP's for potential clients to > post the website they are moving to the new host byway of an IP address, > but, rather, they will have to wait for the domain name to be transferred > via the NSI registry before they can even publish the website files; and > then their site will be visible in some places in the world and not others > over that 24-48 hours that it takes the Internet's DNS system to propagate. > > Hmmm, my dad was a class action plaintiff's attorney and the one thing I > picked-up from him was when you can spot a great class action suit > in-the-making!!!!!!!!! > > AveHost.com Staff > AveHost.com, a service of RegSearch International > From gene at edgeofsanity.com Wed Aug 2 09:47:25 2000 From: gene at edgeofsanity.com (Gene Jakominich) Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2000 13:47:25 GMT Subject: We disagree with recent restrictions on ip allocation aimed at attacking the =?iso-8859-1?Q?=22little?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?hosts=22?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20000802134725.26926.qmail@gilligan.edgeofsanity.com> I used to work for a small ISP. Two years ago we switched all our statically addressed sites to virtual host headers. The sites experienced no down time and we reclaimed a bunch of address space which we used for expansion. Switching to virtual host headers can be done with NO down time at all for the site if it is done correctly. If anything, this will be more of a burden on the larger ISP's than the small ones. (they have many more sites to renumber) There are only a few reasons why a site needs its own address. (SSL...etc.)I feel that it is a necessity to switch to virtual host headers to conserve address space. If you would like to know how to properly switch your sites from static to virtual with no downtime please e-mail me off list. -gene ------------------------------- Gene Jakominich Systems Engineer, ISP Operations Broadview Networks http://www.broadviewnet.com genej at broadviewnet.com -------------------------------- AveHost.com Staff writes: > > We feel the recent policy change regarding ip allocations for web hosting > activities is unfair to the smaller web hosts of the world which do not have > all the technological capitalization to smoothly implement host header > routing without putting undue burdens on the consumer. Therefore, we feel > this policy change is directed at protecting the larger hosts from loosing > clients as fewer potential clients are going to be willing to experience > "downtime" as a result of switching hosts if the move will not be a seamless > one--it will NOT be seamless if IP-less hosting is forced upon smaller web > hosts because there will not be enough free IP's for potential clients to > post the website they are moving to the new host byway of an IP address, > but, rather, they will have to wait for the domain name to be transferred > via the NSI registry before they can even publish the website files; and > then their site will be visible in some places in the world and not others > over that 24-48 hours that it takes the Internet's DNS system to propagate. > > Hmmm, my dad was a class action plaintiff's attorney and the one thing I > picked-up from him was when you can spot a great class action suit > in-the-making!!!!!!!!! > > AveHost.com Staff > AveHost.com, a service of RegSearch International > From mcfadden at 21st-century-texts.com Wed Aug 2 10:28:33 2000 From: mcfadden at 21st-century-texts.com (Mark McFadden) Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2000 09:28:33 -0500 Subject: We disagree with recent restrictions on ip allocation aimed at attacking the "littlehosts" Message-ID: Gene: One of the things that the AveHost folks pointed to was the following situation: suppose you host a site that sells something that someone finds objectionable. If a rating company then filters using an IP mask rather than using the DNS, all the sites using the virtual host headers are affected. This seems a likely scenario to me, when you worked at the small ISP did it happen to you? mark Mark McFadden Chief Technology Officer Commercial Internet eXchange mcfadden at cix.org v: (+1) 608-240-1560 f: (+1) 608-240-1561 http://www.cix.org -----Original Message----- From: policy-request at arin.net [mailto:policy-request at arin.net]On Behalf Of Gene Jakominich Sent: Wednesday, August 02, 2000 8:47 AM To: info at avehost.com Cc: policy at arin.net Subject: Re: We disagree with recent restrictions on ip allocation aimed at attacking the "littlehosts" I used to work for a small ISP. Two years ago we switched all our statically addressed sites to virtual host headers. The sites experienced no down time and we reclaimed a bunch of address space which we used for expansion. Switching to virtual host headers can be done with NO down time at all for the site if it is done correctly. If anything, this will be more of a burden on the larger ISP's than the small ones. (they have many more sites to renumber) There are only a few reasons why a site needs its own address. (SSL...etc.)I feel that it is a necessity to switch to virtual host headers to conserve address space. If you would like to know how to properly switch your sites from static to virtual with no downtime please e-mail me off list. -gene ------------------------------- Gene Jakominich Systems Engineer, ISP Operations Broadview Networks http://www.broadviewnet.com genej at broadviewnet.com -------------------------------- AveHost.com Staff writes: > > We feel the recent policy change regarding ip allocations for web hosting > activities is unfair to the smaller web hosts of the world which do not have > all the technological capitalization to smoothly implement host header > routing without putting undue burdens on the consumer. Therefore, we feel > this policy change is directed at protecting the larger hosts from loosing > clients as fewer potential clients are going to be willing to experience > "downtime" as a result of switching hosts if the move will not be a seamless > one--it will NOT be seamless if IP-less hosting is forced upon smaller web > hosts because there will not be enough free IP's for potential clients to > post the website they are moving to the new host byway of an IP address, > but, rather, they will have to wait for the domain name to be transferred > via the NSI registry before they can even publish the website files; and > then their site will be visible in some places in the world and not others > over that 24-48 hours that it takes the Internet's DNS system to propagate. > > Hmmm, my dad was a class action plaintiff's attorney and the one thing I > picked-up from him was when you can spot a great class action suit > in-the-making!!!!!!!!! > > AveHost.com Staff > AveHost.com, a service of RegSearch International > From btorsey at HarvardNet.com Wed Aug 2 12:12:05 2000 From: btorsey at HarvardNet.com (Torsey, Brian) Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2000 12:12:05 -0400 Subject: We disagree with recent restrictions on ip allocation aimed a t attacking the "littlehosts" Message-ID: <864FA164044FD4118974009027C236D25F2601@postal.harvardnet.com> The issue here is not "what if" IP v4 space is not going to be around forever. I don't know of any web server software out there (Apache/IIS/Netscape) that does not RECOMMEND name based virtual web hosting as the preferred way to go. If filtering software and the like are not keeping up with the times and using full DNS info , and not the IP to do filtering, then it is their problem to fix their software and policies. If you don't have the in house tech help to convert to name based virtual addressing, I can understand your frustration. Documentation is available all over the place to walk you through how to set it up. Its worth your time to learn. I don't think any of us want to hear that they can't get more IP v4 addresses. Keep using routable IP's for virtual web hosting, and it will happen allot sooner. Brian Torsey IP Engineer HarvardNet btorsey at harvard.net -----Original Message----- From: Mark McFadden [mailto:mcfadden at 21st-century-texts.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 02, 2000 10:29 AM To: policy at arin.net Subject: RE: We disagree with recent restrictions on ip allocation aimed at attacking the "littlehosts" Gene: One of the things that the AveHost folks pointed to was the following situation: suppose you host a site that sells something that someone finds objectionable. If a rating company then filters using an IP mask rather than using the DNS, all the sites using the virtual host headers are affected. This seems a likely scenario to me, when you worked at the small ISP did it happen to you? mark Mark McFadden Chief Technology Officer Commercial Internet eXchange mcfadden at cix.org v: (+1) 608-240-1560 f: (+1) 608-240-1561 http://www.cix.org -----Original Message----- From: policy-request at arin.net [mailto:policy-request at arin.net]On Behalf Of Gene Jakominich Sent: Wednesday, August 02, 2000 8:47 AM To: info at avehost.com Cc: policy at arin.net Subject: Re: We disagree with recent restrictions on ip allocation aimed at attacking the "littlehosts" I used to work for a small ISP. Two years ago we switched all our statically addressed sites to virtual host headers. The sites experienced no down time and we reclaimed a bunch of address space which we used for expansion. Switching to virtual host headers can be done with NO down time at all for the site if it is done correctly. If anything, this will be more of a burden on the larger ISP's than the small ones. (they have many more sites to renumber) There are only a few reasons why a site needs its own address. (SSL...etc.)I feel that it is a necessity to switch to virtual host headers to conserve address space. If you would like to know how to properly switch your sites from static to virtual with no downtime please e-mail me off list. -gene ------------------------------- Gene Jakominich Systems Engineer, ISP Operations Broadview Networks http://www.broadviewnet.com genej at broadviewnet.com -------------------------------- AveHost.com Staff writes: > > We feel the recent policy change regarding ip allocations for web hosting > activities is unfair to the smaller web hosts of the world which do not have > all the technological capitalization to smoothly implement host header > routing without putting undue burdens on the consumer. Therefore, we feel > this policy change is directed at protecting the larger hosts from loosing > clients as fewer potential clients are going to be willing to experience > "downtime" as a result of switching hosts if the move will not be a seamless > one--it will NOT be seamless if IP-less hosting is forced upon smaller web > hosts because there will not be enough free IP's for potential clients to > post the website they are moving to the new host byway of an IP address, > but, rather, they will have to wait for the domain name to be transferred > via the NSI registry before they can even publish the website files; and > then their site will be visible in some places in the world and not others > over that 24-48 hours that it takes the Internet's DNS system to propagate. > > Hmmm, my dad was a class action plaintiff's attorney and the one thing I > picked-up from him was when you can spot a great class action suit > in-the-making!!!!!!!!! > > AveHost.com Staff > AveHost.com, a service of RegSearch International > From meltzer at villageworld.com Wed Aug 2 13:26:20 2000 From: meltzer at villageworld.com (Jeffrey Meltzer) Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2000 13:26:20 -0400 (EDT) Subject: We disagree with recent restrictions on ip allocation aimed a t attacking the "littlehosts" In-Reply-To: <864FA164044FD4118974009027C236D25F2601@postal.harvardnet.com> Message-ID: >If filtering software and the like are not keeping up with the times and >using full DNS info , and not the IP to do filtering, then it is their >problem to fix their software and policies. Yes, but, until they do.... -- Jeffrey Meltzer meltzer at villageworld.com PGP Key: http://www.meltzer.org./pgp.asc On Wed, 2 Aug 2000, Torsey, Brian wrote: > Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2000 12:12:05 -0400 > From: "Torsey, Brian" > To: policy at arin.net > Subject: RE: We disagree with recent restrictions on ip allocation aimed > a t attacking the "littlehosts" > > The issue here is not "what if" > > IP v4 space is not going to be around forever. > > I don't know of any web server software out there (Apache/IIS/Netscape) that > does not RECOMMEND name based virtual web hosting as the preferred way to > go. > > If filtering software and the like are not keeping up with the times and > using full DNS info , and not the IP to do filtering, then it is their > problem to fix their software and policies. > > If you don't have the in house tech help to convert to name based virtual > addressing, I can understand your frustration. Documentation is available > all over the place to walk you through how to set it up. Its worth your time > to learn. > > I don't think any of us want to hear that they can't get more IP v4 > addresses. > > Keep using routable IP's for virtual web hosting, and it will happen allot > sooner. > > Brian Torsey > IP Engineer > HarvardNet > btorsey at harvard.net > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Mark McFadden [mailto:mcfadden at 21st-century-texts.com] > Sent: Wednesday, August 02, 2000 10:29 AM > To: policy at arin.net > Subject: RE: We disagree with recent restrictions on ip allocation aimed > at attacking the "littlehosts" > > > Gene: > > One of the things that the AveHost folks pointed to was the following > situation: > suppose you host a site that sells something that someone finds > objectionable. > If a rating company then filters using an IP mask rather than using the DNS, > all > the sites using the virtual host headers are affected. This seems a likely > scenario to me, when you worked at the small ISP did it happen to you? > > mark > > Mark McFadden > Chief Technology Officer > Commercial Internet eXchange > mcfadden at cix.org v: (+1) 608-240-1560 f: (+1) 608-240-1561 > http://www.cix.org > > -----Original Message----- > From: policy-request at arin.net [mailto:policy-request at arin.net]On Behalf > Of Gene Jakominich > Sent: Wednesday, August 02, 2000 8:47 AM > To: info at avehost.com > Cc: policy at arin.net > Subject: Re: We disagree with recent restrictions on ip allocation aimed > at attacking the "littlehosts" > > > > I used to work for a small ISP. Two years ago we switched all our > statically addressed sites to virtual host headers. The sites experienced > no down time and we reclaimed a bunch of address space which we used for > expansion. Switching to virtual host headers can be done with NO down time > at all for the site if it is done correctly. If anything, this will be > more of a burden on the larger ISP's than the small ones. (they have many > more sites to renumber) There are only a few reasons why a site needs its > own address. (SSL...etc.)I feel that it is a necessity to switch to > virtual host headers to conserve address space. > > If you would like to know how to properly switch your sites from static to > virtual with no downtime please e-mail me off list. > > > -gene > > ------------------------------- > Gene Jakominich > Systems Engineer, ISP Operations > Broadview Networks > http://www.broadviewnet.com > genej at broadviewnet.com > -------------------------------- > > > > > AveHost.com Staff writes: > > > > > We feel the recent policy change regarding ip allocations for web hosting > > activities is unfair to the smaller web hosts of the world which do not > have > > all the technological capitalization to smoothly implement host header > > routing without putting undue burdens on the consumer. Therefore, we feel > > this policy change is directed at protecting the larger hosts from loosing > > clients as fewer potential clients are going to be willing to experience > > "downtime" as a result of switching hosts if the move will not be a > seamless > > one--it will NOT be seamless if IP-less hosting is forced upon smaller web > > hosts because there will not be enough free IP's for potential clients to > > post the website they are moving to the new host byway of an IP address, > > but, rather, they will have to wait for the domain name to be transferred > > via the NSI registry before they can even publish the website files; and > > then their site will be visible in some places in the world and not others > > over that 24-48 hours that it takes the Internet's DNS system to > propagate. > > > > Hmmm, my dad was a class action plaintiff's attorney and the one thing I > > picked-up from him was when you can spot a great class action suit > > in-the-making!!!!!!!!! > > > > AveHost.com Staff > > AveHost.com, a service of RegSearch International > > > > > From ceo at REGSEARCH.COM Wed Aug 2 19:10:50 2000 From: ceo at REGSEARCH.COM (AveHost.com Staff) Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2000 19:10:50 -0400 Subject: We disagree with recent restrictions on ip allocation aimed at attacking the "littlehosts" In-Reply-To: <864FA164044FD4118974009027C236D25F2601@postal.harvardnet.com> Message-ID: Once again, a large web host has spoken and strengthens my argument that it is they this policy benefits and not the smaller hosts! AveHost.com Staff -----Original Message----- From: policy-request at arin.net [mailto:policy-request at arin.net]On Behalf Of Torsey, Brian Sent: Wednesday, August 02, 2000 12:12 PM To: policy at arin.net Subject: RE: We disagree with recent restrictions on ip allocation aimed at attacking the "littlehosts" The issue here is not "what if" IP v4 space is not going to be around forever. I don't know of any web server software out there (Apache/IIS/Netscape) that does not RECOMMEND name based virtual web hosting as the preferred way to go. If filtering software and the like are not keeping up with the times and using full DNS info , and not the IP to do filtering, then it is their problem to fix their software and policies. If you don't have the in house tech help to convert to name based virtual addressing, I can understand your frustration. Documentation is available all over the place to walk you through how to set it up. Its worth your time to learn. I don't think any of us want to hear that they can't get more IP v4 addresses. Keep using routable IP's for virtual web hosting, and it will happen allot sooner. Brian Torsey IP Engineer HarvardNet btorsey at harvard.net -----Original Message----- From: Mark McFadden [mailto:mcfadden at 21st-century-texts.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 02, 2000 10:29 AM To: policy at arin.net Subject: RE: We disagree with recent restrictions on ip allocation aimed at attacking the "littlehosts" Gene: One of the things that the AveHost folks pointed to was the following situation: suppose you host a site that sells something that someone finds objectionable. If a rating company then filters using an IP mask rather than using the DNS, all the sites using the virtual host headers are affected. This seems a likely scenario to me, when you worked at the small ISP did it happen to you? mark Mark McFadden Chief Technology Officer Commercial Internet eXchange mcfadden at cix.org v: (+1) 608-240-1560 f: (+1) 608-240-1561 http://www.cix.org -----Original Message----- From: policy-request at arin.net [mailto:policy-request at arin.net]On Behalf Of Gene Jakominich Sent: Wednesday, August 02, 2000 8:47 AM To: info at avehost.com Cc: policy at arin.net Subject: Re: We disagree with recent restrictions on ip allocation aimed at attacking the "littlehosts" I used to work for a small ISP. Two years ago we switched all our statically addressed sites to virtual host headers. The sites experienced no down time and we reclaimed a bunch of address space which we used for expansion. Switching to virtual host headers can be done with NO down time at all for the site if it is done correctly. If anything, this will be more of a burden on the larger ISP's than the small ones. (they have many more sites to renumber) There are only a few reasons why a site needs its own address. (SSL...etc.)I feel that it is a necessity to switch to virtual host headers to conserve address space. If you would like to know how to properly switch your sites from static to virtual with no downtime please e-mail me off list. -gene ------------------------------- Gene Jakominich Systems Engineer, ISP Operations Broadview Networks http://www.broadviewnet.com genej at broadviewnet.com -------------------------------- AveHost.com Staff writes: > > We feel the recent policy change regarding ip allocations for web hosting > activities is unfair to the smaller web hosts of the world which do not have > all the technological capitalization to smoothly implement host header > routing without putting undue burdens on the consumer. Therefore, we feel > this policy change is directed at protecting the larger hosts from loosing > clients as fewer potential clients are going to be willing to experience > "downtime" as a result of switching hosts if the move will not be a seamless > one--it will NOT be seamless if IP-less hosting is forced upon smaller web > hosts because there will not be enough free IP's for potential clients to > post the website they are moving to the new host byway of an IP address, > but, rather, they will have to wait for the domain name to be transferred > via the NSI registry before they can even publish the website files; and > then their site will be visible in some places in the world and not others > over that 24-48 hours that it takes the Internet's DNS system to propagate. > > Hmmm, my dad was a class action plaintiff's attorney and the one thing I > picked-up from him was when you can spot a great class action suit > in-the-making!!!!!!!!! > > AveHost.com Staff > AveHost.com, a service of RegSearch International > From gene at edgeofsanity.com Thu Aug 3 09:00:58 2000 From: gene at edgeofsanity.com (Gene Jakominich) Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2000 13:00:58 GMT Subject: We disagree with recent restrictions on ip allocation aimed at attacking the =?iso-8859-1?Q?=22littlehosts=22?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20000803130058.31995.qmail@gilligan.edgeofsanity.com> I am curious as to exactly how the larger web hosts benefits from this? Please enlighten me..... -gene AveHost.com Staff writes: > > Once again, a large web host has spoken and strengthens my argument that it > is they this policy benefits and not the smaller hosts! > > AveHost.com Staff > > > -----Original Message----- > From: policy-request at arin.net [mailto:policy-request at arin.net]On Behalf > Of Torsey, Brian > Sent: Wednesday, August 02, 2000 12:12 PM > To: policy at arin.net > Subject: RE: We disagree with recent restrictions on ip allocation aimed > at attacking the "littlehosts" > > > The issue here is not "what if" > > IP v4 space is not going to be around forever. > > I don't know of any web server software out there (Apache/IIS/Netscape) that > does not RECOMMEND name based virtual web hosting as the preferred way to > go. > > If filtering software and the like are not keeping up with the times and > using full DNS info , and not the IP to do filtering, then it is their > problem to fix their software and policies. > > If you don't have the in house tech help to convert to name based virtual > addressing, I can understand your frustration. Documentation is available > all over the place to walk you through how to set it up. Its worth your time > to learn. > > I don't think any of us want to hear that they can't get more IP v4 > addresses. > > Keep using routable IP's for virtual web hosting, and it will happen allot > sooner. > > Brian Torsey > IP Engineer > HarvardNet > btorsey at harvard.net > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Mark McFadden [mailto:mcfadden at 21st-century-texts.com] > Sent: Wednesday, August 02, 2000 10:29 AM > To: policy at arin.net > Subject: RE: We disagree with recent restrictions on ip allocation aimed > at attacking the "littlehosts" > > > Gene: > > One of the things that the AveHost folks pointed to was the following > situation: > suppose you host a site that sells something that someone finds > objectionable. > If a rating company then filters using an IP mask rather than using the DNS, > all > the sites using the virtual host headers are affected. This seems a likely > scenario to me, when you worked at the small ISP did it happen to you? > > mark > > Mark McFadden > Chief Technology Officer > Commercial Internet eXchange > mcfadden at cix.org v: (+1) 608-240-1560 f: (+1) 608-240-1561 > http://www.cix.org > > -----Original Message----- > From: policy-request at arin.net [mailto:policy-request at arin.net]On Behalf > Of Gene Jakominich > Sent: Wednesday, August 02, 2000 8:47 AM > To: info at avehost.com > Cc: policy at arin.net > Subject: Re: We disagree with recent restrictions on ip allocation aimed > at attacking the "littlehosts" > > > > I used to work for a small ISP. Two years ago we switched all our > statically addressed sites to virtual host headers. The sites experienced > no down time and we reclaimed a bunch of address space which we used for > expansion. Switching to virtual host headers can be done with NO down time > at all for the site if it is done correctly. If anything, this will be > more of a burden on the larger ISP's than the small ones. (they have many > more sites to renumber) There are only a few reasons why a site needs its > own address. (SSL...etc.)I feel that it is a necessity to switch to > virtual host headers to conserve address space. > > If you would like to know how to properly switch your sites from static to > virtual with no downtime please e-mail me off list. > > > -gene > > ------------------------------- > Gene Jakominich > Systems Engineer, ISP Operations > Broadview Networks > http://www.broadviewnet.com > genej at broadviewnet.com > -------------------------------- > > > > > AveHost.com Staff writes: > > > > > We feel the recent policy change regarding ip allocations for web hosting > > activities is unfair to the smaller web hosts of the world which do not > have > > all the technological capitalization to smoothly implement host header > > routing without putting undue burdens on the consumer. Therefore, we feel > > this policy change is directed at protecting the larger hosts from loosing > > clients as fewer potential clients are going to be willing to experience > > "downtime" as a result of switching hosts if the move will not be a > seamless > > one--it will NOT be seamless if IP-less hosting is forced upon smaller web > > hosts because there will not be enough free IP's for potential clients to > > post the website they are moving to the new host byway of an IP address, > > but, rather, they will have to wait for the domain name to be transferred > > via the NSI registry before they can even publish the website files; and > > then their site will be visible in some places in the world and not others > > over that 24-48 hours that it takes the Internet's DNS system to > propagate. > > > > Hmmm, my dad was a class action plaintiff's attorney and the one thing I > > picked-up from him was when you can spot a great class action suit > > in-the-making!!!!!!!!! > > > > AveHost.com Staff > > AveHost.com, a service of RegSearch International > > > > > > From btorsey at HarvardNet.com Thu Aug 3 10:11:14 2000 From: btorsey at HarvardNet.com (Torsey, Brian) Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2000 10:11:14 -0400 Subject: We disagree with recent restrictions on ip allocation aimed a t attacking the "littlehosts" Message-ID: <864FA164044FD4118974009027C236D25F2604@postal.harvardnet.com> When available IP v4 space is down to the dregs ... who do you think is going to get squeezed first? the big backbone IPS's? or the little guys? This policy is good for EVERYONE. Brian Torsey -----Original Message----- From: Gene Jakominich [mailto:gene at edgeofsanity.com] Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2000 9:01 AM To: policy at arin.net Subject: Re: We disagree with recent restrictions on ip allocation aimed at attacking the "littlehosts" I am curious as to exactly how the larger web hosts benefits from this? Please enlighten me..... -gene AveHost.com Staff writes: > > Once again, a large web host has spoken and strengthens my argument that it > is they this policy benefits and not the smaller hosts! > > AveHost.com Staff > > > -----Original Message----- > From: policy-request at arin.net [mailto:policy-request at arin.net]On Behalf > Of Torsey, Brian > Sent: Wednesday, August 02, 2000 12:12 PM > To: policy at arin.net > Subject: RE: We disagree with recent restrictions on ip allocation aimed > at attacking the "littlehosts" > > > The issue here is not "what if" > > IP v4 space is not going to be around forever. > > I don't know of any web server software out there (Apache/IIS/Netscape) that > does not RECOMMEND name based virtual web hosting as the preferred way to > go. > > If filtering software and the like are not keeping up with the times and > using full DNS info , and not the IP to do filtering, then it is their > problem to fix their software and policies. > > If you don't have the in house tech help to convert to name based virtual > addressing, I can understand your frustration. Documentation is available > all over the place to walk you through how to set it up. Its worth your time > to learn. > > I don't think any of us want to hear that they can't get more IP v4 > addresses. > > Keep using routable IP's for virtual web hosting, and it will happen allot > sooner. > > Brian Torsey > IP Engineer > HarvardNet > btorsey at harvard.net > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Mark McFadden [mailto:mcfadden at 21st-century-texts.com] > Sent: Wednesday, August 02, 2000 10:29 AM > To: policy at arin.net > Subject: RE: We disagree with recent restrictions on ip allocation aimed > at attacking the "littlehosts" > > > Gene: > > One of the things that the AveHost folks pointed to was the following > situation: > suppose you host a site that sells something that someone finds > objectionable. > If a rating company then filters using an IP mask rather than using the DNS, > all > the sites using the virtual host headers are affected. This seems a likely > scenario to me, when you worked at the small ISP did it happen to you? > > mark > > Mark McFadden > Chief Technology Officer > Commercial Internet eXchange > mcfadden at cix.org v: (+1) 608-240-1560 f: (+1) 608-240-1561 > http://www.cix.org > > -----Original Message----- > From: policy-request at arin.net [mailto:policy-request at arin.net]On Behalf > Of Gene Jakominich > Sent: Wednesday, August 02, 2000 8:47 AM > To: info at avehost.com > Cc: policy at arin.net > Subject: Re: We disagree with recent restrictions on ip allocation aimed > at attacking the "littlehosts" > > > > I used to work for a small ISP. Two years ago we switched all our > statically addressed sites to virtual host headers. The sites experienced > no down time and we reclaimed a bunch of address space which we used for > expansion. Switching to virtual host headers can be done with NO down time > at all for the site if it is done correctly. If anything, this will be > more of a burden on the larger ISP's than the small ones. (they have many > more sites to renumber) There are only a few reasons why a site needs its > own address. (SSL...etc.)I feel that it is a necessity to switch to > virtual host headers to conserve address space. > > If you would like to know how to properly switch your sites from static to > virtual with no downtime please e-mail me off list. > > > -gene > > ------------------------------- > Gene Jakominich > Systems Engineer, ISP Operations > Broadview Networks > http://www.broadviewnet.com > genej at broadviewnet.com > -------------------------------- > > > > > AveHost.com Staff writes: > > > > > We feel the recent policy change regarding ip allocations for web hosting > > activities is unfair to the smaller web hosts of the world which do not > have > > all the technological capitalization to smoothly implement host header > > routing without putting undue burdens on the consumer. Therefore, we feel > > this policy change is directed at protecting the larger hosts from loosing > > clients as fewer potential clients are going to be willing to experience > > "downtime" as a result of switching hosts if the move will not be a > seamless > > one--it will NOT be seamless if IP-less hosting is forced upon smaller web > > hosts because there will not be enough free IP's for potential clients to > > post the website they are moving to the new host byway of an IP address, > > but, rather, they will have to wait for the domain name to be transferred > > via the NSI registry before they can even publish the website files; and > > then their site will be visible in some places in the world and not others > > over that 24-48 hours that it takes the Internet's DNS system to > propagate. > > > > Hmmm, my dad was a class action plaintiff's attorney and the one thing I > > picked-up from him was when you can spot a great class action suit > > in-the-making!!!!!!!!! > > > > AveHost.com Staff > > AveHost.com, a service of RegSearch International > > > > > > From ceo at REGSEARCH.COM Thu Aug 3 11:16:25 2000 From: ceo at REGSEARCH.COM (AveHost.com Staff) Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2000 11:16:25 -0400 Subject: We disagree with recent restrictions on ip allocation aimed at attacking the "littlehosts" In-Reply-To: <20000803130058.31995.qmail@gilligan.edgeofsanity.com> Message-ID: Once again, because the smaller hosts don't have all the technology needed to route the way the larger hosts do, I stated this previously. It is quite obvious that this is an unfair advantage to the larger hosts. AveHost.com Staff -----Original Message----- From: policy-request at arin.net [mailto:policy-request at arin.net]On Behalf Of Gene Jakominich Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2000 9:01 AM To: policy at arin.net Subject: Re: We disagree with recent restrictions on ip allocation aimed at attacking the "littlehosts" I am curious as to exactly how the larger web hosts benefits from this? Please enlighten me..... -gene AveHost.com Staff writes: > > Once again, a large web host has spoken and strengthens my argument that it > is they this policy benefits and not the smaller hosts! > > AveHost.com Staff > > > -----Original Message----- > From: policy-request at arin.net [mailto:policy-request at arin.net]On Behalf > Of Torsey, Brian > Sent: Wednesday, August 02, 2000 12:12 PM > To: policy at arin.net > Subject: RE: We disagree with recent restrictions on ip allocation aimed > at attacking the "littlehosts" > > > The issue here is not "what if" > > IP v4 space is not going to be around forever. > > I don't know of any web server software out there (Apache/IIS/Netscape) that > does not RECOMMEND name based virtual web hosting as the preferred way to > go. > > If filtering software and the like are not keeping up with the times and > using full DNS info , and not the IP to do filtering, then it is their > problem to fix their software and policies. > > If you don't have the in house tech help to convert to name based virtual > addressing, I can understand your frustration. Documentation is available > all over the place to walk you through how to set it up. Its worth your time > to learn. > > I don't think any of us want to hear that they can't get more IP v4 > addresses. > > Keep using routable IP's for virtual web hosting, and it will happen allot > sooner. > > Brian Torsey > IP Engineer > HarvardNet > btorsey at harvard.net > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Mark McFadden [mailto:mcfadden at 21st-century-texts.com] > Sent: Wednesday, August 02, 2000 10:29 AM > To: policy at arin.net > Subject: RE: We disagree with recent restrictions on ip allocation aimed > at attacking the "littlehosts" > > > Gene: > > One of the things that the AveHost folks pointed to was the following > situation: > suppose you host a site that sells something that someone finds > objectionable. > If a rating company then filters using an IP mask rather than using the DNS, > all > the sites using the virtual host headers are affected. This seems a likely > scenario to me, when you worked at the small ISP did it happen to you? > > mark > > Mark McFadden > Chief Technology Officer > Commercial Internet eXchange > mcfadden at cix.org v: (+1) 608-240-1560 f: (+1) 608-240-1561 > http://www.cix.org > > -----Original Message----- > From: policy-request at arin.net [mailto:policy-request at arin.net]On Behalf > Of Gene Jakominich > Sent: Wednesday, August 02, 2000 8:47 AM > To: info at avehost.com > Cc: policy at arin.net > Subject: Re: We disagree with recent restrictions on ip allocation aimed > at attacking the "littlehosts" > > > > I used to work for a small ISP. Two years ago we switched all our > statically addressed sites to virtual host headers. The sites experienced > no down time and we reclaimed a bunch of address space which we used for > expansion. Switching to virtual host headers can be done with NO down time > at all for the site if it is done correctly. If anything, this will be > more of a burden on the larger ISP's than the small ones. (they have many > more sites to renumber) There are only a few reasons why a site needs its > own address. (SSL...etc.)I feel that it is a necessity to switch to > virtual host headers to conserve address space. > > If you would like to know how to properly switch your sites from static to > virtual with no downtime please e-mail me off list. > > > -gene > > ------------------------------- > Gene Jakominich > Systems Engineer, ISP Operations > Broadview Networks > http://www.broadviewnet.com > genej at broadviewnet.com > -------------------------------- > > > > > AveHost.com Staff writes: > > > > > We feel the recent policy change regarding ip allocations for web hosting > > activities is unfair to the smaller web hosts of the world which do not > have > > all the technological capitalization to smoothly implement host header > > routing without putting undue burdens on the consumer. Therefore, we feel > > this policy change is directed at protecting the larger hosts from loosing > > clients as fewer potential clients are going to be willing to experience > > "downtime" as a result of switching hosts if the move will not be a > seamless > > one--it will NOT be seamless if IP-less hosting is forced upon smaller web > > hosts because there will not be enough free IP's for potential clients to > > post the website they are moving to the new host byway of an IP address, > > but, rather, they will have to wait for the domain name to be transferred > > via the NSI registry before they can even publish the website files; and > > then their site will be visible in some places in the world and not others > > over that 24-48 hours that it takes the Internet's DNS system to > propagate. > > > > Hmmm, my dad was a class action plaintiff's attorney and the one thing I > > picked-up from him was when you can spot a great class action suit > > in-the-making!!!!!!!!! > > > > AveHost.com Staff > > AveHost.com, a service of RegSearch International > > > > > > From danny at tcb.net Thu Aug 3 11:16:46 2000 From: danny at tcb.net (Danny McPherson) Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2000 09:16:46 -0600 Subject: We disagree with recent restrictions on ip allocation aimed at attacking the "littlehosts" Message-ID: <200008031516.JAA05469@tcb.net> Could you expand on this. I've followed this entire thread pretty closely, I believe, though I still don't understand what you're referring? Perhaps a bit more elaboration would be of benefit? Thanks! -danny > to route the way the larger hosts do, I stated this previously. It is quite > obvious that this is an unfair advantage to the larger hosts. > From len at netsys.com Thu Aug 3 11:25:16 2000 From: len at netsys.com (Len Rose) Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2000 11:25:16 -0400 Subject: We disagree with recent restrictions on ip allocation aimed at attacking the "littlehosts" In-Reply-To: ; from AveHost.com Staff on Thu, Aug 03, 2000 at 11:16:25AM -0400 References: <20000803130058.31995.qmail@gilligan.edgeofsanity.com> Message-ID: <20000803112516.Q25034@netsys.com> Dear AveHost.com Staff: The internet is constantly evolving. In order to remain on the internet, we all have to evolve. It's an unfortunate byproduct of that evolution that the threshold or "bar" gets raised every 6 months or so. Whether or not that unfairly impacts smaller operations is more of a technical issue and somewhat less of a financial issue. I used to be a rabid "virtual webhosting based on IP is best" kind of person when I was wearing a systems-oriented hat, but if you examine same from a networking viewpoint you should consider it evil to waste so much IP address space on $9.95 web sites. (yes, I made a gross stereotype) If your business model is dependent on ip-based hosting then you need to raise some more capital and buy someone who owns a few /16's. The real question will be how things evolve after IPv4 ceases to be a barrier. Just my opinion or whatever you see fit to call it! I strongly debated about even copying this to policy@ but this thread looks like it's turning into a non-useful ping pong match. Len On Thu, Aug 03, 2000 at 11:16:25AM -0400, AveHost.com Staff wrote: > Once again, because the smaller hosts don't have all the technology needed > to route the way the larger hosts do, I stated this previously. It is quite > obvious that this is an unfair advantage to the larger hosts. > > AveHost.com Staff [trimmed] From ceo at REGSEARCH.COM Thu Aug 3 11:48:56 2000 From: ceo at REGSEARCH.COM (AveHost.com Staff) Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2000 11:48:56 -0400 Subject: FW: We disagree with recent restrictions on ip allocation aimed at attacking the "littlehosts" Message-ID: I agree that this discussion is not amounting to anything, but the idea that we have to treat IPv4 as a commodity rather than as a useful tool is that not the "proverbial tail wagging the dog"? Call it naivety on my part, but why not just expand the numbering system and have 15 numbers, or even 18 numbers rather than 12 and we'll have a lot more time to develop an even better routing scheme before we run out of IP's. AveHost.com Staff -----Original Message----- From: Len Rose [mailto:len at netsys.com] Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2000 11:25 AM To: info at avehost.com Cc: policy at arin.net Subject: Re: We disagree with recent restrictions on ip allocation aimed at attacking the "littlehosts" Dear AveHost.com Staff: The internet is constantly evolving. In order to remain on the internet, we all have to evolve. It's an unfortunate byproduct of that evolution that the threshold or "bar" gets raised every 6 months or so. Whether or not that unfairly impacts smaller operations is more of a technical issue and somewhat less of a financial issue. I used to be a rabid "virtual webhosting based on IP is best" kind of person when I was wearing a systems-oriented hat, but if you examine same from a networking viewpoint you should consider it evil to waste so much IP address space on $9.95 web sites. (yes, I made a gross stereotype) If your business model is dependent on ip-based hosting then you need to raise some more capital and buy someone who owns a few /16's. The real question will be how things evolve after IPv4 ceases to be a barrier. Just my opinion or whatever you see fit to call it! I strongly debated about even copying this to policy@ but this thread looks like it's turning into a non-useful ping pong match. Len On Thu, Aug 03, 2000 at 11:16:25AM -0400, AveHost.com Staff wrote: > Once again, because the smaller hosts don't have all the technology needed > to route the way the larger hosts do, I stated this previously. It is quite > obvious that this is an unfair advantage to the larger hosts. > > AveHost.com Staff [trimmed] From rich at exodus.net Thu Aug 3 11:57:05 2000 From: rich at exodus.net (Rich Fulton) Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2000 11:57:05 -0400 (EDT) Subject: FW: We disagree with recent restrictions on ip allocation aimed at attacking the "littlehosts" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: "expand the numbering system" is hardy a trivial task. a "better routing scheme" is not necessarily dependent on ip space. i still fail to see how a smaller web hosting company is treated unfairly by ARIN policy. On Thu, 3 Aug 2000, AveHost.com Staff wrote: > I agree that this discussion is not amounting to anything, but the idea that > we have to treat IPv4 as a commodity rather than as a useful tool is that > not the "proverbial tail wagging the dog"? Call it naivety on my part, but > why not just expand the numbering system and have 15 numbers, or even 18 > numbers rather than 12 and we'll have a lot more time to develop an even > better routing scheme before we run out of IP's. > > AveHost.com Staff > > -----Original Message----- > From: Len Rose [mailto:len at netsys.com] > Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2000 11:25 AM > To: info at avehost.com > Cc: policy at arin.net > Subject: Re: We disagree with recent restrictions on ip allocation aimed > at attacking the "littlehosts" > > > Dear AveHost.com Staff: > > The internet is constantly evolving. In order to remain on > the internet, we all have to evolve. > > It's an unfortunate byproduct of that evolution that the > threshold or "bar" gets raised every 6 months or so. > > Whether or not that unfairly impacts smaller operations > is more of a technical issue and somewhat less of a > financial issue. > > I used to be a rabid "virtual webhosting based on IP is best" > kind of person when I was wearing a systems-oriented hat, > but if you examine same from a networking viewpoint you > should consider it evil to waste so much IP address space > on $9.95 web sites. > > (yes, I made a gross stereotype) > > If your business model is dependent on ip-based hosting > then you need to raise some more capital and buy someone > who owns a few /16's. > > The real question will be how things evolve after IPv4 > ceases to be a barrier. > > Just my opinion or whatever you see fit to call it! I > strongly debated about even copying this to policy@ > but this thread looks like it's turning into a non-useful > ping pong match. > > Len > > On Thu, Aug 03, 2000 at 11:16:25AM -0400, AveHost.com Staff wrote: > > > Once again, because the smaller hosts don't have all the technology needed > > to route the way the larger hosts do, I stated this previously. It is > quite > > obvious that this is an unfair advantage to the larger hosts. > > > > AveHost.com Staff > > > [trimmed] > > /rf From Mike at netwright.net Thu Aug 3 12:26:13 2000 From: Mike at netwright.net (Mike Lieberman) Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2000 10:26:13 -0600 Subject: FW: We disagree with recent restrictions on ip allocation aimed at attacking the "littlehosts" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001bffd67$8b89dcb0$fe00a9d8@SWEETNESS> You are right, it is not a trivial matter and the cost of the software/hardware to accommodate the change is minimal. There is a significant personnel resource issue, especially for large vendors, to make the change go seamlessly, but that's life I guess. As SSL certificates require separate IP addresses, I assume (probably incorrectly) that whose sights will be able to use separate IP assignments. Further as FTP sites also don't at this time use the Host Header, IP assignments will continue to be made for those sites. The real impact will be on those vendors who used their IP assignments to justify larger IP assignments and would no longer qualify for them under the new plan. Since that impacts on BGP routing, the real result beyond conserving IP (hard to argue with that) is the inability of smaller companies to multi-home between vendors should their IP needs shrink to a /27 or /28 (or /30)! /* Mike Lieberman Mike at NetWright.Net */ /* President */ /* Net Wright LLC */ /* http://www.netwright.net/ */ /* Voice and Fax: 307-857-1053 */ > -----Original Message----- > From: policy-request at arin.net > [mailto:policy-request at arin.net]On Behalf > Of Rich Fulton > Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2000 9:57 AM > To: info at avehost.com > Cc: Policy at Arin. Net > Subject: Re: FW: We disagree with recent restrictions on ip allocation > aimed at attacking the "littlehosts" > > > "expand the numbering system" is hardy a trivial task. a > "better routing > scheme" is not necessarily dependent on ip space. > > i still fail to see how a smaller web hosting company is > treated unfairly > by ARIN policy. > > On Thu, 3 Aug 2000, AveHost.com Staff wrote: > > > I agree that this discussion is not amounting to anything, > but the idea that > > we have to treat IPv4 as a commodity rather than as a > useful tool is that > > not the "proverbial tail wagging the dog"? Call it naivety > on my part, but > > why not just expand the numbering system and have 15 > numbers, or even 18 > > numbers rather than 12 and we'll have a lot more time to > develop an even > > better routing scheme before we run out of IP's. > > > > AveHost.com Staff > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Len Rose [mailto:len at netsys.com] > > Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2000 11:25 AM > > To: info at avehost.com > > Cc: policy at arin.net > > Subject: Re: We disagree with recent restrictions on ip > allocation aimed > > at attacking the "littlehosts" > > > > > > Dear AveHost.com Staff: > > > > The internet is constantly evolving. In order to remain on > > the internet, we all have to evolve. > > > > It's an unfortunate byproduct of that evolution that the > > threshold or "bar" gets raised every 6 months or so. > > > > Whether or not that unfairly impacts smaller operations > > is more of a technical issue and somewhat less of a > > financial issue. > > > > I used to be a rabid "virtual webhosting based on IP is best" > > kind of person when I was wearing a systems-oriented hat, > > but if you examine same from a networking viewpoint you > > should consider it evil to waste so much IP address space > > on $9.95 web sites. > > > > (yes, I made a gross stereotype) > > > > If your business model is dependent on ip-based hosting > > then you need to raise some more capital and buy someone > > who owns a few /16's. > > > > The real question will be how things evolve after IPv4 > > ceases to be a barrier. > > > > Just my opinion or whatever you see fit to call it! I > > strongly debated about even copying this to policy@ > > but this thread looks like it's turning into a non-useful > > ping pong match. > > > > Len > > > > On Thu, Aug 03, 2000 at 11:16:25AM -0400, AveHost.com Staff wrote: > > > > > Once again, because the smaller hosts don't have all the > technology needed > > > to route the way the larger hosts do, I stated this > previously. It is > > quite > > > obvious that this is an unfair advantage to the larger hosts. > > > > > > AveHost.com Staff > > > > > > [trimmed] > > > > > > > > > > /rf > From ceo at REGSEARCH.COM Thu Aug 3 12:46:45 2000 From: ceo at REGSEARCH.COM (AveHost.com Staff) Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2000 12:46:45 -0400 Subject: FW: We disagree with recent restrictions on ip allocation aimed at attacking the "littlehosts" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: OK, I apologize if I have perhaps been too vague. My assumption is that more IP's are available to upstream providers and many of them are now large web hosting providers (e.g., C&W, AT&T, Bellatlantic, SW Bell, Sprint, etc). Those upstream providers have not wanted to use IP's for web hosting for a long time due to "more important", perhaps justified, uses for them in Network functions and other services (e.g., network/POP build-outs, and redundant networks, DSL services, downstream services, etc). Thus, why would they not be for the restriction of IP assignment for the smaller, downstream web hosts where more IP's are available for their Data Center, POP, DSL service, massive build-outs? In the end, the consumer is the one that suffers from more exposure to DNS problems, problems with changing providers (and the "churn" rate is high from large providers because they are really, really, at least most of them, about providing excellent customer service to customers), etc. How does the customer suffer in changing providers in the IP-less web hosting scheme? It is not as seamless anymore, because the customer lacks a dedicated ip address to publish their existing content to before DNS propagation completes for the domain nameserver changes. I realize there are ways to "rig" things to make it possible for the customer to publish content from their existing site but it still depends on host headers which are not fully compatible with all systems, namely, older browsers, some proxy and firewall systems, and, how do you deal with providing SSL in the IP-less environment? One thing the larger hosts would love to do is eliminate (which won't happen) or slow it down, thus why not make it harder to leave, or at least more painful? AveHost.com Staff -----Original Message----- From: rich at farnsworth.nullroute.net [mailto:rich at farnsworth.nullroute.net]On Behalf Of Rich Fulton Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2000 11:57 AM To: info at avehost.com Cc: Policy at Arin. Net Subject: Re: FW: We disagree with recent restrictions on ip allocation aimedat attacking the "littlehosts" "expand the numbering system" is hardy a trivial task. a "better routing scheme" is not necessarily dependent on ip space. i still fail to see how a smaller web hosting company is treated unfairly by ARIN policy. On Thu, 3 Aug 2000, AveHost.com Staff wrote: > I agree that this discussion is not amounting to anything, but the idea that > we have to treat IPv4 as a commodity rather than as a useful tool is that > not the "proverbial tail wagging the dog"? Call it naivety on my part, but > why not just expand the numbering system and have 15 numbers, or even 18 > numbers rather than 12 and we'll have a lot more time to develop an even > better routing scheme before we run out of IP's. > > AveHost.com Staff > > -----Original Message----- > From: Len Rose [mailto:len at netsys.com] > Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2000 11:25 AM > To: info at avehost.com > Cc: policy at arin.net > Subject: Re: We disagree with recent restrictions on ip allocation aimed > at attacking the "littlehosts" > > > Dear AveHost.com Staff: > > The internet is constantly evolving. In order to remain on > the internet, we all have to evolve. > > It's an unfortunate byproduct of that evolution that the > threshold or "bar" gets raised every 6 months or so. > > Whether or not that unfairly impacts smaller operations > is more of a technical issue and somewhat less of a > financial issue. > > I used to be a rabid "virtual webhosting based on IP is best" > kind of person when I was wearing a systems-oriented hat, > but if you examine same from a networking viewpoint you > should consider it evil to waste so much IP address space > on $9.95 web sites. > > (yes, I made a gross stereotype) > > If your business model is dependent on ip-based hosting > then you need to raise some more capital and buy someone > who owns a few /16's. > > The real question will be how things evolve after IPv4 > ceases to be a barrier. > > Just my opinion or whatever you see fit to call it! I > strongly debated about even copying this to policy@ > but this thread looks like it's turning into a non-useful > ping pong match. > > Len > > On Thu, Aug 03, 2000 at 11:16:25AM -0400, AveHost.com Staff wrote: > > > Once again, because the smaller hosts don't have all the technology needed > > to route the way the larger hosts do, I stated this previously. It is > quite > > obvious that this is an unfair advantage to the larger hosts. > > > > AveHost.com Staff > > > [trimmed] > > /rf From justin at gid.net Thu Aug 3 19:00:16 2000 From: justin at gid.net (Justin W. Newton) Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2000 16:00:16 -0700 Subject: We disagree with recent restrictions on ip allocation aimed at attacking the "littlehosts" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: At 11:16 AM -0400 8/3/00, AveHost.com Staff wrote: >Once again, because the smaller hosts don't have all the technology needed >to route the way the larger hosts do, I stated this previously. It is quite >obvious that this is an unfair advantage to the larger hosts. > What technology would this be? Virtual hosting based on domain name instead of IP address is built into apache, and thats free. I am confused. -- Justin W. Newton Senior Director, Networking and Telecommunications NetZero, Inc. From John.Sweeting at cwusa.com Thu Aug 3 20:52:32 2000 From: John.Sweeting at cwusa.com (Sweeting, John) Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2000 20:52:32 -0400 Subject: FW: We disagree with recent restrictions on ip allocation aim ed at attacking the "littlehosts" Message-ID: <3FD40150593CD2119D5200805FA7D965050A858C@us-cwi-exc-a07.cwi.cablew.com> I strongly recommend that you become an active member of ARIN and participate in the meetings; then you would understand that most of your assumptions are way off the mark. -----Original Message----- From: AveHost.com Staff [mailto:ceo at REGSEARCH.COM] Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2000 12:47 PM To: Rich Fulton Cc: Policy at Arin. Net Subject: RE: FW: We disagree with recent restrictions on ip allocation aimed at attacking the "littlehosts" OK, I apologize if I have perhaps been too vague. My assumption is that more IP's are available to upstream providers and many of them are now large web hosting providers (e.g., C&W, AT&T, Bellatlantic, SW Bell, Sprint, etc). Those upstream providers have not wanted to use IP's for web hosting for a long time due to "more important", perhaps justified, uses for them in Network functions and other services (e.g., network/POP build-outs, and redundant networks, DSL services, downstream services, etc). Thus, why would they not be for the restriction of IP assignment for the smaller, downstream web hosts where more IP's are available for their Data Center, POP, DSL service, massive build-outs? In the end, the consumer is the one that suffers from more exposure to DNS problems, problems with changing providers (and the "churn" rate is high from large providers because they are really, really, at least most of them, about providing excellent customer service to customers), etc. How does the customer suffer in changing providers in the IP-less web hosting scheme? It is not as seamless anymore, because the customer lacks a dedicated ip address to publish their existing content to before DNS propagation completes for the domain nameserver changes. I realize there are ways to "rig" things to make it possible for the customer to publish content from their existing site but it still depends on host headers which are not fully compatible with all systems, namely, older browsers, some proxy and firewall systems, and, how do you deal with providing SSL in the IP-less environment? One thing the larger hosts would love to do is eliminate (which won't happen) or slow it down, thus why not make it harder to leave, or at least more painful? AveHost.com Staff -----Original Message----- From: rich at farnsworth.nullroute.net [mailto:rich at farnsworth.nullroute.net]On Behalf Of Rich Fulton Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2000 11:57 AM To: info at avehost.com Cc: Policy at Arin. Net Subject: Re: FW: We disagree with recent restrictions on ip allocation aimedat attacking the "littlehosts" "expand the numbering system" is hardy a trivial task. a "better routing scheme" is not necessarily dependent on ip space. i still fail to see how a smaller web hosting company is treated unfairly by ARIN policy. On Thu, 3 Aug 2000, AveHost.com Staff wrote: > I agree that this discussion is not amounting to anything, but the idea that > we have to treat IPv4 as a commodity rather than as a useful tool is that > not the "proverbial tail wagging the dog"? Call it naivety on my part, but > why not just expand the numbering system and have 15 numbers, or even 18 > numbers rather than 12 and we'll have a lot more time to develop an even > better routing scheme before we run out of IP's. > > AveHost.com Staff > > -----Original Message----- > From: Len Rose [mailto:len at netsys.com] > Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2000 11:25 AM > To: info at avehost.com > Cc: policy at arin.net > Subject: Re: We disagree with recent restrictions on ip allocation aimed > at attacking the "littlehosts" > > > Dear AveHost.com Staff: > > The internet is constantly evolving. In order to remain on > the internet, we all have to evolve. > > It's an unfortunate byproduct of that evolution that the > threshold or "bar" gets raised every 6 months or so. > > Whether or not that unfairly impacts smaller operations > is more of a technical issue and somewhat less of a > financial issue. > > I used to be a rabid "virtual webhosting based on IP is best" > kind of person when I was wearing a systems-oriented hat, > but if you examine same from a networking viewpoint you > should consider it evil to waste so much IP address space > on $9.95 web sites. > > (yes, I made a gross stereotype) > > If your business model is dependent on ip-based hosting > then you need to raise some more capital and buy someone > who owns a few /16's. > > The real question will be how things evolve after IPv4 > ceases to be a barrier. > > Just my opinion or whatever you see fit to call it! I > strongly debated about even copying this to policy@ > but this thread looks like it's turning into a non-useful > ping pong match. > > Len > > On Thu, Aug 03, 2000 at 11:16:25AM -0400, AveHost.com Staff wrote: > > > Once again, because the smaller hosts don't have all the technology needed > > to route the way the larger hosts do, I stated this previously. It is > quite > > obvious that this is an unfair advantage to the larger hosts. > > > > AveHost.com Staff > > > [trimmed] > > /rf From info at avehost.com Fri Aug 4 01:41:39 2000 From: info at avehost.com (AveHost.com Staff) Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2000 01:41:39 -0400 Subject: FW: FW: We disagree with recent restrictions on ip allocation aimed at attacking the "littlehosts" Message-ID: Without backing up a statement like that I can only assume you cannot. AveHost.com Staff -----Original Message----- From: Sweeting, John [mailto:John.Sweeting at cwusa.com] Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2000 8:53 PM To: 'info at avehost.com'; Rich Fulton Cc: Policy at Arin. Net Subject: RE: FW: We disagree with recent restrictions on ip allocation aimed at attacking the "littlehosts" I strongly recommend that you become an active member of ARIN and participate in the meetings; then you would understand that most of your assumptions are way off the mark. -----Original Message----- From: AveHost.com Staff [mailto:ceo at REGSEARCH.COM] Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2000 12:47 PM To: Rich Fulton Cc: Policy at Arin. Net Subject: RE: FW: We disagree with recent restrictions on ip allocation aimed at attacking the "littlehosts" OK, I apologize if I have perhaps been too vague. My assumption is that more IP's are available to upstream providers and many of them are now large web hosting providers (e.g., C&W, AT&T, Bellatlantic, SW Bell, Sprint, etc). Those upstream providers have not wanted to use IP's for web hosting for a long time due to "more important", perhaps justified, uses for them in Network functions and other services (e.g., network/POP build-outs, and redundant networks, DSL services, downstream services, etc). Thus, why would they not be for the restriction of IP assignment for the smaller, downstream web hosts where more IP's are available for their Data Center, POP, DSL service, massive build-outs? In the end, the consumer is the one that suffers from more exposure to DNS problems, problems with changing providers (and the "churn" rate is high from large providers because they are really, really, at least most of them, about providing excellent customer service to customers), etc. How does the customer suffer in changing providers in the IP-less web hosting scheme? It is not as seamless anymore, because the customer lacks a dedicated ip address to publish their existing content to before DNS propagation completes for the domain nameserver changes. I realize there are ways to "rig" things to make it possible for the customer to publish content from their existing site but it still depends on host headers which are not fully compatible with all systems, namely, older browsers, some proxy and firewall systems, and, how do you deal with providing SSL in the IP-less environment? One thing the larger hosts would love to do is eliminate (which won't happen) or slow it down, thus why not make it harder to leave, or at least more painful? AveHost.com Staff -----Original Message----- From: rich at farnsworth.nullroute.net [mailto:rich at farnsworth.nullroute.net]On Behalf Of Rich Fulton Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2000 11:57 AM To: info at avehost.com Cc: Policy at Arin. Net Subject: Re: FW: We disagree with recent restrictions on ip allocation aimedat attacking the "littlehosts" "expand the numbering system" is hardy a trivial task. a "better routing scheme" is not necessarily dependent on ip space. i still fail to see how a smaller web hosting company is treated unfairly by ARIN policy. On Thu, 3 Aug 2000, AveHost.com Staff wrote: > I agree that this discussion is not amounting to anything, but the idea that > we have to treat IPv4 as a commodity rather than as a useful tool is that > not the "proverbial tail wagging the dog"? Call it naivety on my part, but > why not just expand the numbering system and have 15 numbers, or even 18 > numbers rather than 12 and we'll have a lot more time to develop an even > better routing scheme before we run out of IP's. > > AveHost.com Staff > > -----Original Message----- > From: Len Rose [mailto:len at netsys.com] > Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2000 11:25 AM > To: info at avehost.com > Cc: policy at arin.net > Subject: Re: We disagree with recent restrictions on ip allocation aimed > at attacking the "littlehosts" > > > Dear AveHost.com Staff: > > The internet is constantly evolving. In order to remain on > the internet, we all have to evolve. > > It's an unfortunate byproduct of that evolution that the > threshold or "bar" gets raised every 6 months or so. > > Whether or not that unfairly impacts smaller operations > is more of a technical issue and somewhat less of a > financial issue. > > I used to be a rabid "virtual webhosting based on IP is best" > kind of person when I was wearing a systems-oriented hat, > but if you examine same from a networking viewpoint you > should consider it evil to waste so much IP address space > on $9.95 web sites. > > (yes, I made a gross stereotype) > > If your business model is dependent on ip-based hosting > then you need to raise some more capital and buy someone > who owns a few /16's. > > The real question will be how things evolve after IPv4 > ceases to be a barrier. > > Just my opinion or whatever you see fit to call it! I > strongly debated about even copying this to policy@ > but this thread looks like it's turning into a non-useful > ping pong match. > > Len > > On Thu, Aug 03, 2000 at 11:16:25AM -0400, AveHost.com Staff wrote: > > > Once again, because the smaller hosts don't have all the technology needed > > to route the way the larger hosts do, I stated this previously. It is > quite > > obvious that this is an unfair advantage to the larger hosts. > > > > AveHost.com Staff > > > [trimmed] > > /rf From rich at exodus.net Fri Aug 4 07:20:50 2000 From: rich at exodus.net (Rich Fulton) Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2000 07:20:50 -0400 (EDT) Subject: FW: FW: We disagree with recent restrictions on ip allocation aimed at attacking the "littlehosts" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Fri, 4 Aug 2000, AveHost.com Staff wrote: > Without backing up a statement like that I can only assume you cannot. Actually the statement was right on. I would recommend you stop making assumptions and start participating in policy discussion while seeking IP, routing, and general Internet enlightenment. > -----Original Message----- > From: Sweeting, John [mailto:John.Sweeting at cwusa.com] > Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2000 8:53 PM > To: 'info at avehost.com'; Rich Fulton > Cc: Policy at Arin. Net > Subject: RE: FW: We disagree with recent restrictions on ip allocation > aimed at attacking the "littlehosts" > > > I strongly recommend that you become an active member of ARIN and > participate in the meetings; then you would understand that most of your > assumptions are way off the mark. > > -----Original Message----- > From: AveHost.com Staff [mailto:ceo at REGSEARCH.COM] > Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2000 12:47 PM > To: Rich Fulton > Cc: Policy at Arin. Net > Subject: RE: FW: We disagree with recent restrictions on ip allocation > aimed at attacking the "littlehosts" > > > > OK, I apologize if I have perhaps been too vague. My assumption is that > more IP's are available to upstream providers and many of them are now large > web hosting providers (e.g., C&W, AT&T, Bellatlantic, SW Bell, Sprint, etc). > Those upstream providers have not wanted to use IP's for web hosting for a > long time due to "more important", perhaps justified, uses for them in > Network functions and other services (e.g., network/POP build-outs, and > redundant networks, DSL services, downstream services, etc). Thus, why > would they not be for the restriction of IP assignment for the smaller, > downstream web hosts where more IP's are available for their Data Center, > POP, DSL service, massive build-outs? > > In the end, the consumer is the one that suffers from more exposure to DNS > problems, problems with changing providers (and the "churn" rate is high > from large providers because they are really, really, at least most of them, > about providing excellent customer service to customers), etc. How does the > customer suffer in changing providers in the IP-less web hosting scheme? It > is not as seamless anymore, because the customer lacks a dedicated ip > address to publish their existing content to before DNS propagation > completes for the domain nameserver changes. I realize there are ways to > "rig" things to make it possible for the customer to publish content from > their existing site but it still depends on host headers which are not fully > compatible with all systems, namely, older browsers, some proxy and firewall > systems, and, how do you deal with providing SSL in the IP-less environment? > > One thing the larger hosts would love to do is eliminate (which won't > happen) or slow it down, thus why not make it harder to leave, or at least > more painful? > > AveHost.com Staff > > > -----Original Message----- > From: rich at farnsworth.nullroute.net > [mailto:rich at farnsworth.nullroute.net]On Behalf Of Rich Fulton > Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2000 11:57 AM > To: info at avehost.com > Cc: Policy at Arin. Net > Subject: Re: FW: We disagree with recent restrictions on ip allocation > aimedat attacking the "littlehosts" > > > "expand the numbering system" is hardy a trivial task. a "better routing > scheme" is not necessarily dependent on ip space. > > i still fail to see how a smaller web hosting company is treated unfairly > by ARIN policy. > > On Thu, 3 Aug 2000, AveHost.com Staff wrote: > > > I agree that this discussion is not amounting to anything, but the idea > that > > we have to treat IPv4 as a commodity rather than as a useful tool is that > > not the "proverbial tail wagging the dog"? Call it naivety on my part, > but > > why not just expand the numbering system and have 15 numbers, or even 18 > > numbers rather than 12 and we'll have a lot more time to develop an even > > better routing scheme before we run out of IP's. > > > > AveHost.com Staff > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Len Rose [mailto:len at netsys.com] > > Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2000 11:25 AM > > To: info at avehost.com > > Cc: policy at arin.net > > Subject: Re: We disagree with recent restrictions on ip allocation aimed > > at attacking the "littlehosts" > > > > > > Dear AveHost.com Staff: > > > > The internet is constantly evolving. In order to remain on > > the internet, we all have to evolve. > > > > It's an unfortunate byproduct of that evolution that the > > threshold or "bar" gets raised every 6 months or so. > > > > Whether or not that unfairly impacts smaller operations > > is more of a technical issue and somewhat less of a > > financial issue. > > > > I used to be a rabid "virtual webhosting based on IP is best" > > kind of person when I was wearing a systems-oriented hat, > > but if you examine same from a networking viewpoint you > > should consider it evil to waste so much IP address space > > on $9.95 web sites. > > > > (yes, I made a gross stereotype) > > > > If your business model is dependent on ip-based hosting > > then you need to raise some more capital and buy someone > > who owns a few /16's. > > > > The real question will be how things evolve after IPv4 > > ceases to be a barrier. > > > > Just my opinion or whatever you see fit to call it! I > > strongly debated about even copying this to policy@ > > but this thread looks like it's turning into a non-useful > > ping pong match. > > > > Len > > > > On Thu, Aug 03, 2000 at 11:16:25AM -0400, AveHost.com Staff wrote: > > > > > Once again, because the smaller hosts don't have all the technology > needed > > > to route the way the larger hosts do, I stated this previously. It is > > quite > > > obvious that this is an unfair advantage to the larger hosts. > > > > > > AveHost.com Staff > > > > > > [trimmed] > > > > > > > > > > /rf > > /rf From palmieri at quadrix.com Fri Aug 4 17:02:27 2000 From: palmieri at quadrix.com (Thomas Palmieri) Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2000 17:02:27 -0400 Subject: FW: FW: We disagree with recent restrictions on ip allocationaimed at attacking the "littlehosts" References: Message-ID: <398B2F63.4424C9B0@quadrix.com> Hi All, I know I am venturing into a minefield here...especially since this has started to take on a rather condescending tone on both main sides of this issue. However, I thought I could give some more constructive points to this argument, and let others provide good ideas to counter my concerns with ARIN's policy re: virtual web hosting. Please, if you consider my points some sort of attempt to add to the "noise" on this topic, then just ignore it totally. Also, please try to hold back on claiming inexperience on my part...accusing others of this is just a totally unfounded conjecture, and requires a lot more information to be presented than anyone's comments on this topic to this list will convey. Come on folks, let's give each other a break, and presume that some of us actually know some of what we are talking about...and turn our sour comments into helpful suggestions, and keep open minds. After all, we are ALL affected by ARIN's policies, and there is still much room for some of us to find real-world problems with this particular one. That being said, know this: I have seen all of the comments on this thread from this list, and others from other folks I have spoken with and lists devoted to this topic, and read all of ARIN's docs on the matter, and read quite a lot about this entire issue in the press and from other sources. Not to mention running my own ISP and web hosting facility for the last 6 years, being heavily involved with the Internet in a research capacity since its map fit on one sheet of paper, and working with many other technical folks at other much larger ISPs...you get the point. Enough about me... Brief re-cap of pertinent issues related to this policy (edited by me, of course :-): * IPv6 will *not* fix this for any of us now. And, when it comes, it'll hurt at first, but be better later. No help here for now. * Host-header (HTTP 1.1) virtual hosting is useful ONLY for web traffic (HTTP, that is). On the surface, good way to reduce IP needs, but maybe not... * FTP and any other protocols (telnet, heaven forbid...) might need similar mechanisms depending on the way hosters have organized their offering, and some exist for some, although not transparently at this point. * SSL web sites really need separate IPs, or at least it seems so. Different common names might be enough, but browsers may get confused. Seems fixable, but who really knows...perhaps Microsoft will "fix" it in IE, and claim once again that they brought you the Internet, and now do it even better than everyone else...:-) * Here's a big one, which we should all really just accept: IPv4 space is just too small, and it *will* run out if we are not creative in our thinking... Now for some of the "non-issues", just to make sure we can be fair (IMHO, of course :-): * Older browsers and cachers that do not grok HTTP 1.1 are just not that common anymore. This used to be on my hot list, but I ran the numbers myself for a bunch of really big sites, and I had to shutup on this one after the first real look. * Folks who block IPs via "nanny" services or router ACLs or firewall rules will not always have better tools at their disposal to make this Host-header sensitive...remember that a lot of these mechanisms are costly, and replacing them is not merely a technical issue. But, if a way around the issue could be made simple, and not require application protocol-level packet filtering (as Host-header-based blocking would require), then folks with more primitive filters would at least have a way to do what they need...I think this is a non-issue because I have an idea that may help here...if my idea does not help, than I will agree that this is a real issue to be concerned about, at least for now. * Big ISPs won't benefit over smaller ones in any way that day-to-day technicians will deal with, since using Host-header virtual hosting is really easy in just about every web server worth using (oops...a bit too much opinion there? :-). And this is coming from someone who sees himself as a relatively small hoster. Whew. Probably already offended someone, or got someone hopping mad that I did not list their concerns, or bespoke one that they think is off-base...c'est la vie. I am trying to help, so try to bear with me...here's where I go where I fear you'll have reason to flog me, so don't waste your energy just yet... I, personally, worry about the following things re: this policy, and I do not think I have seen these in this thread yet...if so, sorry in advance: * Packing a bunch of virtual web sites into a single web server instance via Host-header parsing is all well and good, but what about complex sites that use scripting modules or other application services within the address space of the web server? Imagine this (which I can, since it happens way too often): You have 10 sites in an instance, all virtual via Host-header, using a mix of PHP, embedded Perl, SSJS or SSI, etc. Now, someone (most likely your client) deposits some code which either elicits a bug in the app module, or drops your server into a nasty loop, or some such...and in the end, it ties up the entire web server instance, causing quite a DOS situation. As a businessman, does this represent a risk I am willing to bear? My answer is no...any others out there? * I know that our hosting offering concentrates a bit more heavily on security-related matters, and every time you try to virtualize a service, you can list the risks associated with it and enumerate the methods of attack/compromise just the mere act of virtualizing opens you to. Now, I do not think for a moment that our final solutions are un-hackable, but we do try to avoid the obvious ones, and some of the no-so-obvious ones...and a lot of that comes from separating things to as low a level as possible. This goes beyond trusting a web server to have little-to-no security holes; this is about taking preventive steps to try and avoid an architecture that even allows the chance of a compromise. So, with that as a backdrop for further consideration, see this in your mind: not only do those 10 web sites all share the same OS instance and filesystems, but they also share the same memory and address space, the same ability to control program execution, and the same ability to access other services within your network that grant credential-based access. Anyone from the security realm want to take a crack at this one? And if anyone goes down the chroot() path, know this: it helps a great deal, but is nowhere near perfect. I'll stay out of it...I promise...except to say that this is another business risk I cannot accept, without dumping security from my list of "must-haves" in my offering. * As for the issues related to multi-homing and route redundancy and such, the trend is obviously about consolidation...put your systems in a facility that is closer to the backbone with many peering arrangements, and part of a larger group of IP-needy companies, and you'll get what you need from the network maintainer. You won't get six 9's uptime, and you won't get immediate technical support when you need it at all times, and you will still need to justify your IP needs. But, you'll fix some of that by providing your own layer of customer and technical support to cover your needs, finding the right folks within the network maintainer's organization to help you when the chips are down, and by shopping around for the folks who are big enough and also provide (and then prove demonstrably) their own redundancies and fault-tolerant architectures. But, then again, there's that last one: justifying your IP needs. These big network facilities will force you to basically do their ARIN-homework for them, with the same restrictions...so, this policy will affect you even in the consolidated case. In other words, numbers convey no extra strength in this regard. Before anyone gets the idea that I see some sort of way out of all of this without a great deal of work and acceptance on the part of many folks, know this: I don't. But, I wonder about the following two ideas, and would love to hear others help me refine them into something which will help all of us a great deal. Or, so I hope... * When you get right down to it, the real technical reason why we can't run separate instances of a web server and still use Host-header virtual hosting is because OSes do not allow us to have separate processes listen on the same IP/Port pair and de-multiplex based upon application-protocol information. You can rig up something close (as Apache does), but it turns out to be a load-balancing mechanism, not a separation thing; separate threads or processes can kinda "share" incoming connection load, but in the end, any of the members of the "farm" need to be able to handle any of the requests. As an ex-kernel hacker myself, I can see the plethora of problems with allowing something more "intelligent", and the time it would take to shake out all of the bugs in it, even after you figure out the right rules to apply to have it all "make sense" in the end. If threads in these OSes really gave us proper separation, both at the execution level and the credentials level, then things would be somewhat better, but you'd still have a main thread issue; something has to make the first de-multiplexing decision, based on some piece of information, and when it isn't IP and Port anymore, it's gotta be something in the protocol (Host-header, for instance), and hence a user-level process responsibility. I have reached my ability (for now :-) to give this further development, but can anyone else help? * This really gets in my craw: what about port numbers? With all of the services out there, we still use relatively few port numbers on our web servers. When I load balance one of my client's web presences, I don't even bother with IPs...I just spread things out over port numbers. Works like a charm, and is easy as pie. Why not use this in virtual hosting as well? We'd get all of the separation we need, since the OS restrictions would vanish, and we'd be able to embrace a reduction in IP needs without sacrificing stability or security (in any more way than running a web server at all does :-). Again, I ask, why not? I'll answer it: because we have stuck ourselves on port 80 for HTTP, and have pursued no way of opening up that restriction to our advantage. All because our URL names need to be easy to remember, short to type, and we can't trust the end-user with numbers. All of which I agree with. Even if we allowed for symbolic port names via a naming system, it'd probably cause too much trouble (imagine these: foo.com:joe, microsoft.com:visio (shame), etc.). But, what if we gave DNS some more work to do, and browsers a bit more intelligence. How about allowing protocol-specific DNS records that you can associate with DNS hosts (like the INFO records), that can contain some info pertinent to the protocol or its layers. Imagine a DNS zone for foo.com having an A record of 1.2.3.4 and a HTTP_INFO (?) record of 2035, and one for bar.com having an A record of 1.2.3.4 and an HTTP_INFO record of 2036. Now, when a browser gets foo.com in an HTTP URL, it can do the DNS lookup, and use both the A record *and* the HTTP_INFO record (if it exists, otherwise default to 80) to access the site. Browsers would take on a backward-compatible change (the :port syntax would have to override the DNS info, just to be clean), and DNS maintainers would have all of the control over the port assignments, with little-to-no extra pain. Then, we could go even further by using this for other protocols...although I expect that acceptance of this and prevalence of this behavior in client-side software would take time. After all, the whole "well-known" port number thing is a vestige of a time when folks needed port numbers and were trusted with remembering them...something we have moved away from, and with good reason. I have to say that this one intrigues me the most...we'd no longer need Host-headers at all, and it would provide a platform for solving similar issues for protocols other than HTTP. No changes to any existing protocol, a minor extension to DNS (which has mechanisms already for this), and a simple application-level behavioral change to the browsers of the world. SSL sites will work with different ports (browsers use port number as well as IP in distinguishing sites and authentication realms), and folks who want to block access could simply add a port number to their block (which even very primitive mechanisms support with little extra work). Would someone please take a factual approach to dowsing this with water if it has something really wrong with it? With this in place, I'd start using it tomorrow... Basically, in the end (if you even got this far :-), without creative ways out like the ones above and others I am sure are out there, ARIN's policy is just too heavy to take...too many things can suffer from it, both relatively easy to accept and damaging to accept. But, if we are not careful, we'll just run out of IPv4, and stare out the window one day like deer caught in the headlights. Can we get any help from those strident, creative folks who bring us things like DNS and HTTP and Linux to help us come out of this one with something good? Can someone with more clout than my name registers add their voice to this line of inquiry, so the entire Internet space can benefit from some creative thinking? Can the folks at ARIN, who I know want to help this community survive and help us all just "get along" with one another, help us apply the pressure needed to get ideas like these worked out? I try in my own way, but if ARIN wants folks to be happy when being forced to accept their policies, than it would be the least they could do (I think) to help us solve the "real" problem and not just their specific one (running out of IPv4). Opinions? Tom Palmieri CTO & Co-founder Quadrix Solutions Rich Fulton wrote: > > On Fri, 4 Aug 2000, AveHost.com Staff wrote: > > > Without backing up a statement like that I can only assume you cannot. > > Actually the statement was right on. I would recommend you stop making > assumptions and start participating in policy discussion while seeking > IP, routing, and general Internet enlightenment. > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Sweeting, John [mailto:John.Sweeting at cwusa.com] > > Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2000 8:53 PM > > To: 'info at avehost.com'; Rich Fulton > > Cc: Policy at Arin. Net > > Subject: RE: FW: We disagree with recent restrictions on ip allocation > > aimed at attacking the "littlehosts" > > > > > > I strongly recommend that you become an active member of ARIN and > > participate in the meetings; then you would understand that most of your > > assumptions are way off the mark. > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: AveHost.com Staff [mailto:ceo at REGSEARCH.COM] > > Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2000 12:47 PM > > To: Rich Fulton > > Cc: Policy at Arin. Net > > Subject: RE: FW: We disagree with recent restrictions on ip allocation > > aimed at attacking the "littlehosts" > > > > > > > > OK, I apologize if I have perhaps been too vague. My assumption is that > > more IP's are available to upstream providers and many of them are now large > > web hosting providers (e.g., C&W, AT&T, Bellatlantic, SW Bell, Sprint, etc). > > Those upstream providers have not wanted to use IP's for web hosting for a > > long time due to "more important", perhaps justified, uses for them in > > Network functions and other services (e.g., network/POP build-outs, and > > redundant networks, DSL services, downstream services, etc). Thus, why > > would they not be for the restriction of IP assignment for the smaller, > > downstream web hosts where more IP's are available for their Data Center, > > POP, DSL service, massive build-outs? > > > > In the end, the consumer is the one that suffers from more exposure to DNS > > problems, problems with changing providers (and the "churn" rate is high > > from large providers because they are really, really, at least most of them, > > about providing excellent customer service to customers), etc. How does the > > customer suffer in changing providers in the IP-less web hosting scheme? It > > is not as seamless anymore, because the customer lacks a dedicated ip > > address to publish their existing content to before DNS propagation > > completes for the domain nameserver changes. I realize there are ways to > > "rig" things to make it possible for the customer to publish content from > > their existing site but it still depends on host headers which are not fully > > compatible with all systems, namely, older browsers, some proxy and firewall > > systems, and, how do you deal with providing SSL in the IP-less environment? > > > > One thing the larger hosts would love to do is eliminate (which won't > > happen) or slow it down, thus why not make it harder to leave, or at least > > more painful? > > > > AveHost.com Staff > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: rich at farnsworth.nullroute.net > > [mailto:rich at farnsworth.nullroute.net]On Behalf Of Rich Fulton > > Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2000 11:57 AM > > To: info at avehost.com > > Cc: Policy at Arin. Net > > Subject: Re: FW: We disagree with recent restrictions on ip allocation > > aimedat attacking the "littlehosts" > > > > > > "expand the numbering system" is hardy a trivial task. a "better routing > > scheme" is not necessarily dependent on ip space. > > > > i still fail to see how a smaller web hosting company is treated unfairly > > by ARIN policy. > > > > On Thu, 3 Aug 2000, AveHost.com Staff wrote: > > > > > I agree that this discussion is not amounting to anything, but the idea > > that > > > we have to treat IPv4 as a commodity rather than as a useful tool is that > > > not the "proverbial tail wagging the dog"? Call it naivety on my part, > > but > > > why not just expand the numbering system and have 15 numbers, or even 18 > > > numbers rather than 12 and we'll have a lot more time to develop an even > > > better routing scheme before we run out of IP's. > > > > > > AveHost.com Staff > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Len Rose [mailto:len at netsys.com] > > > Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2000 11:25 AM > > > To: info at avehost.com > > > Cc: policy at arin.net > > > Subject: Re: We disagree with recent restrictions on ip allocation aimed > > > at attacking the "littlehosts" > > > > > > > > > Dear AveHost.com Staff: > > > > > > The internet is constantly evolving. In order to remain on > > > the internet, we all have to evolve. > > > > > > It's an unfortunate byproduct of that evolution that the > > > threshold or "bar" gets raised every 6 months or so. > > > > > > Whether or not that unfairly impacts smaller operations > > > is more of a technical issue and somewhat less of a > > > financial issue. > > > > > > I used to be a rabid "virtual webhosting based on IP is best" > > > kind of person when I was wearing a systems-oriented hat, > > > but if you examine same from a networking viewpoint you > > > should consider it evil to waste so much IP address space > > > on $9.95 web sites. > > > > > > (yes, I made a gross stereotype) > > > > > > If your business model is dependent on ip-based hosting > > > then you need to raise some more capital and buy someone > > > who owns a few /16's. > > > > > > The real question will be how things evolve after IPv4 > > > ceases to be a barrier. > > > > > > Just my opinion or whatever you see fit to call it! I > > > strongly debated about even copying this to policy@ > > > but this thread looks like it's turning into a non-useful > > > ping pong match. > > > > > > Len > > > > > > On Thu, Aug 03, 2000 at 11:16:25AM -0400, AveHost.com Staff wrote: > > > > > > > Once again, because the smaller hosts don't have all the technology > > needed > > > > to route the way the larger hosts do, I stated this previously. It is > > > quite > > > > obvious that this is an unfair advantage to the larger hosts. > > > > > > > > AveHost.com Staff > > > > > > > > > [trimmed] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > /rf > > > > > > /rf -- Thomas Palmieri Quadrix Solutions