We disagree with recent restrictions on ip allocation aimed at attacking the "little hosts"
Jeffrey Meltzer
meltzer at villageworld.com
Wed Aug 2 02:13:13 EDT 2000
- Previous message: We disagree with recent restrictions on ip allocation aimed at attacking the "little hosts"
- Next message: We disagree with recent restrictions on ip allocation aimed at attacking the "littlehosts"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
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 <ceo at REGSEARCH.COM> > 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 >
- Previous message: We disagree with recent restrictions on ip allocation aimed at attacking the "little hosts"
- Next message: We disagree with recent restrictions on ip allocation aimed at attacking the "littlehosts"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the POLICY mailing list