We disagree with recent restrictions on ip allocation aimed at attacking the "littlehosts"

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
> >
>
>
>
>