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