From ahp at hilander.com Mon Nov 6 10:41:32 2000 From: ahp at hilander.com (Alec H. Peterson) Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2000 08:41:32 -0700 Subject: Things that need to be addressed References: Message-ID: <3A06D12C.1C3C7F12@hilander.com> Steve Pierce wrote: > > Here is a problem to consider. More and more hosts are doing what I call > super-hosting. That is 20,000+ domains on a cluster with one public IP > address but they will need unique routable addresses for the cluster for > management. Not a problem, 10 to 15 IP address can handle the whole cluster > and this is exactly the sort of resource conservation we are looking for > when it comes to IP addresses. > > The problem is if just one of those 20,000 domains will do something stupid > to either get themselves banned on MAPS/ORBS or pop up on a net-nanny filter > or some other block it kills it for everyone else. Often times the blocks > are on the IP address not on the domain name. So the entire cluster ends up > getting banned. So the ISP immediately fires the customer and shuts the site > down but they are left with the wreckage. So then the ISP spends months > trying to get off the list and many times is unsuccessful from getting the > filters and blocks entirely removed. It is my opinion that we should only base our allocation policies on technical issues relating to IP address and announcement consumption. There is no reason in the world why ARIN should be forced to modify its allocation policies based on the way certain entities decide to do business. However, I do acknowledge it is an issue, so I feel we should consider devising an appropriate policy, and then figure out what issues could arise (ORBS/MAPS, net nanny, etc). Then, we can contact the entities which operate those services and let them know that they will potentially be blocking access to valid web sites. Sound like a plan? Alec -- Alec H. Peterson - ahp at hilander.com Staff Scientist CenterGate Research Group - http://www.centergate.com "Technology so advanced, even _we_ don't understand it!" From dwhipple at microsoft.com Mon Nov 6 10:54:13 2000 From: dwhipple at microsoft.com (David Whipple) Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2000 07:54:13 -0800 Subject: Things that need to be addressed Message-ID: <8E937B8C67213B41BB5C87E2C6FCC22311A445@red-msg-29.redmond.corp.microsoft.com> I agree with Alec on this point, ARIN really cannot do anything is somewhat chooses to filter addresses, or blocks for that matter... Thanks. David Whipple. -----Original Message----- From: Alec H. Peterson [mailto:ahp at hilander.com] Sent: Monday, November 06, 2000 10:42 AM To: Steve Pierce Cc: vwp at arin.net Subject: Re: Things that need to be addressed Steve Pierce wrote: > > Here is a problem to consider. More and more hosts are doing what I call > super-hosting. That is 20,000+ domains on a cluster with one public IP > address but they will need unique routable addresses for the cluster for > management. Not a problem, 10 to 15 IP address can handle the whole cluster > and this is exactly the sort of resource conservation we are looking for > when it comes to IP addresses. > > The problem is if just one of those 20,000 domains will do something stupid > to either get themselves banned on MAPS/ORBS or pop up on a net-nanny filter > or some other block it kills it for everyone else. Often times the blocks > are on the IP address not on the domain name. So the entire cluster ends up > getting banned. So the ISP immediately fires the customer and shuts the site > down but they are left with the wreckage. So then the ISP spends months > trying to get off the list and many times is unsuccessful from getting the > filters and blocks entirely removed. It is my opinion that we should only base our allocation policies on technical issues relating to IP address and announcement consumption. There is no reason in the world why ARIN should be forced to modify its allocation policies based on the way certain entities decide to do business. However, I do acknowledge it is an issue, so I feel we should consider devising an appropriate policy, and then figure out what issues could arise (ORBS/MAPS, net nanny, etc). Then, we can contact the entities which operate those services and let them know that they will potentially be blocking access to valid web sites. Sound like a plan? Alec -- Alec H. Peterson - ahp at hilander.com Staff Scientist CenterGate Research Group - http://www.centergate.com "Technology so advanced, even _we_ don't understand it!" From Steve.Lists at HDL.com Mon Nov 6 17:48:25 2000 From: Steve.Lists at HDL.com (Steve Pierce) Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2000 17:48:25 -0500 Subject: Things that need to be addressed In-Reply-To: <8E937B8C67213B41BB5C87E2C6FCC22311A445@red-msg-29.redmond.corp.microsoft.com> Message-ID: >> I agree with Alec on this point, ARIN really cannot do >> anything if someone chooses to filter addresses, or >> blocks for that matter... ARIN introduces the problem because of the restriction of addresses. Blocking and filtering is not a problem if each domain has a separate IP address. But with ARIN forcing the change to ip-less web hosting, a change I fully endorse, ARIN needs to realize the full impact of that change. When you go to ip-less domain hosting, the limitation of the filter programs like ORBS and Net Nanny cause undue hardship to those abiding by ARIN's policy. AS much as we would like to have ORBS and NetNanny change their ways, ORBS dares anyone to sue them and NetNanny refuses to disclose their filtering. Both argue that their filtering software is a free speech. But with state and federal governments no mandating filtering software in schools and libraries, ARIN is unfortunately forced to having to deal with this problem. ARIN could use the head in the sand approach, but all that will do is force carriers to lie about address space needs. The ISP will just lie to create false justification for address range which defeats the whole purpose of ARIN mandating the move to IP-less addressing. There is nothing to stop an ISP from saying, every domain has their own SSL certificate as you know SSL must be tied to a unique IP address. So they then justify 20,000 IP addresses. Are we going to force ARIN to determine when a SSL cert is real or faked? It creates an untenable situation for ARIN. The problem comes about in the unfair allocation of addresses. Bigger hosts with class A addresses to burn can easily offer IP address to every single domain they host with no fear of running out of addresses. So they are not impacted by these filter programs. But smaller hosting companies that follow ARIN's policy are at a competitive disadvantage. ARIN policies should not create an environment where the smaller guy can't compete. Especially when it is the smaller guy that is following ARIN guidelines and is so carefully conserving IP address space. That is the guy ARIN should support and encourage, not make it more difficult for them to conduct business or force them to lie to stay in business. If ARIN is going to require the move to ip-less addressing for web hosts, then ARIN also needs to force holders of Class A address space to give back Class B and C addresses and those holding Class B should not be permitted to hold Class C's. At least one world wide carrier has at least two if not three Class A addresses yet they also have hundreds of Class C addresses. That should not be permitted. All I am asking is for ARIN to create an environment that is fair to large and small carriers and hosting companies while meeting the stated mission of conserving and recovering IP address space. - Steve Steve Pierce, HDL Direct: (734) 482-9682 mailto:Steve at HDL.com | http://HDL.com From Steve.Lists at HDL.com Mon Nov 6 18:28:19 2000 From: Steve.Lists at HDL.com (Steve Pierce) Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2000 18:28:19 -0500 Subject: Things that need to be addressed In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hi David, you wrote: >> ARIN cannot force A holders to give anything back, >> nor restrict them from future allocations, in my >> opinion. But isn't ARIN in effect restricting new address allocation right now by mandating IP-less addressing for small carriers and hosts and denying requests for new address blocks? The FCC can, when it is determined that spectrum is not being used in the best interest of the public at large, take back that spectrum and reallocate it. We may want to consider IP address space like spectrum. Might it be possible as part of the anti-trust approval for a future super Telco merger that the large carriers agree to give up duplicative address space within 1 to two years after merging. By tightening up the address space for the largest carriers it will get them thinking about a way to address the needs if IP conservation like IP-less hosting while solving the problem of filtering. Think about it. If all cars were made in Saudi Arabia, do you really think the car manufacturers would be worried about fuel mileage? Until it is painful for both large and small carrier, it is unlikely this problem can be solved in an equitable manner. David, I like what you said when you wrote: >> There has to be a better way to approach this - I just >> hope one of us can happen upon it. :| I think it is possible to come up some other workable solution but until we can recognize and accept that we have a problem, no other solution will appear. Forcing ip-less addresses without solving the problem of filtering will only force people to use deception to acquire additional address space. That would seem to defeat the purpose of trying to conserve address space as addresses would be allocated to those who could B.S. the best. - Steve Steve Pierce, HDL Direct: (734) 482-9682 mailto:Steve at HDL.com | http://HDL.com -----Original Message----- From: David R Huberman [mailto:huberman at gblx.net] Sent: Monday, November 06, 2000 5:56 PM To: Steve Pierce Subject: RE: Things that need to be addressed Hi Steve, While I agree with you in principle, I find your suggestions for solving the problem unrealistic. ARIN cannot force A holders to give anything back, nor restrict them from future allocations, in my opinion. There has to be a better way to approach this - I just hope one of us can happen upon it. :| /david * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * DAVID R HUBERMAN Manager, Global IP Addressing Global Crossing - IP Engineering 1410 Esplanade Drive #443 Tel: (917) 498-1679 Reston, Virginia 20194 FAX: (408) 734-0451 From ahp at hilander.com Mon Nov 6 18:35:20 2000 From: ahp at hilander.com (Alec H. Peterson) Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2000 16:35:20 -0700 Subject: Things that need to be addressed References: Message-ID: <3A074038.16061DDA@hilander.com> Steve Pierce wrote: > > ARIN introduces the problem because of the restriction of addresses. > Blocking and filtering is not a problem if each domain has a separate IP > address. But with ARIN forcing the change to ip-less web hosting, a change I > fully endorse, ARIN needs to realize the full impact of that change. When > you go to ip-less domain hosting, the limitation of the filter programs like > ORBS and Net Nanny cause undue hardship to those abiding by ARIN's policy. > AS much as we would like to have ORBS and NetNanny change their ways, ORBS > dares anyone to sue them and NetNanny refuses to disclose their filtering. > Both argue that their filtering software is a free speech. But with state > and federal governments no mandating filtering software in schools and > libraries, ARIN is unfortunately forced to having to deal with this problem. > ARIN could use the head in the sand approach, but all that will do is force > carriers to lie about address space needs. MAPS/ORBS dares people to sue them over listing practices relating to spamming and relaying. With name-based hosting, MAPS/ORBS could theoretically be black holing people who have done NOTHING wrong even by their standards. They certainly do not want to be listing addresses that are following all of their own rules. ARIN simply cannot base its allocation policies on the actions of other organizations. While many people (including myself) will readily acknowledge the issues raised above, they cannot be used as reasons in and of themselves for us preventing a policy allocaiton. As I said before, we need to list the issues that will be raised, and see what we can do to address them. Simply stating that they exist as a reason for not using name-based hosting is not enough. Now, it is entirely possible that MAPS/ORBS and NetNanny could tell us to pound sand, in which case we need to figure out what else we can do about these issues. But we need to try. > > The ISP will just lie to create false justification for address range which > defeats the whole purpose of ARIN mandating the move to IP-less addressing. > There is nothing to stop an ISP from saying, every domain has their own SSL > certificate as you know SSL must be tied to a unique IP address. So they > then justify 20,000 IP addresses. Are we going to force ARIN to determine > when a SSL cert is real or faked? It creates an untenable situation for > ARIN. Stating that ISPs will just break the rules so there is no point in trying is again not an acceptable attitude to take when developing a policy. If we are going to use that logic then it seems silly for ARIN to have any policies to begin with. ARIN is not doing this to make enemies, ARIN is doing this to help make everybodys' lives easier in the long run. That is why ARIN is working with the people it will affect. > > The problem comes about in the unfair allocation of addresses. Bigger hosts > with class A addresses to burn can easily offer IP address to every single > domain they host with no fear of running out of addresses. So they are not > impacted by these filter programs. But smaller hosting companies that follow > ARIN's policy are at a competitive disadvantage. If these large ISPs who you claim are wasting so much address space really are doing this, then eventually they will run out. And when they do it will be up to them to justify their existing allocations. > > ARIN policies should not create an environment where the smaller guy can't > compete. Especially when it is the smaller guy that is following ARIN > guidelines and is so carefully conserving IP address space. That is the guy > ARIN should support and encourage, not make it more difficult for them to > conduct business or force them to lie to stay in business. > > If ARIN is going to require the move to ip-less addressing for web hosts, > then ARIN also needs to force holders of Class A address space to give back > Class B and C addresses and those holding Class B should not be permitted to > hold Class C's. At least one world wide carrier has at least two if not > three Class A addresses yet they also have hundreds of Class C addresses. > That should not be permitted. This has been disucssed before. Reclaiming legacy allocations is a completely separate discussion, and has absolutely no bearing on what happens with this policy. This is an active issue within ARIN, and you are more than welcome to put forth solutions on how ARIN can reclaim under-utilized legacy allocations. HOWEVER, that is a separate discussion, so please confine comments on this list to what should be done about the virtual hosting policy. Alec -- Alec H. Peterson - ahp at hilander.com Staff Scientist CenterGate Research Group - http://www.centergate.com "Technology so advanced, even _we_ don't understand it!" From Steve.Lists at HDL.com Mon Nov 6 19:16:00 2000 From: Steve.Lists at HDL.com (Steve Pierce) Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2000 19:16:00 -0500 Subject: Things that need to be addressed In-Reply-To: <3A074038.16061DDA@hilander.com> Message-ID: you wrote: >> ARIN simply cannot base its allocation policies on the actions >> of other organizations. But we must. In fact, we are already forced into making new regulations about IP address blocks because other organizations do not want to give up their un-needed or under-utilized IP blocks. So ARIN is most definitely already basing policies on the actions of other organizations. You might be taking a purely logical approach rather than also considering human nature. For the policy to be effective we need to do both. When you create a policy that makes it difficult for someone to make a living, they will, by human nature, do whatever it takes to get around that policy. For example. You set the speed limit at 25MPH on a 4-lane divided highway. Yet for some reason everyone drives 55. Perhaps because there is plenty of line of sight vision, smooth pavement and little traffic incursions. The scientific approach would be to say, our policy is to drive 25MPH, so we need to step up enforcement to make sure that everyone drives 25. But it fails to look at human nature. If people feel safe on a road, they naturally drive faster. Thankfully traffic laws in most states don't work an inflexible policy. The 90 percentile rule is applied. That is, if 90 percent of the drivers are driving 55, then the speed limit is changed to 55. In fact in California, if you are clocked at a speed that is at or below the 90th percentile and also below the stated maximum for that type of road, you cannot be given a citation. Even if the posted sign says Speed Limit 25 MPH. So we can make a policy that says virtual hosts cannot request address space. But then the hosting companies will come up with another reason to get around that rule or risk going out of business. If we make a rule that says virtual hosts can't have address space while their legacy competition is flush with addresses, then despite the well meaning policy of ARIN, people will do whatever it takes to get additional address space. I am not saying that just because people will try to circumvent policy, we should just throw our hands up and do nothing. Far from it. I am saying that since we can predict that people will go around it, we need to make sure the policy is reasonable enough so as to minimize the temptation to circumvent the policy. Remember, I am for ip-less addressing as long as we can solve the problem with address blocking and filters. But I think it is naive to think ORBS and Net Nanny are interested in ARIN's problem and are willing to change they way they work to accommodate ARIN. I already have experience working with ORBS and Net Nanny to get specific addresses removed from their block lists. In over two years not once have they removed an address. Even when a law suit was filed in one case, they claimed it was their free speech right to list whatever address they wanted to and they weren't forcing people to use or subscribe to the filters. Yet here in Michigan, Public Schools and Public Libraries are required by State Law to install net filters. If ARIN is successful in getting a commitment from ORBS and Net Nanny to establish reasonable guidelines for the removal of blocked addresses, then by all means lets move forward with IP-less address requirements for virtual hosts. But my experience has shown that these filter companies are not interested in any oversight or co-operation. So perhaps we need another plan. Cheers! - Steve Steve Pierce, HDL Direct: (734) 482-9682 mailto:Steve at HDL.com | http://HDL.com -----Original Message----- From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of Alec H. Peterson Sent: Monday, November 06, 2000 6:35 PM To: Steve Pierce Cc: vwp at arin.net Subject: Re: Things that need to be addressed Steve Pierce wrote: > > ARIN introduces the problem because of the restriction of addresses. > Blocking and filtering is not a problem if each domain has a separate IP > address. But with ARIN forcing the change to ip-less web hosting, a change I > fully endorse, ARIN needs to realize the full impact of that change. When > you go to ip-less domain hosting, the limitation of the filter programs like > ORBS and Net Nanny cause undue hardship to those abiding by ARIN's policy. > AS much as we would like to have ORBS and NetNanny change their ways, ORBS > dares anyone to sue them and NetNanny refuses to disclose their filtering. > Both argue that their filtering software is a free speech. But with state > and federal governments no mandating filtering software in schools and > libraries, ARIN is unfortunately forced to having to deal with this problem. > ARIN could use the head in the sand approach, but all that will do is force > carriers to lie about address space needs. MAPS/ORBS dares people to sue them over listing practices relating to spamming and relaying. With name-based hosting, MAPS/ORBS could theoretically be black holing people who have done NOTHING wrong even by their standards. They certainly do not want to be listing addresses that are following all of their own rules. ARIN simply cannot base its allocation policies on the actions of other organizations. While many people (including myself) will readily acknowledge the issues raised above, they cannot be used as reasons in and of themselves for us preventing a policy allocaiton. As I said before, we need to list the issues that will be raised, and see what we can do to address them. Simply stating that they exist as a reason for not using name-based hosting is not enough. Now, it is entirely possible that MAPS/ORBS and NetNanny could tell us to pound sand, in which case we need to figure out what else we can do about these issues. But we need to try. > > The ISP will just lie to create false justification for address range which > defeats the whole purpose of ARIN mandating the move to IP-less addressing. > There is nothing to stop an ISP from saying, every domain has their own SSL > certificate as you know SSL must be tied to a unique IP address. So they > then justify 20,000 IP addresses. Are we going to force ARIN to determine > when a SSL cert is real or faked? It creates an untenable situation for > ARIN. Stating that ISPs will just break the rules so there is no point in trying is again not an acceptable attitude to take when developing a policy. If we are going to use that logic then it seems silly for ARIN to have any policies to begin with. ARIN is not doing this to make enemies, ARIN is doing this to help make everybodys' lives easier in the long run. That is why ARIN is working with the people it will affect. > > The problem comes about in the unfair allocation of addresses. Bigger hosts > with class A addresses to burn can easily offer IP address to every single > domain they host with no fear of running out of addresses. So they are not > impacted by these filter programs. But smaller hosting companies that follow > ARIN's policy are at a competitive disadvantage. If these large ISPs who you claim are wasting so much address space really are doing this, then eventually they will run out. And when they do it will be up to them to justify their existing allocations. > > ARIN policies should not create an environment where the smaller guy can't > compete. Especially when it is the smaller guy that is following ARIN > guidelines and is so carefully conserving IP address space. That is the guy > ARIN should support and encourage, not make it more difficult for them to > conduct business or force them to lie to stay in business. > > If ARIN is going to require the move to ip-less addressing for web hosts, > then ARIN also needs to force holders of Class A address space to give back > Class B and C addresses and those holding Class B should not be permitted to > hold Class C's. At least one world wide carrier has at least two if not > three Class A addresses yet they also have hundreds of Class C addresses. > That should not be permitted. This has been disucssed before. Reclaiming legacy allocations is a completely separate discussion, and has absolutely no bearing on what happens with this policy. This is an active issue within ARIN, and you are more than welcome to put forth solutions on how ARIN can reclaim under-utilized legacy allocations. HOWEVER, that is a separate discussion, so please confine comments on this list to what should be done about the virtual hosting policy. Alec -- Alec H. Peterson - ahp at hilander.com Staff Scientist CenterGate Research Group - http://www.centergate.com "Technology so advanced, even _we_ don't understand it!" From ahp at hilander.com Mon Nov 6 19:42:13 2000 From: ahp at hilander.com (Alec H. Peterson) Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2000 17:42:13 -0700 Subject: Things that need to be addressed References: Message-ID: <3A074FE5.D1BD963E@hilander.com> Steve Pierce wrote: > > But we must. In fact, we are already forced into making new regulations > about IP address blocks because other organizations do not want to give up > their un-needed or under-utilized IP blocks. So ARIN is most definitely > already basing policies on the actions of other organizations. That is specious reasoning, Steve. I am not going to continue this discussion, but others are free to do so. Alec -- Alec H. Peterson - ahp at hilander.com Staff Scientist CenterGate Research Group - http://www.centergate.com "Technology so advanced, even _we_ don't understand it!" From megs at skyport.net Tue Nov 7 04:11:28 2000 From: megs at skyport.net (Megs) Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2000 04:11:28 -0500 Subject: Things that need to be addressed Message-ID: <200011070858.DAA06511@skyport.net> >HOWEVER, that is a separate discussion, so please confine comments on this >list to what should be done about the virtual hosting policy. > >Alec Okay, why be so drastic? Why the all or none attitude? When I got my first allocation, proper utilization was based on a one to one ratio, Virtual Domain to IP address. Why not just make the ratio higher? 5:1 or 10:1 This would save IPs and at the same time give hosters some room to assign IP addresses where needed to get around the net nannies , orbs, anonftp, imap, ssl.... problems. Martin Klasko Skyport Network From sigma at pair.com Tue Nov 7 10:52:30 2000 From: sigma at pair.com (sigma at pair.com) Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2000 10:52:30 -0500 (EST) Subject: Things that need to be addressed Message-ID: <20001107155230.19541.qmail@smx.pair.com> >When I got my first allocation, proper utilization was based on a one to one >ratio, Virtual Domain to IP address. > >Why not just make the ratio higher? 5:1 or 10:1 > >This would save IPs and at the same time give hosters some room to assign IP >addresses where needed to get around the net nannies , orbs, anonftp, imap, >ssl.... problems. Except, of course, for the hosting companies which provide other virtual services automatically along with Web hosting. Which is probably 90% of them. So that doesn't really help. Kevin From simon at optinet.com Tue Nov 7 12:27:03 2000 From: simon at optinet.com (Simon) Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2000 12:27:03 -0500 Subject: We want ARIN (or anyone else) to tell us how to deal with this problem... Message-ID: <200011071722.MAA24779@rs1.arin.net> Hello Everyone: We are a small web-hosting company that has hit a name-based problem this morning and almost lost 60 clients. We knew the problems will begin. We just didn't know in what order. Here is the situation... recently, our uplink provider refused to assign us more IPs due to ARIN's name-based hosting policy (now suspended). Hence, we were forced to use a single IP to host 100-250 (in our case) websites. This morning, a popular site that receives over a million unique visitors a day has placed a JavaScript script on their main page that had a dramatic performance impact on one of our servers, hosting 100+ sites using the same IP. What this JS did is instructed visitor's browser of this popular site to load few pages from one of the sites on our server. This server went from 250 to 1000 (set limit) apache process in matter of seconds. From 0.8Mbits to 12Mbits of throughoutput. And there was nothing we could do on our end, but to disable DNS for this site and wait until the change propagates. The only quick way to stop this is to remove an IP in question from a server or drop packets for this IP at the router. But, how can this be done when 100+ other sites share the same IP? How do we explain this to our clients? We got lucky this time, as the offending website's owner has agreed to remove the JS from their site. If they didn't, we would've probably lost more than 1/2 of our clients on this single server. By the way, the offending site has done this to a client on our server that been stealing links from them for past two weeks. Since they could not stop them, they decided to do this. I wish they would've contacted us to give us a chance to stop the link stealing, but they did not. Does this justify us to assign a unique IP to each of our web-hosting clients? Sincerely, Simon Accelerated Web From HORMAN at novell.com Tue Nov 7 16:49:56 2000 From: HORMAN at novell.com (Hilarie Orman) Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2000 14:49:56 -0700 Subject: Things that need to be addressed Message-ID: ARIN certainly can base its policies on the actions of other organizations. Further, to be responsible in gathering public commentary, we should make every effort to engage those other organizations in the discussion. I encourage those who have taken the trouble to join this list to contact the organizations involved an invite them to look at the issue and consider offer their commentary. Hilarie Orman >>> "Alec H. Peterson" 11/06/00 04:35PM >>> ARIN simply cannot base its allocation policies on the actions of other organizations. While many people (including myself) will readily acknowledge the issues raised above, they cannot be used as reasons in and of themselves for us preventing a policy allocaiton. As I said before, we need to list the issues that will be raised, and see what we can do to address them. Simply stating that they exist as a reason for not using name-based hosting is not enough. From richardj at arin.net Tue Nov 7 17:21:09 2000 From: richardj at arin.net (Richard Jimmerson) Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2000 17:21:09 -0500 Subject: We want ARIN (or anyone else) to tell us how to deal with this problem... In-Reply-To: <200011071722.MAA24779@rs1.arin.net> Message-ID: <000d01c04909$07d1d7e0$bdfc95c0@arin.net> Hello Simon, Thank you for sending your message to the vwp list. The name-based web hosting policy you are referring to below was suspended on October 3, 2000. This was a result of feedback received from the community on mailing lists and at the ARIN VI public policy meeting. You can find more information about this under the announcements section of ARIN's front page (www.arin.net). This mailing list (vwp at arin.net) was established to facilitate the discussions of the virtual web hosting policy committee. The charter/goal of this committee can be found in the archives of this mailing list, available at http://www.arin.net/mailinglists/vwp/index.html Please take an active role in the discussions taking place on this mailing list. These discussions will have a direct impact on the future of this currently suspended policy. Best Regards, Richard Jimmerson American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of Simon > Sent: Tuesday, November 07, 2000 12:27 PM > To: vwp at arin.net > Subject: We want ARIN (or anyone else) to tell us how to deal > with this > problem... > > > Hello Everyone: > > We are a small web-hosting company that has hit a name-based > problem this morning and > almost lost 60 clients. > > We knew the problems will begin. We just didn't know in what > order. Here is the situation... > recently, our uplink provider refused to assign us more IPs > due to ARIN's name-based hosting > policy (now suspended). Hence, we were forced to use a single > IP to host 100-250 (in our case) > websites. > > This morning, a popular site that receives over a million > unique visitors a day has placed a > JavaScript script on their main page that had a dramatic > performance impact on one of our > servers, hosting 100+ sites using the same IP. What this JS > did is instructed visitor's browser of > this popular site to load few pages from one of the sites on > our server. This server went from > 250 to 1000 (set limit) apache process in matter of seconds. > From 0.8Mbits to 12Mbits of > throughoutput. And there was nothing we could do on our end, > but to disable DNS for this site > and wait until the change propagates. The only quick way to > stop this is to remove an IP in > question from a server or drop packets for this IP at the > router. But, how can this be done when > 100+ other sites share the same IP? How do we explain this to > our clients? We got lucky this > time, as the offending website's owner has agreed to remove > the JS from their site. If they didn't, > we would've probably lost more than 1/2 of our clients on > this single server. By the way, the > offending site has done this to a client on our server that > been stealing links from them for past > two weeks. Since they could not stop them, they decided to do > this. I wish they would've > contacted us to give us a chance to stop the link stealing, > but they did not. > > Does this justify us to assign a unique IP to each of our > web-hosting clients? > > Sincerely, > Simon > Accelerated Web > > > From Steve.Lists at HDL.com Tue Nov 7 17:46:21 2000 From: Steve.Lists at HDL.com (Steve Pierce) Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2000 17:46:21 -0500 Subject: Things that need to be addressed In-Reply-To: <3A074FE5.D1BD963E@hilander.com> Message-ID: Alec wrote: >> That is specious reasoning, Steve. Alec, you said, "ARIN simply cannot base it's policy on the actions of others." I was simply pointing out that ARIN has already done what you said they couldn't or shouldn't do. So there is already a precedent for considering what other organizations do. The point of this list is to work out a plan for virtual hosting address allocation. From what I have seen posted so far, the sense I get is: A) filters are not a problem that ARIN should try to deal with B) even if filters are a problem, it is a problem best solved by the filter companies not ARIN. If this is the case, then lets move forward with ip-les addressing for virtual hosts. Like I said before, I support ip-less addressing for web hosts and I think it is good for the Internet community. But I suspect the policy in it's current form, if it ignores the impact of filtering, may be ineffective. The post was made about a two weeks ago that we should outline the issues. The issues I bring up is in addition to the ones already put forth by others 1) Address allocation and reclamation -- Point was made that this list body can't do anything about that and for those interested, see other ARIN list on this subject. OK, that is fair, but it is still an issue and we shouldn't ignore it. I suggest that anything we develop or propose body should include a statement recognizing that any long term solution needs to address a policy of address reclamation. 2) Filter companies policies and practices can make it very difficult and in some cases impossible to conduct business using virtual hosting with ip-less address scheme. -- Point was made that ARIN simply cannot base its allocation policies on the actions of other organizations. I disagree. To say that ARIN should not concern itself with other companies policies and business practices seems to be short-sighted. If we don't consider the smaller carrier or hosting company as well as the impacts filters have on the Internet and IP address allocation, we risk creating a policy that is ineffective. I suspect that dealing with filters and their impact on address allocation may force us to deal with more difficult issues than we are really prepared to. In that case, it might be worthwhile to call this discussion specious rather actually dealing with the problems at hand. Cheers! - Steve Steve Pierce, HDL Direct: (734) 482-9682 mailto:Steve at HDL.com | http://HDL.com -----Original Message----- From: Alec H. Peterson [mailto:ahp at hilander.com] Sent: Monday, November 06, 2000 7:42 PM To: Steve Pierce Cc: ARIN List Subject: Re: Things that need to be addressed Steve Pierce wrote: > > But we must. In fact, we are already forced into making new regulations > about IP address blocks because other organizations do not want to give up > their un-needed or under-utilized IP blocks. So ARIN is most definitely > already basing policies on the actions of other organizations. That is specious reasoning, Steve. I am not going to continue this discussion, but others are free to do so. Alec -- Alec H. Peterson - ahp at hilander.com Staff Scientist CenterGate Research Group - http://www.centergate.com "Technology so advanced, even _we_ don't understand it!" From John.Sweeting at cwusa.com Tue Nov 7 18:35:35 2000 From: John.Sweeting at cwusa.com (Sweeting, John) Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2000 18:35:35 -0500 Subject: Things that need to be addressed Message-ID: <3FD40150593CD2119D5200805FA7D965073048A8@us-cwi-exc-a07.cwi.cablew.com> I think that we need to go back to the basics (which were in the first few posts) and define the scope of the problem that we are trying to resolve with this policy. I believe Alec's point was that in order to have an effective policy it must be created to solve a specific issue and not try to solve all issues with one policy. Policies are usually made to either change or modify the behavior of certain individuals (or companies) and with that in mind, policy makers must try their best to be fair to the greatest number of individuals (or companies)with the least amount of disruption possible. So with that in mind we should determine the following: 1. What is the exact problem that needs to be fixed? 2. What is the best way to solve that problem? 3. What are the issues that would prevent us from setting a policy based on the best solution? and how do we deal with those issues? There are several ways to deal with the issues, they can be accounted for in the policy if they are within the scope of the actual problem, they can be ignored as out of scope, they can be addressed with the individuals (or companies) that find them to be issues etc..... BTW, I agree that ARIN cannot (and to the best of my knowledge has not) base it's policy on the actions of others but rather on the scope of the problem that the members have determined requires fixing. -----Original Message----- From: Steve Pierce [mailto:Steve.Lists at HDL.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 07, 2000 5:46 PM To: ARIN List Subject: RE: Things that need to be addressed Alec wrote: >> That is specious reasoning, Steve. Alec, you said, "ARIN simply cannot base it's policy on the actions of others." I was simply pointing out that ARIN has already done what you said they couldn't or shouldn't do. So there is already a precedent for considering what other organizations do. The point of this list is to work out a plan for virtual hosting address allocation. From what I have seen posted so far, the sense I get is: A) filters are not a problem that ARIN should try to deal with B) even if filters are a problem, it is a problem best solved by the filter companies not ARIN. If this is the case, then lets move forward with ip-les addressing for virtual hosts. Like I said before, I support ip-less addressing for web hosts and I think it is good for the Internet community. But I suspect the policy in it's current form, if it ignores the impact of filtering, may be ineffective. The post was made about a two weeks ago that we should outline the issues. The issues I bring up is in addition to the ones already put forth by others 1) Address allocation and reclamation -- Point was made that this list body can't do anything about that and for those interested, see other ARIN list on this subject. OK, that is fair, but it is still an issue and we shouldn't ignore it. I suggest that anything we develop or propose body should include a statement recognizing that any long term solution needs to address a policy of address reclamation. 2) Filter companies policies and practices can make it very difficult and in some cases impossible to conduct business using virtual hosting with ip-less address scheme. -- Point was made that ARIN simply cannot base its allocation policies on the actions of other organizations. I disagree. To say that ARIN should not concern itself with other companies policies and business practices seems to be short-sighted. If we don't consider the smaller carrier or hosting company as well as the impacts filters have on the Internet and IP address allocation, we risk creating a policy that is ineffective. I suspect that dealing with filters and their impact on address allocation may force us to deal with more difficult issues than we are really prepared to. In that case, it might be worthwhile to call this discussion specious rather actually dealing with the problems at hand. Cheers! - Steve Steve Pierce, HDL Direct: (734) 482-9682 mailto:Steve at HDL.com | http://HDL.com -----Original Message----- From: Alec H. Peterson [mailto:ahp at hilander.com] Sent: Monday, November 06, 2000 7:42 PM To: Steve Pierce Cc: ARIN List Subject: Re: Things that need to be addressed Steve Pierce wrote: > > But we must. In fact, we are already forced into making new regulations > about IP address blocks because other organizations do not want to give up > their un-needed or under-utilized IP blocks. So ARIN is most definitely > already basing policies on the actions of other organizations. That is specious reasoning, Steve. I am not going to continue this discussion, but others are free to do so. Alec -- Alec H. Peterson - ahp at hilander.com Staff Scientist CenterGate Research Group - http://www.centergate.com "Technology so advanced, even _we_ don't understand it!" From billd at cait.wustl.edu Tue Nov 7 09:24:15 2000 From: billd at cait.wustl.edu (Bill Darte) Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2000 08:24:15 -0600 Subject: Things that need to be addressed Message-ID: ARIN policy needs to be directed toward real problems....I have seen no justification for this policy except that it wastes addresses.....but the magnitude of that waste must be assessed before the issue rises to level of a need for ARIN intervention.... I reiterate my earlier questions... 1. How many addresses ARE being used this way now and 2. what is the slope of the the utilization curve and 3. What are the potential impacts upon that utilization rate in the next 3-5 years??? Scott Marcus' assessment of the AS problem is a crystalline example of the kind of analysis that should be used and those will motivate action in an appropriate way.... Discussion in the absence of clear metrics motivates speculation and endless argument. Granted, coming up with the numbers for this 'problem' are likely harder to come by, but the attempt must be made in order to substantiate the need for policy. My last question is how can we get a handle on the extent of this problem? Who has this information and will they objectively divulge it? Bill Darte AC > -----Original Message----- > From: Steve Pierce [mailto:Steve.Lists at HDL.com] > Sent: Monday, November 06, 2000 6:16 PM > To: ARIN List > Subject: RE: Things that need to be addressed > > > you wrote: > >> ARIN simply cannot base its allocation policies on the actions > >> of other organizations. > > But we must. In fact, we are already forced into making new > regulations > about IP address blocks because other organizations do not > want to give up > their un-needed or under-utilized IP blocks. So ARIN is most > definitely > already basing policies on the actions of other organizations. > > You might be taking a purely logical approach rather than > also considering > human nature. For the policy to be effective we need to do > both. When you > create a policy that makes it difficult for someone to make a > living, they > will, by human nature, do whatever it takes to get around that policy. > > For example. You set the speed limit at 25MPH on a 4-lane > divided highway. > Yet for some reason everyone drives 55. Perhaps because there > is plenty of > line of sight vision, smooth pavement and little traffic > incursions. The > scientific approach would be to say, our policy is to drive > 25MPH, so we > need to step up enforcement to make sure that everyone drives > 25. But it > fails to look at human nature. If people feel safe on a road, > they naturally > drive faster. > > Thankfully traffic laws in most states don't work an > inflexible policy. The > 90 percentile rule is applied. That is, if 90 percent of the > drivers are > driving 55, then the speed limit is changed to 55. In fact in > California, if > you are clocked at a speed that is at or below the 90th > percentile and also > below the stated maximum for that type of road, you cannot be given a > citation. Even if the posted sign says Speed Limit 25 MPH. > > So we can make a policy that says virtual hosts cannot request address > space. But then the hosting companies will come up with > another reason to > get around that rule or risk going out of business. If we > make a rule that > says virtual hosts can't have address space while their > legacy competition > is flush with addresses, then despite the well meaning policy of ARIN, > people will do whatever it takes to get additional address space. > > I am not saying that just because people will try to > circumvent policy, we > should just throw our hands up and do nothing. Far from it. I > am saying that > since we can predict that people will go around it, we need > to make sure the > policy is reasonable enough so as to minimize the temptation > to circumvent > the policy. Remember, I am for ip-less addressing as long as > we can solve > the problem with address blocking and filters. But I think it > is naive to > think ORBS and Net Nanny are interested in ARIN's problem and > are willing to > change they way they work to accommodate ARIN. > > I already have experience working with ORBS and Net Nanny to > get specific > addresses removed from their block lists. In over two years > not once have > they removed an address. Even when a law suit was filed in > one case, they > claimed it was their free speech right to list whatever > address they wanted > to and they weren't forcing people to use or subscribe to the filters. > > Yet here in Michigan, Public Schools and Public Libraries are > required by > State Law to install net filters. If ARIN is successful in getting a > commitment from ORBS and Net Nanny to establish reasonable > guidelines for > the removal of blocked addresses, then by all means lets move > forward with > IP-less address requirements for virtual hosts. But my > experience has shown > that these filter companies are not interested in any oversight or > co-operation. So perhaps we need another plan. > > Cheers! > > - Steve > > Steve Pierce, HDL > Direct: (734) 482-9682 > mailto:Steve at HDL.com | http://HDL.com > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf > Of Alec H. > Peterson > Sent: Monday, November 06, 2000 6:35 PM > To: Steve Pierce > Cc: vwp at arin.net > Subject: Re: Things that need to be addressed > > > Steve Pierce wrote: > > > > ARIN introduces the problem because of the restriction of addresses. > > Blocking and filtering is not a problem if each domain has > a separate IP > > address. But with ARIN forcing the change to ip-less web > hosting, a change > I > > fully endorse, ARIN needs to realize the full impact of > that change. When > > you go to ip-less domain hosting, the limitation of the > filter programs > like > > ORBS and Net Nanny cause undue hardship to those abiding by > ARIN's policy. > > AS much as we would like to have ORBS and NetNanny change > their ways, ORBS > > dares anyone to sue them and NetNanny refuses to disclose > their filtering. > > Both argue that their filtering software is a free speech. > But with state > > and federal governments no mandating filtering software in > schools and > > libraries, ARIN is unfortunately forced to having to deal with this > problem. > > ARIN could use the head in the sand approach, but all that > will do is > force > > carriers to lie about address space needs. > > MAPS/ORBS dares people to sue them over listing practices relating to > spamming and relaying. > > With name-based hosting, MAPS/ORBS could theoretically be black holing > people who have done NOTHING wrong even by their standards. > They certainly > do not want to be listing addresses that are following all of > their own > rules. > > ARIN simply cannot base its allocation policies on the > actions of other > organizations. While many people (including myself) will readily > acknowledge the issues raised above, they cannot be used as > reasons in and > of themselves for us preventing a policy allocaiton. As I > said before, we > need to list the issues that will be raised, and see what we can do to > address them. Simply stating that they exist as a reason for > not using > name-based hosting is not enough. > > Now, it is entirely possible that MAPS/ORBS and NetNanny > could tell us to > pound sand, in which case we need to figure out what else we > can do about > these issues. But we need to try. > > > > > The ISP will just lie to create false justification for > address range > which > > defeats the whole purpose of ARIN mandating the move to IP-less > addressing. > > There is nothing to stop an ISP from saying, every domain > has their own > SSL > > certificate as you know SSL must be tied to a unique IP > address. So they > > then justify 20,000 IP addresses. Are we going to force > ARIN to determine > > when a SSL cert is real or faked? It creates an untenable > situation for > > ARIN. > > Stating that ISPs will just break the rules so there is no > point in trying > is again not an acceptable attitude to take when developing a > policy. If we > are going to use that logic then it seems silly for ARIN to have any > policies to begin with. ARIN is not doing this to make > enemies, ARIN is > doing this to help make everybodys' lives easier in the long > run. That is > why ARIN is working with the people it will affect. > > > > > The problem comes about in the unfair allocation of > addresses. Bigger > hosts > > with class A addresses to burn can easily offer IP address > to every single > > domain they host with no fear of running out of addresses. > So they are not > > impacted by these filter programs. But smaller hosting > companies that > follow > > ARIN's policy are at a competitive disadvantage. > > If these large ISPs who you claim are wasting so much address > space really > are doing this, then eventually they will run out. And when > they do it will > be up to them to justify their existing allocations. > > > > > ARIN policies should not create an environment where the > smaller guy can't > > compete. Especially when it is the smaller guy that is > following ARIN > > guidelines and is so carefully conserving IP address space. > That is the > guy > > ARIN should support and encourage, not make it more > difficult for them to > > conduct business or force them to lie to stay in business. > > > > If ARIN is going to require the move to ip-less addressing > for web hosts, > > then ARIN also needs to force holders of Class A address > space to give > back > > Class B and C addresses and those holding Class B should > not be permitted > to > > hold Class C's. At least one world wide carrier has at > least two if not > > three Class A addresses yet they also have hundreds of > Class C addresses. > > That should not be permitted. > > This has been disucssed before. Reclaiming legacy allocations is a > completely separate discussion, and has absolutely no bearing on what > happens with this policy. This is an active issue within > ARIN, and you are > more than welcome to put forth solutions on how ARIN can reclaim > under-utilized legacy allocations. > > HOWEVER, that is a separate discussion, so please confine > comments on this > list to what should be done about the virtual hosting policy. > > Alec > > -- > Alec H. Peterson - ahp at hilander.com > Staff Scientist > CenterGate Research Group - http://www.centergate.com > "Technology so advanced, even _we_ don't understand it!" > From billd at cait.wustl.edu Tue Nov 7 16:30:09 2000 From: billd at cait.wustl.edu (Bill Darte) Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2000 15:30:09 -0600 Subject: Back to Basics Message-ID: ARIN policy needs to be directed toward real problems....I have seen no justification for this policy except that "it wastes addresses".....but the magnitude of that waste must be assessed before the issue rises to level of a need for ARIN intervention.... I reiterate my earlier questions... 1. How many addresses ARE being used this way now and (suitable approximation) 2. what is the slope of the the utilization curve and (ditto) 3. What are the potential impacts upon that utilization rate in the next 3-5 years??? (ditto) Scott Marcus' assessment of the AS problem is a crystalline example of the kind of analysis that should be used and those will motivate action in an appropriate way.... Discussion in the absence of clear metrics motivates speculation and endless argument. Granted, coming up with the numbers for this 'problem' are likely harder to come by, but the attempt must be made in order to substantiate the need for policy. My last question is how can we get a handle on the extent of this problem? Who has this information and will they objectively divulge it? Bill Darte AC From ahp at hilander.com Wed Nov 8 10:59:41 2000 From: ahp at hilander.com (Alec H. Peterson) Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2000 08:59:41 -0700 Subject: Back to Basics References: Message-ID: <3A09786C.DDA76471@hilander.com> Bill Darte wrote: > > ARIN policy needs to be directed toward real problems....I have seen no > justification for this policy except that "it wastes addresses".....but the > magnitude of that waste must be assessed before the issue rises to level of > a need for ARIN intervention.... I reiterate my earlier questions... > > 1. How many addresses ARE being used this way now and (suitable > approximation) > 2. what is the slope of the the utilization curve and (ditto) > 3. What are the potential impacts upon that utilization rate in the next 3-5 > years??? (ditto) Very good questions. Can web hosters on the list give us a concept of how many IP addresses you currently have in use, compared with how many IPs you could reasonably consume with an equal size distribution of name-based virtual hosts (keeping in mind that conversion of existing infrastructure would not be required)? Alec -- Alec H. Peterson - ahp at hilander.com Staff Scientist CenterGate Research Group - http://www.centergate.com "Technology so advanced, even _we_ don't understand it!" From John.Sweeting at cwusa.com Wed Nov 8 11:16:26 2000 From: John.Sweeting at cwusa.com (Sweeting, John) Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2000 11:16:26 -0500 Subject: Back to Basics Message-ID: <3FD40150593CD2119D5200805FA7D965073048AC@us-cwi-exc-a07.cwi.cablew.com> Absolutely agree. Sorry Bill, I couldn't find your original email with these questions. Thanks for resending them. -----Original Message----- From: Bill Darte [mailto:billd at cait.wustl.edu] Sent: Tuesday, November 07, 2000 4:30 PM To: Vwp (E-mail) Subject: Back to Basics ARIN policy needs to be directed toward real problems....I have seen no justification for this policy except that "it wastes addresses".....but the magnitude of that waste must be assessed before the issue rises to level of a need for ARIN intervention.... I reiterate my earlier questions... 1. How many addresses ARE being used this way now and (suitable approximation) 2. what is the slope of the the utilization curve and (ditto) 3. What are the potential impacts upon that utilization rate in the next 3-5 years??? (ditto) Scott Marcus' assessment of the AS problem is a crystalline example of the kind of analysis that should be used and those will motivate action in an appropriate way.... Discussion in the absence of clear metrics motivates speculation and endless argument. Granted, coming up with the numbers for this 'problem' are likely harder to come by, but the attempt must be made in order to substantiate the need for policy. My last question is how can we get a handle on the extent of this problem? Who has this information and will they objectively divulge it? Bill Darte AC From jeff at supportteam.net Wed Nov 8 11:21:57 2000 From: jeff at supportteam.net (Jeff Harris) Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2000 10:21:57 -0600 Subject: Back to Basics / Our problem References: <3A09786C.DDA76471@hilander.com> Message-ID: <006301c049a0$03acdfb0$4880f93f@loathe> We currently have assigned to us: Two /17 allocations = 65,280 IPs One /18 allocation = 16,320 IPs One /19 allocation = 8,160 IPs Total = 89,760 IP addresses (This is not including some other special legacy allocations which are off in their own little world. Not much more than a /24 or so). We currently use enough machines that we would fill several /24's using name-based virtual hosting. We are even going to start running out of IP's again in a short amount of time at our current growth rate. My problem has been, when I took this job not too long ago, that all of our subnets occupy one logical segment. The reason is, as ARIN has doled out IPs to us in small chunks, our network, which is growing rapidly, get's assigned sporadically across the board. We have some machines using IP ranges from three subnets. It's a mess and it severely limits my ability to re-architect the network to incorporate firewalls, VLANs and basic traffic management. We have to show utilization to ARIN, so they will continue to give us more IPs, but this means that I have to forgo smart network planning in favor of showing utilization (which we always do, because we have the demand). In the past we have asked for one continuous large block of addresses in order to move to one subnet. We would gladly give back the broken up IP space in exchange for this. It would make our lives a little easier (except when we have to start actually changing clients IP addresses. :) I understand IP space is at a premium, but if we looked at all the large allocations that took place many years ago, I'm sure there is SEVERELY wasted IP space out there. As it stands, if we stay at our current growth rate, we're going to need twice this many IP addresses next year. Are we going to have to deal with 8 allocations then, or 10? Jeff Harris - jeff at supportteam.net Chief Engineer - C I Host ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alec H. Peterson" To: "Bill Darte" Cc: "Vwp (E-mail)" Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2000 9:59 AM Subject: Re: Back to Basics : Bill Darte wrote: : > : > ARIN policy needs to be directed toward real problems....I have seen no : > justification for this policy except that "it wastes addresses".....but the : > magnitude of that waste must be assessed before the issue rises to level of : > a need for ARIN intervention.... I reiterate my earlier questions... : > : > 1. How many addresses ARE being used this way now and (suitable : > approximation) : > 2. what is the slope of the the utilization curve and (ditto) : > 3. What are the potential impacts upon that utilization rate in the next 3-5 : > years??? (ditto) : : Very good questions. : : Can web hosters on the list give us a concept of how many IP addresses you : currently have in use, compared with how many IPs you could reasonably : consume with an equal size distribution of name-based virtual hosts (keeping : in mind that conversion of existing infrastructure would not be required)? : : Alec : : -- : Alec H. Peterson - ahp at hilander.com : Staff Scientist : CenterGate Research Group - http://www.centergate.com : "Technology so advanced, even _we_ don't understand it!" From Steve.Lists at HDL.com Wed Nov 8 19:06:23 2000 From: Steve.Lists at HDL.com (Steve Pierce) Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2000 19:06:23 -0500 Subject: Things that need to be addressed In-Reply-To: <3FD40150593CD2119D5200805FA7D965073048A8@us-cwi-exc-a07.cwi.cablew.com> Message-ID: John wrote: >> I think that we need to go back to the basics (which were >> in the first few posts) and define the scope of the problem >> that we are trying to resolve I agree, that is why in my email I added two items to the list of issues. 1) Address allocation and reclamation 2) Filter companies policies and practices can block a single IP address taking out thousands of unrelated hosts that are using virtual ip-less addressing. -- So what is the problem we are trying to solve? Simply stated, we are exhausting our supply of IP addresses, what can we do to reduce the number and demand for IP addresses from hosting companies. -- What is the premise? It is recognized that with current technology for both web hosts and email hosting companies, it is possible to host multiple domains without requiring a unique IP address for each domain. -- What is our goal? Develop a policy that for hosting companies applying for IP address allocation. -- When do we have to have it completed? By the spring meeting of ARIN which I think is April. If we set our own goal for Jan 31, 2001, we should have plenty of time to circulate and review the proposed policy. We need to ask ourselves, why do we need a policy for IP address assignment with hosting companies? Well it is because we are short IP addresses. So the reason for considering a policy for hosts is because we are short IP Addresses. Part of any brainstorming is to consider _all_ ideas and get them listed. Then shoot them down after we have developed a list of possible ideas. I thought we were at the brainstorm phase, not the shoot down phase. In fact Alex wrote in his first post, and I am paraphrasing, "what other issues should we add?" I posted an idea and instead of adding it to a brainstorm list, we head off in another tangent about specious logic. Since I posted my idea, others have said to this list that address reclamation is beyond our abilities in our group and it being worked on by other groups. I can accept that. But it is still fair to list it as it can solve the address problem. Lets move forward and during the next two weeks, lets just get ideas and issues out on the table and lets not spend time shooting each new idea as they are posted. -- Who wants to be the keeper of the list? The first list I saw had four. I have added two. What others ideas and issues do folks have? - Steve Steve Pierce, HDL Direct: (734) 482-9682 mailto:Steve at HDL.com | http://HDL.com -----Original Message----- From: Sweeting, John [mailto:John.Sweeting at cwusa.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 07, 2000 6:36 PM To: 'Steve Pierce'; ARIN List Subject: RE: Things that need to be addressed I think that we need to go back to the basics (which were in the first few posts) and define the scope of the problem that we are trying to resolve with this policy. I believe Alec's point was that in order to have an effective policy it must be created to solve a specific issue and not try to solve all issues with one policy. Policies are usually made to either change or modify the behavior of certain individuals (or companies) and with that in mind, policy makers must try their best to be fair to the greatest number of individuals (or companies)with the least amount of disruption possible. So with that in mind we should determine the following: 1. What is the exact problem that needs to be fixed? 2. What is the best way to solve that problem? 3. What are the issues that would prevent us from setting a policy based on the best solution? and how do we deal with those issues? There are several ways to deal with the issues, they can be accounted for in the policy if they are within the scope of the actual problem, they can be ignored as out of scope, they can be addressed with the individuals (or companies) that find them to be issues etc..... BTW, I agree that ARIN cannot (and to the best of my knowledge has not) base it's policy on the actions of others but rather on the scope of the problem that the members have determined requires fixing. From ahp at hilander.com Fri Nov 17 09:56:39 2000 From: ahp at hilander.com (Alec H. Peterson) Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 07:56:39 -0700 Subject: Things that need to be addressed References: <3A074038.16061DDA@hilander.com> <001901c050a8$488be770$519ab7d1@golden.net> Message-ID: <3A154727.55D9EDFB@hilander.com> Lee wrote: > > We addressed the netnanny issue years ago. > > I do name-based virtualhosting for nearly 3000 domains. Part of the > virtualhosting setup process is to ask the clinet what type of content will > be on the site -- dirty stuff will be pointed at one IP, the clean stuff > will point at another. Done. Hrm, rather simple solution, I would agree. What do others think about this? Alec -- Alec H. Peterson - ahp at hilander.com Staff Scientist CenterGate Research Group - http://www.centergate.com "Technology so advanced, even _we_ don't understand it!" From sigma at pair.com Fri Nov 17 10:25:35 2000 From: sigma at pair.com (sigma at pair.com) Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 10:25:35 -0500 (EST) Subject: Things that need to be addressed In-Reply-To: <3A154727.55D9EDFB@hilander.com> from "Alec H. Peterson" at "Nov 17, 0 07:56:39 am" Message-ID: <20001117152535.26667.qmail@smx.pair.com> > > I do name-based virtualhosting for nearly 3000 domains. Part of the > > virtualhosting setup process is to ask the clinet what type of content will > > be on the site -- dirty stuff will be pointed at one IP, the clean stuff > > will point at another. Done. > > Hrm, rather simple solution, I would agree. > > What do others think about this? Isn't that like the federal gun buyer form? "Check here if you are a criminal." Besides which, filtering software is notorious for misguided blockings and carelessness about the accuracy of their database. Read http://peacefire.org/ if you aren't convinced of this :) Kevin From ahp at hilander.com Fri Nov 17 17:02:38 2000 From: ahp at hilander.com (Alec H. Peterson) Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 15:02:38 -0700 Subject: Things that need to be addressed References: <20001117152535.26667.qmail@smx.pair.com> Message-ID: <3A15AAFE.54245CC9@hilander.com> sigma at pair.com wrote: > > Isn't that like the federal gun buyer form? "Check here if you are a > criminal." Porno providers are often willing to acknowledge that they are serving porno (after all, it is difficult to hide once the site is up). Alec -- Alec H. Peterson - ahp at hilander.com Staff Scientist CenterGate Research Group - http://www.centergate.com "Technology so advanced, even _we_ don't understand it!" From sigma at pair.com Fri Nov 17 17:08:00 2000 From: sigma at pair.com (sigma at pair.com) Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 17:08:00 -0500 (EST) Subject: Things that need to be addressed In-Reply-To: <3A15AAFE.54245CC9@hilander.com> from "Alec H. Peterson" at "Nov 17, 0 03:02:38 pm" Message-ID: <20001117220800.25799.qmail@smx.pair.com> > Porno providers are often willing to acknowledge that they are serving porno > (after all, it is difficult to hide once the site is up). Sure. But Spammers don't. And there are also many arbitrary errors in the filtering services (again, see http://peacefire.org/), which are amplified 1000x if you cluster 1000 sites on each IP address. Kevin From HORMAN at novell.com Fri Nov 17 17:50:08 2000 From: HORMAN at novell.com (Hilarie Orman) Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 15:50:08 -0700 Subject: Things that need to be addressed Message-ID: That only addresses "self rating" and for one category. The content rating industry must be part of this discussion. I've invited one list vendor, but there must be 4 or 5 more. Hilarie >>> "Alec H. Peterson" 11/17/00 07:56AM >>> Lee wrote: > > We addressed the netnanny issue years ago. > > I do name-based virtualhosting for nearly 3000 domains. Part of the > virtualhosting setup process is to ask the clinet what type of content will > be on the site -- dirty stuff will be pointed at one IP, the clean stuff > will point at another. Done. Hrm, rather simple solution, I would agree. What do others think about this? Alec -- Alec H. Peterson - ahp at hilander.com Staff Scientist CenterGate Research Group - http://www.centergate.com "Technology so advanced, even _we_ don't understand it!" -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ahp at hilander.com Fri Nov 17 18:46:38 2000 From: ahp at hilander.com (Alec H. Peterson) Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 16:46:38 -0700 Subject: Things that need to be addressed References: <20001117220800.25799.qmail@smx.pair.com> Message-ID: <3A15C35E.E0E07132@hilander.com> sigma at pair.com wrote: > > Sure. But Spammers don't. And there are also many arbitrary errors in the > filtering services (again, see http://peacefire.org/), which are amplified > 1000x if you cluster 1000 sites on each IP address. Ahh, that is getting out of the NetNanny arena and into the spam filtering arena... Alec -- Alec H. Peterson - ahp at hilander.com Staff Scientist CenterGate Research Group - http://www.centergate.com "Technology so advanced, even _we_ don't understand it!" From sigma at pair.com Fri Nov 17 20:23:49 2000 From: sigma at pair.com (sigma at pair.com) Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 20:23:49 -0500 (EST) Subject: Things that need to be addressed (fwd) Message-ID: <20001118012349.4945.qmail@smx.pair.com> >sigma at pair.com wrote: >> Sure. But Spammers don't. And there are also many arbitrary errors in the >> filtering services (again, see http://peacefire.org/), which are amplified >> 1000x if you cluster 1000 sites on each IP address. > >Ahh, that is getting out of the NetNanny arena and into the spam filtering >arena... Yep, same annoying problem though :( I don't think ARIN can "solve" this problem, but it certainly can't be dismissed out of hand. It's a day-to-day reality, made worse by legislation requiring the use of such programs in some places. Kevin From bve at quadrix.com Tue Nov 28 10:51:48 2000 From: bve at quadrix.com (Bill Van Emburg) Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 10:51:48 -0500 Subject: [Fwd: Re: Things that need to be addressed] Message-ID: <3A23D494.E2D51641@quadrix.com> My slightly delayed $0.02.... "Alec H. Peterson" wrote: > > sigma at pair.com wrote: > > > > Sure. But Spammers don't. And there are also many arbitrary errors in the > > filtering services (again, see http://peacefire.org/), which are amplified > > 1000x if you cluster 1000 sites on each IP address. > > Ahh, that is getting out of the NetNanny arena and into the spam filtering > arena... > However, NetNanny doesn't just filter porn. There are a number of content-based filtering criteria. How extensive do you want this "questionnaire" to be? -- -- Bill Van Emburg Quadrix Solutions, Inc. Phone: 732-235-2335, x206 (mailto:bve at quadrix.com) Fax: 732-235-2336 (http://quadrix.com) The eBusiness Solutions Company