From ahp at hilander.com Wed Oct 18 11:04:42 2000 From: ahp at hilander.com (Alec H. Peterson) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 09:04:42 -0600 Subject: Welcome to the VWP list Message-ID: <39EDBC0A.26BFD796@hilander.com> Greetings all, Thank you all for joining the virtual web hosting policy discussion list. Our goal for this list is to attempt to come up with some intelligent changes to the now-suspended ARIN web hosting policy. The goal is to have this group (along with the ARIN advisory council) come up with recommended changes no less than eight weeks before the next ARIN public policy meeting (tentatively scheduled for early Spring 2001). In a day or so I will send a message to the list summarizing numerous objections that have been raised about the policy both on other mailing lists as well as at the public policy meeting. In the mean time, if anybody would like to start things off with suggested fixes for the policy that would be grand. 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 Fri Oct 20 11:44:56 2000 From: ahp at hilander.com (Alec H. Peterson) Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 09:44:56 -0600 Subject: Things that need to be addressed Message-ID: <39F06878.60D22B98@hilander.com> Off the top of my head, here are some of the issues we need to address: 1) Exceptions (SSL, POP/IMAP, etc) 2) Accounting systems 3) Legacy systems 4) Net-nanny filters Let's start with those. Comments? 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 Fri Oct 20 13:50:43 2000 From: billd at cait.wustl.edu (Bill Darte) Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 12:50:43 -0500 Subject: Things that need to be addressed Message-ID: > > Off the top of my head, here are some of the issues we need > to address: > > 1) Exceptions (SSL, POP/IMAP, etc) > 2) Accounting systems > 3) Legacy systems > 4) Net-nanny filters > > Let's start with those. > > Comments? > Perhaps we could review the justification for the discussion first... I don't mean the principle of conservation...I believe we all agreed to that, but rather the magnitude of the problem of IP addresses that would be wasted if NO hosting policy were in place at all. 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??? Bill Darte ARIN AC Washington University in St. Louis From HORMAN at novell.com Fri Oct 20 13:57:07 2000 From: HORMAN at novell.com (Hilarie Orman) Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 11:57:07 -0600 Subject: Things that need to be addressed Message-ID: 1. ... (telnet) Also, we need to get representatives from the relevant industries engaged in the discussion. Net nanny is one - there are several providers of blocking lists. How about SSL implementors, too? Hilarie From John.Sweeting at cwusa.com Fri Oct 20 14:02:00 2000 From: John.Sweeting at cwusa.com (Sweeting, John) Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 14:02:00 -0400 Subject: Things that need to be addressed Message-ID: <3FD40150593CD2119D5200805FA7D96507304707@us-cwi-exc-a07.cwi.cablew.com> I agree with you Bill, I think we need to show that there is good reason to have a policy in the first place and your 3 questions are a good start. -----Original Message----- From: Bill Darte [mailto:billd at cait.wustl.edu] Sent: Friday, October 20, 2000 1:51 PM To: vwp at arin.net Subject: RE: Things that need to be addressed > > Off the top of my head, here are some of the issues we need > to address: > > 1) Exceptions (SSL, POP/IMAP, etc) > 2) Accounting systems > 3) Legacy systems > 4) Net-nanny filters > > Let's start with those. > > Comments? > Perhaps we could review the justification for the discussion first... I don't mean the principle of conservation...I believe we all agreed to that, but rather the magnitude of the problem of IP addresses that would be wasted if NO hosting policy were in place at all. 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??? Bill Darte ARIN AC Washington University in St. Louis From Steve.Lists at HDL.com Fri Oct 20 14:43:28 2000 From: Steve.Lists at HDL.com (Steve Pierce) Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 14:43:28 -0400 Subject: Things that need to be addressed In-Reply-To: <3FD40150593CD2119D5200805FA7D96507304707@us-cwi-exc-a07.cwi.cablew.com> Message-ID: 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 would sort of like you being a small telephone company and you have been issued the 989-555 exchange. Then some nut starts calling in bomb threats from 989-555-1876 and so the feds shut down that phone line. In the meantime, you find out your entire block of 989-555 phone numbers has been disconnected all because one crackpot did you in. No matter how good you are at policing your customers, someone will eventually do something stupid, anyone in the hosting business or an ISP will attest to that. How many times has AOL had to shutdown an account because they Spam? 1000's. So that means higher end and even mid-range customers are starting to learn about this problem so they insist that their hosting provider give them their own IP address for their own domain to keep them from being locked out. So even though the single cluster can hold 20,000 domains it now has to host several hundred or more IP addresses. Not a problem for the cluster but it does pose a problem in trying to get more allocated addresses. We also need to look at collocation services. There needs to be a way for companies that may only have 3 or 4 incoming data lines can still be hosting 500 plus pieces of equipment in a single facility. Usually each collocation customer want 2 to 4 ip addresses so then can setup separate addresses for DNS, SMTP and Web. Hosting companies that have a Class A don't have a problem but for the small upstart, this can be a concern. Even a small hosting company can still have a legitimate need for several thousand IP addresses at just one facility. Finally with the consolidation that we have seen with different net companies buying each other up, there would seem to be a need to reclaim IP address blocks. Some companies though acquisition now have two or more Class A blocks and have still more B blocks and could even have several hundred or thousand C blocks. I realize it is a pain in the ass to reconfigure the equipment after a merger but it is something ARIN should seriously consider if we hope to extend the life of the current addressing system. A Class A holder shouldn't be permitted to hold Class C's, should they? Just some thoughts - 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 Sweeting, John Sent: Friday, October 20, 2000 2:02 PM To: 'Bill Darte'; vwp at arin.net Subject: RE: Things that need to be addressed I agree with you Bill, I think we need to show that there is good reason to have a policy in the first place and your 3 questions are a good start. -----Original Message----- From: Bill Darte [mailto:billd at cait.wustl.edu] Sent: Friday, October 20, 2000 1:51 PM To: vwp at arin.net Subject: RE: Things that need to be addressed > > Off the top of my head, here are some of the issues we need > to address: > > 1) Exceptions (SSL, POP/IMAP, etc) > 2) Accounting systems > 3) Legacy systems > 4) Net-nanny filters > > Let's start with those. > > Comments? > Perhaps we could review the justification for the discussion first... I don't mean the principle of conservation...I believe we all agreed to that, but rather the magnitude of the problem of IP addresses that would be wasted if NO hosting policy were in place at all. 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??? Bill Darte ARIN AC Washington University in St. Louis From genej at broadviewnet.net Fri Oct 20 18:29:00 2000 From: genej at broadviewnet.net (Gene Jakominich's IMAP) Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 18:29:00 -0400 Subject: Things that need to be addressed References: Message-ID: <002801c03ae5$2586ffe0$0100a8c0@mshome.net> Why don't we work on a list of exceptions first. I think that is the major sticking point for most people. Why don't we all make a list and send it to the moderator? What does everyone think? -gene ----------------------- Gene Jakominich Jr Systems Engineer, ISP Operations Broadview Networks www.broadviewnet.net ------------------------ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bill Darte" To: Sent: Friday, October 20, 2000 1:50 PM Subject: RE: Things that need to be addressed > > > > Off the top of my head, here are some of the issues we need > > to address: > > > > 1) Exceptions (SSL, POP/IMAP, etc) > > 2) Accounting systems > > 3) Legacy systems > > 4) Net-nanny filters > > > > Let's start with those. > > > > Comments? > > > Perhaps we could review the justification for the discussion first... I > don't mean the principle of conservation...I believe we all agreed to that, > but rather the magnitude of the problem of IP addresses that would be wasted > if NO hosting policy were in place at all. > 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??? > > Bill Darte > ARIN AC Washington University in St. Louis > From byans at ugo.com Mon Oct 23 10:22:41 2000 From: byans at ugo.com (Bryan Socha) Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2000 10:22:41 -0400 Subject: Things that need to be addressed Message-ID: I think both points are valid.. Why are why even looking at policy changes, who these policy changes should effect and what exceptions are their to the policy... To start off what the exceptions should be...: - The blocking software, netnanny, etc.. Especially with the new bill up for vote requiring all libraries to install blocking software or they will not recieve government money for funding. -----Original Message----- From: Gene Jakominich's IMAP [mailto:genej at broadviewnet.net] Sent: Friday, October 20, 2000 6:29 PM To: vwp at arin.net Subject: Re: Things that need to be addressed Why don't we work on a list of exceptions first. I think that is the major sticking point for most people. Why don't we all make a list and send it to the moderator? What does everyone think? -gene ----------------------- Gene Jakominich Jr Systems Engineer, ISP Operations Broadview Networks www.broadviewnet.net ------------------------ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bill Darte" To: Sent: Friday, October 20, 2000 1:50 PM Subject: RE: Things that need to be addressed > > > > Off the top of my head, here are some of the issues we need > > to address: > > > > 1) Exceptions (SSL, POP/IMAP, etc) > > 2) Accounting systems > > 3) Legacy systems > > 4) Net-nanny filters > > > > Let's start with those. > > > > Comments? > > > Perhaps we could review the justification for the discussion first... I > don't mean the principle of conservation...I believe we all agreed to that, > but rather the magnitude of the problem of IP addresses that would be wasted > if NO hosting policy were in place at all. > 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??? > > Bill Darte > ARIN AC Washington University in St. Louis > From cjw at remarque.org Mon Oct 23 19:26:23 2000 From: cjw at remarque.org (cjw at remarque.org) Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2000 16:26:23 -0700 Subject: Things that need to be addressed In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 20 Oct 2000 09:44:56 MDT." <39F06878.60D22B98@hilander.com> Message-ID: <200010232326.QAA12397@pox.remarque.org> We also need to seriously talk about address exhaustion and ASN exhaustion. ---CJ From: "Alec H. Peterson" Subject: Things that need to be addressed Off the top of my head, here are some of the issues we need to address: 1) Exceptions (SSL, POP/IMAP, etc) 2) Accounting systems 3) Legacy systems 4) Net-nanny filters Let's start with those. Comments? 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 cjw at remarque.org Mon Oct 23 19:44:36 2000 From: cjw at remarque.org (cjw at remarque.org) Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2000 16:44:36 -0700 Subject: Things that need to be addressed In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 23 Oct 2000 16:26:23 PDT." <200010232326.QAA12397@pox.remarque.org> Message-ID: <200010232344.QAA12694@pox.remarque.org> Sorry I thought this was the ac list not the vwp list. These are topics for a different discussion ---CJ From: cjw at remarque.org Subject: Re: Things that need to be addressed We also need to seriously talk about address exhaustion and ASN exhaustion. ---CJ From: "Alec H. Peterson" Subject: Things that need to be addressed Off the top of my head, here are some of the issues we need to address: 1) Exceptions (SSL, POP/IMAP, etc) 2) Accounting systems 3) Legacy systems 4) Net-nanny filters Let's start with those. Comments? 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 SRogers at Affinity.com Wed Oct 25 11:47:15 2000 From: SRogers at Affinity.com (Scott Rogers) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 08:47:15 -0700 Subject: Things that need to be addressed Message-ID: <23AE217BF800D411B12500D0B73CF36E5B9E67@exchange.affinityla.com> Exceptions: The original problem with HTTP/1.1 "Name Based" virtual servers from my perspective as a Co-Locations/Dedicated server facility hosting virtual web hosts was that not all browsers supported it (e.g. AOL and CompuServe) and although you may not like their service, you can't ignore their customer base. Enough time and versions have gone by that most end-users now have browsers that will support it. Now the issue from my customer's perspective is that the ajor search engines do not yet support the HTTP/1.1 "Name Based" Virtual servers. This has been the major contension point between us and our customers in trying to get them to use name based rather than IP based web site. Please excuse my restating what may be the obvious above. Has anyone from the working group contacted the search engines to see if/when they will be supporting this. -- Scott W. Rogers +1-410-558-2750 (Fax: +1410-563-5457) Network/Systems/Security Engineer -- SkyNetWEB, Ltd. An Affinity Internet, Inc. Company 3500 Boston St. #231 -- Baltimore, Maryland 21224 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: