From ahp at hilander.com  Wed Jan  3 15:53:53 2001
From: ahp at hilander.com (Alec H. Peterson)
Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2001 13:53:53 -0700
Subject: Been quiet in here...
Message-ID: <3A539161.C7632EDD@hilander.com>

Are there any more thoughts on what we should do with the so-called 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 danny at ambernetworks.com  Wed Jan  3 16:10:09 2001
From: danny at ambernetworks.com (Danny McPherson)
Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2001 14:10:09 -0700
Subject: Been quiet in here... 
Message-ID: <200101032110.OAA11477@tcb.net>


> Are there any more thoughts on what we should do with the so-called virtual
> hosting policy?

Depends, has anyone taken the time to summarize what they believe 
were the useful (<-- operative word) thoughts from the previous
discussion?

-danny



From billd at cait.wustl.edu  Wed Jan  3 16:24:19 2001
From: billd at cait.wustl.edu (Bill Darte)
Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2001 15:24:19 -0600 
Subject: Been quiet in here...
Message-ID: <F0A77279DB36D111A6EC00A024DEE7AF3338D3@kronos.wustl.edu>

I have seen no evidence that there is a problem. No scope, no magnitude, no
trends, just a vague notion that it is wasting "lots" of addresses.
Bill Darte
AC

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alec H. Peterson [mailto:ahp at hilander.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 2:54 PM
> To: vwp at arin.net
> Subject: Been quiet in here...
> 
> 
> Are there any more thoughts on what we should do with the 
> so-called 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 decosta at bayconnect.com  Wed Jan  3 16:23:50 2001
From: decosta at bayconnect.com (Joe DeCosta)
Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2001 13:23:50 -0800
Subject: Been quiet in here... 
References: <200101032110.OAA11477@tcb.net>
Message-ID: <000f01c075cb$77883540$cd00000a@megapathdsl.net>

I haven't been here these are the first posts that i've seen come through to
this list.  Could someone possibly update me in private?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Danny McPherson" <danny at ambernetworks.com>
To: "Alec H. Peterson" <ahp at hilander.com>
Cc: <vwp at arin.net>
Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 1:10 PM
Subject: Re: Been quiet in here...


>
> > Are there any more thoughts on what we should do with the so-called
virtual
> > hosting policy?
>
> Depends, has anyone taken the time to summarize what they believe
> were the useful (<-- operative word) thoughts from the previous
> discussion?
>
> -danny
>
>



From nameeriar at gt.ca  Wed Jan  3 17:04:15 2001
From: nameeriar at gt.ca (Nasir Ameeriar)
Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2001 14:04:15 -0800 
Subject: Been quiet in here... 
Message-ID: <0309AE123C31D4119B1C00D0B747B22BC09733@yyzxch01.gt.ca>

What is the status of Vhost?
How do we provision for clients with SSL?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------
Respectfully Yours,


Nasir M. Ameeriar 
B.Sc., MIS, MBA, CCNA, MCSE
Senior TSS 
Group Telecom
1000 Sherbrooke St. West
Montreal, PQ
H3A 3G4
Cellular: 514-978-0092
Office:   514-448-3004
Fax: 514-448-3088
nameeriar at gt.ca <mailto:nameeriar at gt.ca> 
www.gt.ca <http://www.gt.ca> 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------


-----Original Message-----
From: Joe DeCosta [mailto:decosta at bayconnect.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 4:24 PM
To: vwp at arin.net
Subject: Re: Been quiet in here... 


I haven't been here these are the first posts that i've seen come through to
this list.  Could someone possibly update me in private?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Danny McPherson" <danny at ambernetworks.com>
To: "Alec H. Peterson" <ahp at hilander.com>
Cc: <vwp at arin.net>
Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 1:10 PM
Subject: Re: Been quiet in here...


>
> > Are there any more thoughts on what we should do with the so-called
virtual
> > hosting policy?
>
> Depends, has anyone taken the time to summarize what they believe
> were the useful (<-- operative word) thoughts from the previous
> discussion?
>
> -danny
>
>


From decosta at bayconnect.com  Wed Jan  3 17:11:16 2001
From: decosta at bayconnect.com (Joe DeCosta)
Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2001 14:11:16 -0800
Subject: Been quiet in here... 
References: <0309AE123C31D4119B1C00D0B747B22BC09733@yyzxch01.gt.ca>
Message-ID: <003101c075d2$17c2d3c0$cd00000a@megapathdsl.net>

As far as we use, we just use MS IIS in which you can manage the site
certificates for the v-hosted sites just like any other certificate SSL it's
still just a V-Host, and the client side see only the specific site.  I can
attach a screen shot if you have never seen V-Hosting with IIS, its really
quite simple.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Nasir Ameeriar" <nameeriar at gt.ca>
To: "'Joe DeCosta'" <decosta at bayconnect.com>; <vwp at arin.net>
Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 2:04 PM
Subject: RE: Been quiet in here...


> What is the status of Vhost?
> How do we provision for clients with SSL?
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
> ---------
> Respectfully Yours,
>
>
> Nasir M. Ameeriar
> B.Sc., MIS, MBA, CCNA, MCSE
> Senior TSS
> Group Telecom
> 1000 Sherbrooke St. West
> Montreal, PQ
> H3A 3G4
> Cellular: 514-978-0092
> Office:   514-448-3004
> Fax: 514-448-3088
> nameeriar at gt.ca <mailto:nameeriar at gt.ca>
> www.gt.ca <http://www.gt.ca>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
> ---------
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joe DeCosta [mailto:decosta at bayconnect.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 4:24 PM
> To: vwp at arin.net
> Subject: Re: Been quiet in here...
>
>
> I haven't been here these are the first posts that i've seen come through
to
> this list.  Could someone possibly update me in private?
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Danny McPherson" <danny at ambernetworks.com>
> To: "Alec H. Peterson" <ahp at hilander.com>
> Cc: <vwp at arin.net>
> Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 1:10 PM
> Subject: Re: Been quiet in here...
>
>
> >
> > > Are there any more thoughts on what we should do with the so-called
> virtual
> > > hosting policy?
> >
> > Depends, has anyone taken the time to summarize what they believe
> > were the useful (<-- operative word) thoughts from the previous
> > discussion?
> >
> > -danny
> >
> >
>



From lgilbert at rawhideinc.com  Wed Jan  3 17:07:16 2001
From: lgilbert at rawhideinc.com (Leo Gilbert)
Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2001 17:07:16 -0500
Subject: Been quiet in here... 
Message-ID: <9B6F2B6780A5A2409DA1F12DC363F018088386@EXCHANGE02.rawhideinc.com>

We use the same here. IIS is very easy to setup and run V-hosting but if
you try to get your sites ranked on the search engines that use ip based
spidering forget it. These search engines spider will dump your site. 

-----Original Message-----
From: Joe DeCosta [mailto:decosta at bayconnect.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 5:11 PM
To: Nasir Ameeriar; vwp at arin.net
Subject: Re: Been quiet in here... 


As far as we use, we just use MS IIS in which you can manage the site
certificates for the v-hosted sites just like any other certificate SSL
it's
still just a V-Host, and the client side see only the specific site.  I
can
attach a screen shot if you have never seen V-Hosting with IIS, its
really
quite simple.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Nasir Ameeriar" <nameeriar at gt.ca>
To: "'Joe DeCosta'" <decosta at bayconnect.com>; <vwp at arin.net>
Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 2:04 PM
Subject: RE: Been quiet in here...


> What is the status of Vhost?
> How do we provision for clients with SSL?
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
--
> ---------
> Respectfully Yours,
>
>
> Nasir M. Ameeriar
> B.Sc., MIS, MBA, CCNA, MCSE
> Senior TSS
> Group Telecom
> 1000 Sherbrooke St. West
> Montreal, PQ
> H3A 3G4
> Cellular: 514-978-0092
> Office:   514-448-3004
> Fax: 514-448-3088
> nameeriar at gt.ca <mailto:nameeriar at gt.ca>
> www.gt.ca <http://www.gt.ca>
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
--
> ---------
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joe DeCosta [mailto:decosta at bayconnect.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 4:24 PM
> To: vwp at arin.net
> Subject: Re: Been quiet in here...
>
>
> I haven't been here these are the first posts that i've seen come
through
to
> this list.  Could someone possibly update me in private?
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Danny McPherson" <danny at ambernetworks.com>
> To: "Alec H. Peterson" <ahp at hilander.com>
> Cc: <vwp at arin.net>
> Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 1:10 PM
> Subject: Re: Been quiet in here...
>
>
> >
> > > Are there any more thoughts on what we should do with the
so-called
> virtual
> > > hosting policy?
> >
> > Depends, has anyone taken the time to summarize what they believe
> > were the useful (<-- operative word) thoughts from the previous
> > discussion?
> >
> > -danny
> >
> >
>



From corrie at imagedesign.net  Wed Jan  3 17:21:42 2001
From: corrie at imagedesign.net (Corrie Dinnetz)
Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2001 14:21:42 -0800
Subject: Been quiet in here... 
References: <0309AE123C31D4119B1C00D0B747B22BC09733@yyzxch01.gt.ca> <003101c075d2$17c2d3c0$cd00000a@megapathdsl.net>
Message-ID: <001701c075d3$98c265c0$05557e3f@IMAGEDESIGN.NET>

I do V-Host with IIS also, but use a dedicated IP for all sites that have
SSL....  I have not found a way to share an IP when they use SSL...

-Corrie Dinnetz

----- Original Message -----
From: "Joe DeCosta" <decosta at bayconnect.com>
To: "Nasir Ameeriar" <nameeriar at gt.ca>; <vwp at arin.net>
Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 2:11 PM
Subject: Re: Been quiet in here...


> As far as we use, we just use MS IIS in which you can manage the site
> certificates for the v-hosted sites just like any other certificate SSL
it's
> still just a V-Host, and the client side see only the specific site.  I
can
> attach a screen shot if you have never seen V-Hosting with IIS, its really
> quite simple.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Nasir Ameeriar" <nameeriar at gt.ca>
> To: "'Joe DeCosta'" <decosta at bayconnect.com>; <vwp at arin.net>
> Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 2:04 PM
> Subject: RE: Been quiet in here...
>
>
> > What is the status of Vhost?
> > How do we provision for clients with SSL?
> >
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
> > ---------
> > Respectfully Yours,
> >
> >
> > Nasir M. Ameeriar
> > B.Sc., MIS, MBA, CCNA, MCSE
> > Senior TSS
> > Group Telecom
> > 1000 Sherbrooke St. West
> > Montreal, PQ
> > H3A 3G4
> > Cellular: 514-978-0092
> > Office:   514-448-3004
> > Fax: 514-448-3088
> > nameeriar at gt.ca <mailto:nameeriar at gt.ca>
> > www.gt.ca <http://www.gt.ca>
> >
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
> > ---------
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Joe DeCosta [mailto:decosta at bayconnect.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 4:24 PM
> > To: vwp at arin.net
> > Subject: Re: Been quiet in here...
> >
> >
> > I haven't been here these are the first posts that i've seen come
through
> to
> > this list.  Could someone possibly update me in private?
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Danny McPherson" <danny at ambernetworks.com>
> > To: "Alec H. Peterson" <ahp at hilander.com>
> > Cc: <vwp at arin.net>
> > Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 1:10 PM
> > Subject: Re: Been quiet in here...
> >
> >
> > >
> > > > Are there any more thoughts on what we should do with the so-called
> > virtual
> > > > hosting policy?
> > >
> > > Depends, has anyone taken the time to summarize what they believe
> > > were the useful (<-- operative word) thoughts from the previous
> > > discussion?
> > >
> > > -danny
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>



From Clay at exodus.net  Wed Jan  3 17:40:51 2001
From: Clay at exodus.net (Clayton Lambert)
Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2001 14:40:51 -0800
Subject: Been quiet in here...
In-Reply-To: <3A539161.C7632EDD@hilander.com>
Message-ID: <200101032241.OAA22082@exoserv.exodus.net>

We should re-institute the policy with modifications to the text for
clarity.  Service providing should be the catch word instead of web-hosting.

There should be clear reference to technical exceptions to the policy (this
should NOT be in the form of specific exceptions, as technical reasons for
exception to the policy can easily step beyond the ability of a "list",
hence the reason for maintainer discretion), only technical exceptions
should be allowed (as opposed to policy exceptions). The entity assigned the
overall netblock should have discretion for determining the exceptions to
the policy and should maintain the documentation for the exception, and make
the info available to ARIN on in audit-style format (NDA should be manditory
between the Netblock maintainer and ARIN).

Clay
Exodus Communications


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of Alec H.
Peterson
Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 12:54 PM
To: vwp at arin.net
Subject: Been quiet in here...


Are there any more thoughts on what we should do with the so-called 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 decosta at bayconnect.com  Wed Jan  3 17:35:01 2001
From: decosta at bayconnect.com (Joe DeCosta)
Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2001 14:35:01 -0800
Subject: Been quiet in here... 
References: <003601c075d3$4d0fe350$e29b8d3f@aberdeen.marylandtechnology.com>
Message-ID: <004d01c075d5$69f01740$cd00000a@megapathdsl.net>

no problemo. :-)
here ya go.  it's actually just http/1.1 vhosting, easily done in apache
with this simple string of text in your httpd.conf file

NameVirtualHost 111.22.33.44

    <VirtualHost 111.22.33.44>
    ServerName www.domain.tld
    DocumentRoot /www/domain
    </VirtualHost>

    <VirtualHost 111.22.33.44>
    ServerName www.otherdomain.tld
    DocumentRoot /www/otherdomain
    </VirtualHost>

----- Original Message -----
From: "Christopher D. Shelton" <cshelton at atlanticasp.com>
To: "'Joe DeCosta'" <decosta at bayconnect.com>
Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 2:19 PM
Subject: RE: Been quiet in here...


> That would be great, please do!
>
>
> Thanks
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of Joe
> DeCosta
> Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 5:11 PM
> To: Nasir Ameeriar; vwp at arin.net
> Subject: Re: Been quiet in here...
>
>
> As far as we use, we just use MS IIS in which you can manage the site
> certificates for the v-hosted sites just like any other certificate SSL
it's
> still just a V-Host, and the client side see only the specific site.  I
can
> attach a screen shot if you have never seen V-Hosting with IIS, its really
> quite simple.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Nasir Ameeriar" <nameeriar at gt.ca>
> To: "'Joe DeCosta'" <decosta at bayconnect.com>; <vwp at arin.net>
> Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 2:04 PM
> Subject: RE: Been quiet in here...
>
>
> > What is the status of Vhost?
> > How do we provision for clients with SSL?
> >
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
> > ---------
> > Respectfully Yours,
> >
> >
> > Nasir M. Ameeriar
> > B.Sc., MIS, MBA, CCNA, MCSE
> > Senior TSS
> > Group Telecom
> > 1000 Sherbrooke St. West
> > Montreal, PQ
> > H3A 3G4
> > Cellular: 514-978-0092
> > Office:   514-448-3004
> > Fax: 514-448-3088
> > nameeriar at gt.ca <mailto:nameeriar at gt.ca>
> > www.gt.ca <http://www.gt.ca>
> >
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
> > ---------
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Joe DeCosta [mailto:decosta at bayconnect.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 4:24 PM
> > To: vwp at arin.net
> > Subject: Re: Been quiet in here...
> >
> >
> > I haven't been here these are the first posts that i've seen come
through
> to
> > this list.  Could someone possibly update me in private?
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Danny McPherson" <danny at ambernetworks.com>
> > To: "Alec H. Peterson" <ahp at hilander.com>
> > Cc: <vwp at arin.net>
> > Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 1:10 PM
> > Subject: Re: Been quiet in here...
> >
> >
> > >
> > > > Are there any more thoughts on what we should do with the so-called
> > virtual
> > > > hosting policy?
> > >
> > > Depends, has anyone taken the time to summarize what they believe
> > > were the useful (<-- operative word) thoughts from the previous
> > > discussion?
> > >
> > > -danny
> > >
> > >
> >
>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 1.bmp
Type: image/bmp
Size: 615990 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://eris.arin.net/pipermail/vwp/attachments/20010103/c488883b/1.bmp
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 2.bmp
Type: image/bmp
Size: 617526 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://eris.arin.net/pipermail/vwp/attachments/20010103/c488883b/2.bmp

From decosta at bayconnect.com  Wed Jan  3 17:44:07 2001
From: decosta at bayconnect.com (Joe DeCosta)
Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2001 14:44:07 -0800
Subject: Been quiet in here...
References: <200101032241.OAA22082@exoserv.exodus.net>
Message-ID: <006101c075d6$aeed1cc0$cd00000a@megapathdsl.net>

This modification i agree with, my only objection is that why should people
have to justify the usage of their netblock, why not just up the costs to
encourage them to use as few IP's as possible.  It would seem to be more
effective.  Just my thoughts.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Clayton Lambert" <Clay at exodus.net>
To: "'Alec H. Peterson'" <ahp at hilander.com>; <vwp at arin.net>
Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 2:40 PM
Subject: RE: Been quiet in here...


> We should re-institute the policy with modifications to the text for
> clarity.  Service providing should be the catch word instead of
web-hosting.
>
> There should be clear reference to technical exceptions to the policy
(this
> should NOT be in the form of specific exceptions, as technical reasons for
> exception to the policy can easily step beyond the ability of a "list",
> hence the reason for maintainer discretion), only technical exceptions
> should be allowed (as opposed to policy exceptions). The entity assigned
the
> overall netblock should have discretion for determining the exceptions to
> the policy and should maintain the documentation for the exception, and
make
> the info available to ARIN on in audit-style format (NDA should be
manditory
> between the Netblock maintainer and ARIN).
>
> Clay
> Exodus Communications
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of Alec H.
> Peterson
> Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 12:54 PM
> To: vwp at arin.net
> Subject: Been quiet in here...
>
>
> Are there any more thoughts on what we should do with the so-called
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 Clay at exodus.net  Wed Jan  3 17:47:46 2001
From: Clay at exodus.net (Clayton Lambert)
Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2001 14:47:46 -0800
Subject: Been quiet in here...
In-Reply-To: <F0A77279DB36D111A6EC00A024DEE7AF3338D3@kronos.wustl.edu>
Message-ID: <200101032248.OAA23431@exoserv.exodus.net>

it is more than a vague notion.  It is a fact...

A small percentage of our Customers use the overwhelmingly largest amounts
of address space.

This policy should not scare web-hosters.  I think that webhosters should
make the attempt to be efficient with their use of address space.  We have
hammered our name-based hosting servers and we have not seen an appreciable
drop in performance compared to the same servers running IP based hosting.
If there is a valid reason for a service provider (any service, not just
webhosters) to use IP-based hosting, I think it is not unreasonable to have
them provide documentation to support that requirement.  Accountability
isn't something that is necessarily bad.

-Clayton Lambert
Exodus Communications

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of Bill
Darte
Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 1:24 PM
To: 'Alec H. Peterson'; vwp at arin.net
Subject: RE: Been quiet in here...


I have seen no evidence that there is a problem. No scope, no magnitude, no
trends, just a vague notion that it is wasting "lots" of addresses.
Bill Darte
AC

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alec H. Peterson [mailto:ahp at hilander.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 2:54 PM
> To: vwp at arin.net
> Subject: Been quiet in here...
>
>
> Are there any more thoughts on what we should do with the
> so-called 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 Clay at exodus.net  Wed Jan  3 17:48:12 2001
From: Clay at exodus.net (Clayton Lambert)
Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2001 14:48:12 -0800
Subject: Been quiet in here... 
In-Reply-To: <000f01c075cb$77883540$cd00000a@megapathdsl.net>
Message-ID: <200101032248.OAA23525@exoserv.exodus.net>

Ditto...I haven't seen anthing come thru from this list.

-Clay

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of Joe
DeCosta
Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 1:24 PM
To: vwp at arin.net
Subject: Re: Been quiet in here...


I haven't been here these are the first posts that i've seen come through to
this list.  Could someone possibly update me in private?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Danny McPherson" <danny at ambernetworks.com>
To: "Alec H. Peterson" <ahp at hilander.com>
Cc: <vwp at arin.net>
Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 1:10 PM
Subject: Re: Been quiet in here...


>
> > Are there any more thoughts on what we should do with the so-called
virtual
> > hosting policy?
>
> Depends, has anyone taken the time to summarize what they believe
> were the useful (<-- operative word) thoughts from the previous
> discussion?
>
> -danny
>
>




From Clay at exodus.net  Wed Jan  3 17:50:51 2001
From: Clay at exodus.net (Clayton Lambert)
Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2001 14:50:51 -0800
Subject: Been quiet in here... 
In-Reply-To: <9B6F2B6780A5A2409DA1F12DC363F018088386@EXCHANGE02.rawhideinc.com>
Message-ID: <200101032251.OAA23984@exoserv.exodus.net>

Discussion should be opened with the search engines that operate in this
way.

-Clayton Lambert
Exodus Communications

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of Leo
Gilbert
Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 2:07 PM
To: Joe DeCosta; Nasir Ameeriar; vwp at arin.net
Subject: RE: Been quiet in here...


We use the same here. IIS is very easy to setup and run V-hosting but if
you try to get your sites ranked on the search engines that use ip based
spidering forget it. These search engines spider will dump your site.

-----Original Message-----
From: Joe DeCosta [mailto:decosta at bayconnect.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 5:11 PM
To: Nasir Ameeriar; vwp at arin.net
Subject: Re: Been quiet in here...


As far as we use, we just use MS IIS in which you can manage the site
certificates for the v-hosted sites just like any other certificate SSL
it's
still just a V-Host, and the client side see only the specific site.  I
can
attach a screen shot if you have never seen V-Hosting with IIS, its
really
quite simple.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Nasir Ameeriar" <nameeriar at gt.ca>
To: "'Joe DeCosta'" <decosta at bayconnect.com>; <vwp at arin.net>
Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 2:04 PM
Subject: RE: Been quiet in here...


> What is the status of Vhost?
> How do we provision for clients with SSL?
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
--
> ---------
> Respectfully Yours,
>
>
> Nasir M. Ameeriar
> B.Sc., MIS, MBA, CCNA, MCSE
> Senior TSS
> Group Telecom
> 1000 Sherbrooke St. West
> Montreal, PQ
> H3A 3G4
> Cellular: 514-978-0092
> Office:   514-448-3004
> Fax: 514-448-3088
> nameeriar at gt.ca <mailto:nameeriar at gt.ca>
> www.gt.ca <http://www.gt.ca>
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
--
> ---------
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joe DeCosta [mailto:decosta at bayconnect.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 4:24 PM
> To: vwp at arin.net
> Subject: Re: Been quiet in here...
>
>
> I haven't been here these are the first posts that i've seen come
through
to
> this list.  Could someone possibly update me in private?
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Danny McPherson" <danny at ambernetworks.com>
> To: "Alec H. Peterson" <ahp at hilander.com>
> Cc: <vwp at arin.net>
> Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 1:10 PM
> Subject: Re: Been quiet in here...
>
>
> >
> > > Are there any more thoughts on what we should do with the
so-called
> virtual
> > > hosting policy?
> >
> > Depends, has anyone taken the time to summarize what they believe
> > were the useful (<-- operative word) thoughts from the previous
> > discussion?
> >
> > -danny
> >
> >
>




From lgilbert at rawhideinc.com  Wed Jan  3 17:45:34 2001
From: lgilbert at rawhideinc.com (Leo Gilbert)
Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2001 17:45:34 -0500
Subject: Been quiet in here... 
Message-ID: <9B6F2B6780A5A2409DA1F12DC363F018088387@EXCHANGE02.rawhideinc.com>

I totally agree with what you said earlier about policy with
modifications. As far as the search engines go they are very stubborn
about changing their ways.

-----Original Message-----
From: Clayton Lambert [mailto:Clay at exodus.net]
Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 5:51 PM
To: Leo Gilbert; 'Joe DeCosta'; 'Nasir Ameeriar'; vwp at arin.net
Subject: RE: Been quiet in here... 


Discussion should be opened with the search engines that operate in this
way.

-Clayton Lambert
Exodus Communications

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of Leo
Gilbert
Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 2:07 PM
To: Joe DeCosta; Nasir Ameeriar; vwp at arin.net
Subject: RE: Been quiet in here...


We use the same here. IIS is very easy to setup and run V-hosting but if
you try to get your sites ranked on the search engines that use ip based
spidering forget it. These search engines spider will dump your site.

-----Original Message-----
From: Joe DeCosta [mailto:decosta at bayconnect.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 5:11 PM
To: Nasir Ameeriar; vwp at arin.net
Subject: Re: Been quiet in here...


As far as we use, we just use MS IIS in which you can manage the site
certificates for the v-hosted sites just like any other certificate SSL
it's
still just a V-Host, and the client side see only the specific site.  I
can
attach a screen shot if you have never seen V-Hosting with IIS, its
really
quite simple.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Nasir Ameeriar" <nameeriar at gt.ca>
To: "'Joe DeCosta'" <decosta at bayconnect.com>; <vwp at arin.net>
Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 2:04 PM
Subject: RE: Been quiet in here...


> What is the status of Vhost?
> How do we provision for clients with SSL?
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
--
> ---------
> Respectfully Yours,
>
>
> Nasir M. Ameeriar
> B.Sc., MIS, MBA, CCNA, MCSE
> Senior TSS
> Group Telecom
> 1000 Sherbrooke St. West
> Montreal, PQ
> H3A 3G4
> Cellular: 514-978-0092
> Office:   514-448-3004
> Fax: 514-448-3088
> nameeriar at gt.ca <mailto:nameeriar at gt.ca>
> www.gt.ca <http://www.gt.ca>
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
--
> ---------
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joe DeCosta [mailto:decosta at bayconnect.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 4:24 PM
> To: vwp at arin.net
> Subject: Re: Been quiet in here...
>
>
> I haven't been here these are the first posts that i've seen come
through
to
> this list.  Could someone possibly update me in private?
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Danny McPherson" <danny at ambernetworks.com>
> To: "Alec H. Peterson" <ahp at hilander.com>
> Cc: <vwp at arin.net>
> Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 1:10 PM
> Subject: Re: Been quiet in here...
>
>
> >
> > > Are there any more thoughts on what we should do with the
so-called
> virtual
> > > hosting policy?
> >
> > Depends, has anyone taken the time to summarize what they believe
> > were the useful (<-- operative word) thoughts from the previous
> > discussion?
> >
> > -danny
> >
> >
>




From HORMAN at novell.com  Wed Jan  3 18:22:19 2001
From: HORMAN at novell.com (Hilarie Orman)
Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2001 16:22:19 -0700
Subject: Been quiet in here...
Message-ID: <sa5351be.077@prv-mail20.provo.novell.com>

My impression of the discussion is that there are many reasons for using
IP addresses in web hosting, and we have not necessarily found all of
them.  There is disagreement about whether or not reasonable workarounds
exist for some of the problems and there is even disagreement about
whether or not to respect some of the problems.

The only thing on which there is agreement is that one should use
virtual hosting if it doesn't cause problems.

ARIN can recommend virtual hosting to organizations that request
addresses for web hosting, but it should never deny a request
based on virtual hosting criteria.  Doing so would involve ARIN
in burdensome technical discussions with the provider which
would contribute nothing to the orderly use and expansion of
the Internet.

Hilarie Orman

>>> "Clayton Lambert" <Clay at exodus.net> 01/03/01 03:40PM >>>
We should re-institute the policy with modifications to the text for
clarity.  Service providing should be the catch word instead of web-hosting.

There should be clear reference to technical exceptions to the policy (this
should NOT be in the form of specific exceptions, as technical reasons for
exception to the policy can easily step beyond the ability of a "list",
hence the reason for maintainer discretion), only technical exceptions
should be allowed (as opposed to policy exceptions). The entity assigned the
overall netblock should have discretion for determining the exceptions to
the policy and should maintain the documentation for the exception, and make
the info available to ARIN on in audit-style format (NDA should be manditory
between the Netblock maintainer and ARIN).

Clay
Exodus Communications


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of Alec H.
Peterson
Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 12:54 PM
To: vwp at arin.net 
Subject: Been quiet in here...


Are there any more thoughts on what we should do with the so-called 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 decosta at bayconnect.com  Wed Jan  3 18:25:53 2001
From: decosta at bayconnect.com (Joe DeCosta)
Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2001 15:25:53 -0800
Subject: Been quiet in here...
References: <Pine.LNX.4.20.0101031606380.30744-100000@hypermall.com>
Message-ID: <00af01c075dc$84ef3ce0$cd00000a@megapathdsl.net>

now, how about this, raise the pricing, and then donate the profit to some
NPO, or some such thing, i just *HATE* having to update the damned IP usage
spreadsheet and sending it to our uplink who owns the class C we have.  its
a pain in the ass, ever time we move stuff around on our network....... It
costs too much time to do it that way.  If the IP's are on a free market,
then why must we also then justify them?


----- Original Message -----
From: <Jawaid.Bazyar at forethought.net>
To: "Joe DeCosta" <decosta at bayconnect.com>
Cc: "Clayton Lambert" <Clay at exodus.net>; "'Alec H. Peterson'"
<ahp at hilander.com>; <vwp at arin.net>
Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 3:12 PM
Subject: Re: Been quiet in here...


>
> That's because in the lack of a "free market" for IP addresses, the
> pricing was set arbitrarily - to cover the expenses of operating ARIN.
>
> That's not to say that that is bad, or without reasoning. It's just that
> if you're going to disassociate the pricing from the costs necessary to
> administer ARIN, instead of raising the price to discourage waste, you
> should let people buy and sell blocks on an open market. Free markets are
> very sensitive to the scarcity of resources via the price mechanism.
>
> That's not saying I think IPs are particularly scarce. I've made the
> argument before that it seems that CIDR is more about saving face for
> Cisco's underpowered heaps than conserving IP space.
>
> However, the current IP allocation system works fairly well, and in that
> system the best approach is to tell people to stop provisioning web sites
> in a wasteful manner that was only every necessitated by flaws in the
> original technology.
>
> Besides, it's WAY easier to provision IP-less web sites. :)
>
>
>
> On Wed, 3 Jan 2001, Joe DeCosta wrote:
>
> > This modification i agree with, my only objection is that why should
people
> > have to justify the usage of their netblock, why not just up the costs
to
> > encourage them to use as few IP's as possible.  It would seem to be more
> > effective.  Just my thoughts.
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Clayton Lambert" <Clay at exodus.net>
> > To: "'Alec H. Peterson'" <ahp at hilander.com>; <vwp at arin.net>
> > Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 2:40 PM
> > Subject: RE: Been quiet in here...
> >
> >
> > > We should re-institute the policy with modifications to the text for
> > > clarity.  Service providing should be the catch word instead of
> > web-hosting.
> > >
> > > There should be clear reference to technical exceptions to the policy
> > (this
> > > should NOT be in the form of specific exceptions, as technical reasons
for
> > > exception to the policy can easily step beyond the ability of a
"list",
> > > hence the reason for maintainer discretion), only technical exceptions
> > > should be allowed (as opposed to policy exceptions). The entity
assigned
> > the
> > > overall netblock should have discretion for determining the exceptions
to
> > > the policy and should maintain the documentation for the exception,
and
> > make
> > > the info available to ARIN on in audit-style format (NDA should be
> > manditory
> > > between the Netblock maintainer and ARIN).
> > >
> > > Clay
> > > Exodus Communications
> > >
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of Alec
H.
> > > Peterson
> > > Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 12:54 PM
> > > To: vwp at arin.net
> > > Subject: Been quiet in here...
> > >
> > >
> > > Are there any more thoughts on what we should do with the so-called
> > 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!"
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
> --
>  Jawaid Bazyar                 |   Affordable WWW & Internet Solutions
>  foreThought.net               |   for Small Business
>  jawaid.bazyar at foreThought.net |   910 16th Street, #1220  (303) 228-0070
>  --The Future is Now!--        |   Denver, CO 80202        (303) 228-0077
fax
>



From cts at 5sc.net  Wed Jan  3 19:08:02 2001
From: cts at 5sc.net (Charles T. Smith, Jr.)
Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2001 20:08:02 -0400
Subject: Example of IP web issue in the press
Message-ID: <009F5949.5739870F.4@5sc.net>

Note the last part...

--

*****************************************************
Edupage is a service of EDUCAUSE, an international nonprofit
association dedicated to transforming education through
information technologies.
*****************************************************

[text deleted]

NEWS SITES MISTAKENLY BLOCKED BY FILTERS, STUDY SAYS
Internet filter programs are blocking access to many
non-offensive Web sites because of the high incidence of words
and phrases the filters search for, according to a study from
Peacefire.org. For example, the Cybersitter program identifies
an Amnesty.org news article as sexually explicit for containing
the phrase "at least 21." The phrase, however, is used to
describe the number of casualties in an international shooting
incident. Politicians in the United States and elsewhere want
filtering software to become a standard tool of libraries and
schools, but numerous students are complaining that such software
actually hampers their schoolwork. Such complaints prompted
Peacefire to run several filtering programs through a list of
Amnesty International-related sites. The results of the study
show that the software blocks more news sites than sexually
oriented sites, Peacefire claims. Ironically, the Realtime
Blackhole List is blocking the Peacefire Web site because the
program discovered an unrelated site on the same Web hosting
service that could potentially send spam.
(Cnet, 15 December 2000)



From decosta at bayconnect.com  Wed Jan  3 23:01:15 2001
From: decosta at bayconnect.com (Joe DeCosta)
Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2001 20:01:15 -0800
Subject: Example of IP web issue in the press
References: <009F5949.5739870F.4@5sc.net>
Message-ID: <3A53F58B.90059B97@bayconnect.com>

Ooh gawd, can there be any more of comedy in this article talk about
poetic justice :-)


"Charles T. Smith, Jr." wrote:
> 
> Note the last part...
> 
> --
> 
> *****************************************************
> Edupage is a service of EDUCAUSE, an international nonprofit
> association dedicated to transforming education through
> information technologies.
> *****************************************************
> 
> [text deleted]
> 
> NEWS SITES MISTAKENLY BLOCKED BY FILTERS, STUDY SAYS
> Internet filter programs are blocking access to many
> non-offensive Web sites because of the high incidence of words
> and phrases the filters search for, according to a study from
> Peacefire.org. For example, the Cybersitter program identifies
> an Amnesty.org news article as sexually explicit for containing
> the phrase "at least 21." The phrase, however, is used to
> describe the number of casualties in an international shooting
> incident. Politicians in the United States and elsewhere want
> filtering software to become a standard tool of libraries and
> schools, but numerous students are complaining that such software
> actually hampers their schoolwork. Such complaints prompted
> Peacefire to run several filtering programs through a list of
> Amnesty International-related sites. The results of the study
> show that the software blocks more news sites than sexually
> oriented sites, Peacefire claims. Ironically, the Realtime
> Blackhole List is blocking the Peacefire Web site because the
> program discovered an unrelated site on the same Web hosting
> service that could potentially send spam.
> (Cnet, 15 December 2000)


From jeff at alexandriainternet.com  Wed Jan  3 23:48:01 2001
From: jeff at alexandriainternet.com (Jeffrey L Price)
Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2001 23:48:01 -0500
Subject: Example of IP web issue in the press
References: <009F5949.5739870F.4@5sc.net> <3A53F58B.90059B97@bayconnect.com>
Message-ID: <035701c07609$874ede50$a9e2d83f@alexandiainternet.com>

Perhaps the cure is worse than the disease?

-jeff

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Joe DeCosta" <decosta at bayconnect.com>
To: "Charles T. Smith, Jr." <cts at 5sc.net>
Cc: <vwp at arin.net>
Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 11:01 PM
Subject: Re: Example of IP web issue in the press


> Ooh gawd, can there be any more of comedy in this article talk about
> poetic justice :-)
> 
> 
> "Charles T. Smith, Jr." wrote:
> > 
> > Note the last part...
> > 
> > --
> > 
> > *****************************************************
> > Edupage is a service of EDUCAUSE, an international nonprofit
> > association dedicated to transforming education through
> > information technologies.
> > *****************************************************
> > 
> > [text deleted]
> > 
> > NEWS SITES MISTAKENLY BLOCKED BY FILTERS, STUDY SAYS
> > Internet filter programs are blocking access to many
> > non-offensive Web sites because of the high incidence of words
> > and phrases the filters search for, according to a study from
> > Peacefire.org. For example, the Cybersitter program identifies
> > an Amnesty.org news article as sexually explicit for containing
> > the phrase "at least 21." The phrase, however, is used to
> > describe the number of casualties in an international shooting
> > incident. Politicians in the United States and elsewhere want
> > filtering software to become a standard tool of libraries and
> > schools, but numerous students are complaining that such software
> > actually hampers their schoolwork. Such complaints prompted
> > Peacefire to run several filtering programs through a list of
> > Amnesty International-related sites. The results of the study
> > show that the software blocks more news sites than sexually
> > oriented sites, Peacefire claims. Ironically, the Realtime
> > Blackhole List is blocking the Peacefire Web site because the
> > program discovered an unrelated site on the same Web hosting
> > service that could potentially send spam.
> > (Cnet, 15 December 2000)
> 



From Gilbert.Martin at za.didata.com  Thu Jan  4 01:00:06 2001
From: Gilbert.Martin at za.didata.com (Gilbert Martin @ Learning Solutions)
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 08:00:06 +0200 
Subject: Example of IP web issue in the press
Message-ID: <DC7ABD0A8338D311B2010008C79122EE03A523F1@zajnbddsexc1.didata.co.za>

I think its the cursed developers who claim to write efficient systems that
scan only the wrong sites??? :-)

-----Original Message-----
From: Jeffrey L Price [mailto:jeff at alexandriainternet.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 6:48 AM
To: Joe DeCosta; Charles T. Smith, Jr.
Cc: vwp at arin.net
Subject: Re: Example of IP web issue in the press


Perhaps the cure is worse than the disease?

-jeff

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Joe DeCosta" <decosta at bayconnect.com>
To: "Charles T. Smith, Jr." <cts at 5sc.net>
Cc: <vwp at arin.net>
Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 11:01 PM
Subject: Re: Example of IP web issue in the press


> Ooh gawd, can there be any more of comedy in this article talk about
> poetic justice :-)
> 
> 
> "Charles T. Smith, Jr." wrote:
> > 
> > Note the last part...
> > 
> > --
> > 
> > *****************************************************
> > Edupage is a service of EDUCAUSE, an international nonprofit
> > association dedicated to transforming education through
> > information technologies.
> > *****************************************************
> > 
> > [text deleted]
> > 
> > NEWS SITES MISTAKENLY BLOCKED BY FILTERS, STUDY SAYS
> > Internet filter programs are blocking access to many
> > non-offensive Web sites because of the high incidence of words
> > and phrases the filters search for, according to a study from
> > Peacefire.org. For example, the Cybersitter program identifies
> > an Amnesty.org news article as sexually explicit for containing
> > the phrase "at least 21." The phrase, however, is used to
> > describe the number of casualties in an international shooting
> > incident. Politicians in the United States and elsewhere want
> > filtering software to become a standard tool of libraries and
> > schools, but numerous students are complaining that such software
> > actually hampers their schoolwork. Such complaints prompted
> > Peacefire to run several filtering programs through a list of
> > Amnesty International-related sites. The results of the study
> > show that the software blocks more news sites than sexually
> > oriented sites, Peacefire claims. Ironically, the Realtime
> > Blackhole List is blocking the Peacefire Web site because the
> > program discovered an unrelated site on the same Web hosting
> > service that could potentially send spam.
> > (Cnet, 15 December 2000)
> 


**********************************************************************

The information in this e-mail is confidential and is legally privileged.
It is intended solely for the addressee.  If this email is not intended for
you, you cannot copy, distribute, or disclose the included information
to any-one

If you are not the intended recipient please delete the mail. Whilst
all reasonable steps have been taken to ensure the accuracy and
integrity of all data transmitted electronically, no liability is accepted
if the data, for whatever reason, is corrupt or does not reach it's
intended destination.
All business is undertaken, subject to our standard trading conditions
which are available on request.

*******************************************************************


From stephen at hnt.com  Thu Jan  4 09:00:09 2001
From: stephen at hnt.com (Stephen Elliott)
Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2001 09:00:09 -0500
Subject: Idea
Message-ID: <3A5481E9.4008148B@hnt.com>

	Everyone knows that there is an IP shortage under IPv4.  I was not
involved with previous discussions, I have however been running websites
for years and thought I would pitch out an idea for everyone to
discuss.  Under RFC 2050, which is the holy grail for ARIN, 25% of IP's
must be justified at the time of request with documented plans for 50%
utilization within 12 months.  IP based virtual hosting is used for many
reasons, and I do not believe that there is any good way to write a all
inclusive list of reasons that are good enough to overcome the 1 IP per
machine rule.  The best way that I see for fairly allowing people an
companies to get the addresses that they need is to charge for anything
above and beyond that.  I would throw out a number of $10-$15US per year
for small blocks.  This should be charged by ARIN through the
organization that is responsible for each net block.  One modification
of this could be a reverse scale upon which to charge, so that the more
an organization used IP based virtual hosting, the more they had to pay
per IP.
	I realize that there is going to be no easy solution to this, but a
fair and equitable way to distribute IP's to individuals and companies
that need them is imperitive to the stability of the Internet and it's
continued growth.
-Stephen

-- 
Stephen Elliott                 Harrison & Troxell
Systems & Networking Manager    2 Faneuil Hall Marketplace
Systems & Networking Group      Boston, Ma 02109
(617)227-0494 Phone             (617)720-3918 Fax


From billd at cait.wustl.edu  Thu Jan  4 10:00:12 2001
From: billd at cait.wustl.edu (Bill Darte)
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 09:00:12 -0600 
Subject: Been quiet in here...
Message-ID: <F0A77279DB36D111A6EC00A024DEE7AF3338D4@kronos.wustl.edu>

Not to be contentious, but "a small percentage of our customer use the
overwhelmingly largeset amount of address space" IS very vague.
I'm all for conservation, I am willing to support policy that enforces
conservation when need exists, but I am unwilling to support policy that is
based upon these anecdotal, rather than factual references.
Bill Darte

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Clayton Lambert [mailto:Clay at exodus.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 4:48 PM
> To: 'Bill Darte'; 'Alec H. Peterson'; vwp at arin.net
> Subject: RE: Been quiet in here...
> 
> 
> it is more than a vague notion.  It is a fact...
> 
> A small percentage of our Customers use the overwhelmingly 
> largest amounts
> of address space.
> 
> This policy should not scare web-hosters.  I think that 
> webhosters should
> make the attempt to be efficient with their use of address 
> space.  We have
> hammered our name-based hosting servers and we have not seen 
> an appreciable
> drop in performance compared to the same servers running IP 
> based hosting.
> If there is a valid reason for a service provider (any 
> service, not just
> webhosters) to use IP-based hosting, I think it is not 
> unreasonable to have
> them provide documentation to support that requirement.  
> Accountability
> isn't something that is necessarily bad.
> 
> -Clayton Lambert
> Exodus Communications
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of Bill
> Darte
> Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 1:24 PM
> To: 'Alec H. Peterson'; vwp at arin.net
> Subject: RE: Been quiet in here...
> 
> 
> I have seen no evidence that there is a problem. No scope, no 
> magnitude, no
> trends, just a vague notion that it is wasting "lots" of addresses.
> Bill Darte
> AC
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Alec H. Peterson [mailto:ahp at hilander.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 2:54 PM
> > To: vwp at arin.net
> > Subject: Been quiet in here...
> >
> >
> > Are there any more thoughts on what we should do with the
> > so-called 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 SRogers at Affinity.com  Thu Jan  4 09:53:24 2001
From: SRogers at Affinity.com (Scott Rogers)
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 06:53:24 -0800 
Subject: ARIN Justified...
Message-ID: <23AE217BF800D411B12500D0B73CF36E5B9F68@exchange.affinityla.com>

I'm the network engineer for a large dedicated server/colocation facility
and I agree that  IP addresses and their maintenance is a large pain in the
ass.  We have a little over 1/2 a clacc B equivelent and are still growing.

I have been trying to push customers to use "Name Based" virtual hosting,
and keep making the sales guys have customers justify needing more than
32 addresses.  We charge $1 per address per month, so it's an important
revenue stream.

As a "network engineer", it's also important to know that IP addresses
are a "fixed" resource.  When they are gone, that's it.  Yes, I know
that IPV6 will cure our problems.  Well they have been working on it
for over 8 years and we don't seem realistically very close to it.

People will hoard (hey anybody want to buy 48 pre CIDR class C addresse)
networks and address and then try to make a killing in the parket.  I
remember several years ago people offering to sell their class B addresses
that they had from old APRANET days for tens and hundreds of thousands
of dollars.

My point is, that the revenue stream is usless is you can't get more
addresses later.  We have to push back at our customers for REAL 
justifications,  and my providers and ARIN have to push back to me
me for the same.  ARIN, RIPE, et. al. then have to justify to the IANA
(or whatever) for allocations as well.

Market pricing won't give us the conservation we need.

WHat will help is to eliminate the need for REAL IP so people can use
NAME based servers.

Issues;
*	All browsers have to support HTTP/1.1 and name based browsing.
	Mostly done now  AOL and COMPUSERVE were the biggest offenders.

*	SSL Certificates may not always work with NAME based due to
	reverse IP not matching the certificates.

*	The biggest issue (to my customers), the SEARCH ENGINES need to
	support HTTP/1.1 and name based virtual servers.  Most do not.
	We, as a community, need to push the search engines into building
	in support.  If we do this, we will solve a significant
	portion of the problem.  The SSL requirements I feel are probably
	not a siginficant portion of the problem

Just my 2 cents.
-- 
Scott W. Rogers  <SRogers at affinity.com>   +1-410-558-2750   (Fax:
+1410-563-5457)
Network/Systems/Security Engineer -- SkyNetWEB, Ltd.  An Affinity Company
3500 Boston St. #231  --  Baltimore, Maryland 21224



-----Original Message-----
From: Joe DeCosta [mailto:decosta at bayconnect.com]
Sent: Wed

nesday, January 03, 2001 6:26 PM
To: Jawaid.Bazyar at forethought.net
Cc: Clayton Lambert; 'Alec H. Peterson'; vwp at arin.net
Subject: Re: Been quiet in here...


now, how about this, raise the pricing, and then donate the profit to some
NPO, or some such thing, i just *HATE* having to update the damned IP usage
spreadsheet and sending it to our uplink who owns the class C we have.  its
a pain in the ass, ever time we move stuff around on our network....... It
costs too much time to do it that way.  If the IP's are on a free market,
then why must we also then justify them?


----- Original Message -----
From: <Jawaid.Bazyar at forethought.net>
To: "Joe DeCosta" <decosta at bayconnect.com>
Cc: "Clayton Lambert" <Clay at exodus.net>; "'Alec H. Peterson'"
<ahp at hilander.com>; <vwp at arin.net>
Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 3:12 PM
Subject: Re: Been quiet in here...


>
> That's because in the lack of a "free market" for IP addresses, the
> pricing was set arbitrarily - to cover the expenses of operating ARIN.
>
> That's not to say that that is bad, or without reasoning. It's just that
> if you're going to disassociate the pricing from the costs necessary to
> administer ARIN, instead of raising the price to discourage waste, you
> should let people buy and sell blocks on an open market. Free markets are
> very sensitive to the scarcity of resources via the price mechanism.
>
> That's not saying I think IPs are particularly scarce. I've made the
> argument before that it seems that CIDR is more about saving face for
> Cisco's underpowered heaps than conserving IP space.
>
> However, the current IP allocation system works fairly well, and in that
> system the best approach is to tell people to stop provisioning web sites
> in a wasteful manner that was only every necessitated by flaws in the
> original technology.
>
> Besides, it's WAY easier to provision IP-less web sites. :)
>
>
>
> On Wed, 3 Jan 2001, Joe DeCosta wrote:
>
> > This modification i agree with, my only objection is that why should
people
> > have to justify the usage of their netblock, why not just up the costs
to
> > encourage them to use as few IP's as possible.  It would seem to be more
> > effective.  Just my thoughts.
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Clayton Lambert" <Clay at exodus.net>
> > To: "'Alec H. Peterson'" <ahp at hilander.com>; <vwp at arin.net>
> > Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 2:40 PM
> > Subject: RE: Been quiet in here...
> >
> >
> > > We should re-institute the policy with modifications to the text for
> > > clarity.  Service providing should be the catch word instead of
> > web-hosting.
> > >
> > > There should be clear reference to technical exceptions to the policy
> > (this
> > > should NOT be in the form of specific exceptions, as technical reasons
for
> > > exception to the policy can easily step beyond the ability of a
"list",
> > > hence the reason for maintainer discretion), only technical exceptions
> > > should be allowed (as opposed to policy exceptions). The entity
assigned
> > the
> > > overall netblock should have discretion for determining the exceptions
to
> > > the policy and should maintain the documentation for the exception,
and
> > make
> > > the info available to ARIN on in audit-style format (NDA should be
> > manditory
> > > between the Netblock maintainer and ARIN).
> > >
> > > Clay
> > > Exodus Communications
> > >
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of Alec
H.
> > > Peterson
> > > Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 12:54 PM
> > > To: vwp at arin.net
> > > Subject: Been quiet in here...
> > >
> > >
> > > Are there any more thoughts on what we should do with the so-called
> > 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!"
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
> --
>  Jawaid Bazyar                 |   Affordable WWW & Internet Solutions
>  foreThought.net               |   for Small Business
>  jawaid.bazyar at foreThought.net |   910 16th Street, #1220  (303) 228-0070
>  --The Future is Now!--        |   Denver, CO 80202        (303) 228-0077
fax
>


From SRogers at Affinity.com  Thu Jan  4 11:18:30 2001
From: SRogers at Affinity.com (Scott Rogers)
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 08:18:30 -0800 
Subject: ARIN Justified...
Message-ID: <23AE217BF800D411B12500D0B73CF36E5B9F69@exchange.affinityla.com>

Because if you don't, you will use up all the available IP addresses.
 
It's like tree's in a forest.  They are cheap.  But if you cut them ALL
down, then what do you do for wood ?
 
The problem is:
1.    We want lots of web sites.
2.    We need IP addresses.
3.    There are only so many IP addresses to go around.
So,
4.    How can I have lots of Web sites, without using up all the IP
addresses.
 
Big guys (GE, IBM, CISCO, EBAY, etc) can afford $1,000 or $2,000 per IP,
which is what they could cost if we exhaust them (and have only a small pool
left).
Can you afford that much money to start a web site?  
The law of supply and demand will eventually rule.

-----Original Message-----
From: Bill Cartwright [mailto:bill at hergoods.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 10:27 AM
To: Scott Rogers
Subject: Re: ARIN Justified...


Why bother with name based hosting with all the issues against it. If name
based hosting prevents you from getting on a search engine, why do it.
Bill Cartwright
----- Original Message ----- 

From: Scott  <mailto:SRogers at Affinity.com> Rogers 
To: 'Joe  <mailto:decosta at bayconnect.com> DeCosta' ; 'vwp at arin.net'
<mailto:'vwp at arin.net'>  
Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 8:53 AM
Subject: ARIN Justified...

I'm the network engineer for a large dedicated server/colocation facility
and I agree that  IP addresses and their maintenance is a large pain in the
ass.  We have a little over 1/2 a clacc B equivelent and are still growing.

I have been trying to push customers to use "Name Based" virtual hosting,
and keep making the sales guys have customers justify needing more than
32 addresses.  We charge $1 per address per month, so it's an important
revenue stream.

As a "network engineer", it's also important to know that IP addresses
are a "fixed" resource.  When they are gone, that's it.  Yes, I know
that IPV6 will cure our problems.  Well they have been working on it
for over 8 years and we don't seem realistically very close to it.

People will hoard (hey anybody want to buy 48 pre CIDR class C addresse)
networks and address and then try to make a killing in the parket.  I
remember several years ago people offering to sell their class B addresses
that they had from old APRANET days for tens and hundreds of thousands
of dollars.

My point is, that the revenue stream is usless is you can't get more
addresses later.  We have to push back at our customers for REAL 
justifications,  and my providers and ARIN have to push back to me
me for the same.  ARIN, RIPE, et. al. then have to justify to the IANA
(or whatever) for allocations as well.

Market pricing won't give us the conservation we need.

WHat will help is to eliminate the need for REAL IP so people can use
NAME based servers.

Issues;
* All browsers have to support HTTP/1.1 and name based browsing.
Mostly done now  AOL and COMPUSERVE were the biggest offenders.

* SSL Certificates may not always work with NAME based due to
reverse IP not matching the certificates.

* The biggest issue (to my customers), the SEARCH ENGINES need to
support HTTP/1.1 and name based virtual servers.  Most do not.
We, as a community, need to push the search engines into building
in support.  If we do this, we will solve a significant
portion of the problem.  The SSL requirements I feel are probably
not a siginficant portion of the problem

Just my 2 cents.
-- 
Scott W. Rogers  < SRogers at affinity.com <mailto:SRogers at affinity.com> >
+1-410-558-2750   (Fax:
+1410-563-5457)
Network/Systems/Security Engineer -- SkyNetWEB, Ltd.  An Affinity Company
3500 Boston St. #231  --  Baltimore, Maryland 21224



-----Original Message-----
From: Joe DeCosta [mailto:decosta at bayconnect.com]
Sent: Wed

nesday, January 03, 2001 6:26 PM
To: Jawaid.Bazyar at forethought.net <mailto:Jawaid.Bazyar at forethought.net> 
Cc: Clayton Lambert; 'Alec H. Peterson'; vwp at arin.net <mailto:vwp at arin.net> 
Subject: Re: Been quiet in here...


now, how about this, raise the pricing, and then donate the profit to some
NPO, or some such thing, i just *HATE* having to update the damned IP usage
spreadsheet and sending it to our uplink who owns the class C we have.  its
a pain in the ass, ever time we move stuff around on our network....... It
costs too much time to do it that way.  If the IP's are on a free market,
then why must we also then justify them?


----- Original Message -----
From: < Jawaid.Bazyar at forethought.net <mailto:Jawaid.Bazyar at forethought.net>
>
To: "Joe DeCosta" < decosta at bayconnect.com <mailto:decosta at bayconnect.com> >
Cc: "Clayton Lambert" < Clay at exodus.net <mailto:Clay at exodus.net> >; "'Alec
H. Peterson'"
< ahp at hilander.com <mailto:ahp at hilander.com> >; < vwp at arin.net
<mailto:vwp at arin.net> >
Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 3:12 PM
Subject: Re: Been quiet in here...


>
> That's because in the lack of a "free market" for IP addresses, the
> pricing was set arbitrarily - to cover the expenses of operating ARIN.
>
> That's not to say that that is bad, or without reasoning. It's just that
> if you're going to disassociate the pricing from the costs necessary to
> administer ARIN, instead of raising the price to discourage waste, you
> should let people buy and sell blocks on an open market. Free markets are
> very sensitive to the scarcity of resources via the price mechanism.
>
> That's not saying I think IPs are particularly scarce. I've made the
> argument before that it seems that CIDR is more about saving face for
> Cisco's underpowered heaps than conserving IP space.
>
> However, the current IP allocation system works fairly well, and in that
> system the best approach is to tell people to stop provisioning web sites
> in a wasteful manner that was only every necessitated by flaws in the
> original technology.
>
> Besides, it's WAY easier to provision IP-less web sites. :)
>
>
>
> On Wed, 3 Jan 2001, Joe DeCosta wrote:
>
> > This modification i agree with, my only objection is that why should
people
> > have to justify the usage of their netblock, why not just up the costs
to
> > encourage them to use as few IP's as possible.  It would seem to be more
> > effective.  Just my thoughts.
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Clayton Lambert" < Clay at exodus.net <mailto:Clay at exodus.net> >
> > To: "'Alec H. Peterson'" < ahp at hilander.com <mailto:ahp at hilander.com> >;
< vwp at arin.net <mailto:vwp at arin.net> >
> > Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 2:40 PM
> > Subject: RE: Been quiet in here...
> >
> >
> > > We should re-institute the policy with modifications to the text for
> > > clarity.  Service providing should be the catch word instead of
> > web-hosting.
> > >
> > > There should be clear reference to technical exceptions to the policy
> > (this
> > > should NOT be in the form of specific exceptions, as technical reasons
for
> > > exception to the policy can easily step beyond the ability of a
"list",
> > > hence the reason for maintainer discretion), only technical exceptions
> > > should be allowed (as opposed to policy exceptions). The entity
assigned
> > the
> > > overall netblock should have discretion for determining the exceptions
to
> > > the policy and should maintain the documentation for the exception,
and
> > make
> > > the info available to ARIN on in audit-style format (NDA should be
> > manditory
> > > between the Netblock maintainer and ARIN).
> > >
> > > Clay
> > > Exodus Communications
> > >
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: owner-vwp at arin.net <mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net>
[mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of Alec
H.
> > > Peterson
> > > Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 12:54 PM
> > > To: vwp at arin.net <mailto:vwp at arin.net> 
> > > Subject: Been quiet in here...
> > >
> > >
> > > Are there any more thoughts on what we should do with the so-called
> > virtual
> > > hosting policy?
> > >
> > > Alec
> > >
> > > --
> > > Alec H. Peterson - ahp at hilander.com <mailto:ahp at hilander.com> 
> > > Staff Scientist
> > > CenterGate Research Group - http://www.centergate.com
<http://www.centergate.com> 
> > > "Technology so advanced, even _we_ don't understand it!"
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
> --
>  Jawaid Bazyar                 |   Affordable WWW & Internet Solutions
>  foreThought.net               |   for Small Business
>  jawaid.bazyar at foreThought.net <mailto:jawaid.bazyar at foreThought.net>  |
910 16th Street, #1220  (303) 228-0070
>  --The Future is Now!--        |   Denver, CO 80202        (303) 228-0077
fax
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://eris.arin.net/pipermail/vwp/attachments/20010104/1bcb4cff/attachment.html

From mharrigan at winfirst.com  Thu Jan  4 11:23:03 2001
From: mharrigan at winfirst.com (mharrigan@winfirst.com)
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 09:23:03 -0700 
Subject: Idea
Message-ID: <26DF1A71B46FD411A55700508B6FD7F409B5E6@MTELBERT>


$.02 - 
If there were a shortage of rice in China, I'm not sure
that charging more for it would solve the fact that there
isn't enough, regardless of what the RFC for rice is.

-Matt 

Matthew G. Harrigan
Vice President, Internet Services
WinFirst
303-407-1661  
www.winfirst.com
 

-----Original Message-----
From: Stephen Elliott [mailto:stephen at hnt.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 7:00 AM
To: Virtual IP List
Subject: Idea


	Everyone knows that there is an IP shortage under IPv4.  I was not
involved with previous discussions, I have however been running websites
for years and thought I would pitch out an idea for everyone to
discuss.  Under RFC 2050, which is the holy grail for ARIN, 25% of IP's
must be justified at the time of request with documented plans for 50%
utilization within 12 months.  IP based virtual hosting is used for many
reasons, and I do not believe that there is any good way to write a all
inclusive list of reasons that are good enough to overcome the 1 IP per
machine rule.  The best way that I see for fairly allowing people an
companies to get the addresses that they need is to charge for anything
above and beyond that.  I would throw out a number of $10-$15US per year
for small blocks.  This should be charged by ARIN through the
organization that is responsible for each net block.  One modification
of this could be a reverse scale upon which to charge, so that the more
an organization used IP based virtual hosting, the more they had to pay
per IP.
	I realize that there is going to be no easy solution to this, but a
fair and equitable way to distribute IP's to individuals and companies
that need them is imperitive to the stability of the Internet and it's
continued growth.
-Stephen

-- 
Stephen Elliott                 Harrison & Troxell
Systems & Networking Manager    2 Faneuil Hall Marketplace
Systems & Networking Group      Boston, Ma 02109
(617)227-0494 Phone             (617)720-3918 Fax
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://eris.arin.net/pipermail/vwp/attachments/20010104/39ffd020/attachment.html

From jeff at alexandriainternet.com  Thu Jan  4 12:43:00 2001
From: jeff at alexandriainternet.com (Jeffrey L Price)
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 12:43:00 -0500
Subject: ARIN Justified...
References: <23AE217BF800D411B12500D0B73CF36E5B9F69@exchange.affinityla.com>
Message-ID: <042a01c07675$caceb710$a9e2d83f@alexandiainternet.com>

I have seen the term "lots" or "many", what I would like to know is which search engines use IP address instead of URL?  Specifically by name.

-jeff
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Scott Rogers 
  To: 'Bill Cartwright' ; Scott Rogers 
  Cc: Adam Douglass ; 'vwp at arin.net' 
  Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 11:18 AM
  Subject: RE: ARIN Justified...


  Because if you don't, you will use up all the available IP addresses.

  It's like tree's in a forest.  They are cheap.  But if you cut them ALL
  down, then what do you do for wood ?

  The problem is:
  1.    We want lots of web sites.
  2.    We need IP addresses.
  3.    There are only so many IP addresses to go around.
  So,
  4.    How can I have lots of Web sites, without using up all the IP addresses.

  Big guys (GE, IBM, CISCO, EBAY, etc) can afford $1,000 or $2,000 per IP,
  which is what they could cost if we exhaust them (and have only a small pool left).
  Can you afford that much money to start a web site?  
  The law of supply and demand will eventually rule.
    -----Original Message-----
    From: Bill Cartwright [mailto:bill at hergoods.com]
    Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 10:27 AM
    To: Scott Rogers
    Subject: Re: ARIN Justified...


    Why bother with name based hosting with all the issues against it. If name based hosting prevents you from getting on a search engine, why do it.
    Bill Cartwright
    ----- Original Message ----- 
      From: Scott Rogers 
      To: 'Joe DeCosta' ; 'vwp at arin.net' 
      Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 8:53 AM
      Subject: ARIN Justified...


      I'm the network engineer for a large dedicated server/colocation facility
      and I agree that  IP addresses and their maintenance is a large pain in the
      ass.  We have a little over 1/2 a clacc B equivelent and are still growing.

      I have been trying to push customers to use "Name Based" virtual hosting,
      and keep making the sales guys have customers justify needing more than
      32 addresses.  We charge $1 per address per month, so it's an important
      revenue stream.

      As a "network engineer", it's also important to know that IP addresses
      are a "fixed" resource.  When they are gone, that's it.  Yes, I know
      that IPV6 will cure our problems.  Well they have been working on it
      for over 8 years and we don't seem realistically very close to it.

      People will hoard (hey anybody want to buy 48 pre CIDR class C addresse)
      networks and address and then try to make a killing in the parket.  I
      remember several years ago people offering to sell their class B addresses
      that they had from old APRANET days for tens and hundreds of thousands
      of dollars.

      My point is, that the revenue stream is usless is you can't get more
      addresses later.  We have to push back at our customers for REAL 
      justifications,  and my providers and ARIN have to push back to me
      me for the same.  ARIN, RIPE, et. al. then have to justify to the IANA
      (or whatever) for allocations as well.

      Market pricing won't give us the conservation we need.

      WHat will help is to eliminate the need for REAL IP so people can use
      NAME based servers.

      Issues;
      * All browsers have to support HTTP/1.1 and name based browsing.
      Mostly done now  AOL and COMPUSERVE were the biggest offenders.

      * SSL Certificates may not always work with NAME based due to
      reverse IP not matching the certificates.

      * The biggest issue (to my customers), the SEARCH ENGINES need to
      support HTTP/1.1 and name based virtual servers.  Most do not.
      We, as a community, need to push the search engines into building
      in support.  If we do this, we will solve a significant
      portion of the problem.  The SSL requirements I feel are probably
      not a siginficant portion of the problem

      Just my 2 cents.
      -- 
      Scott W. Rogers  <SRogers at affinity.com>   +1-410-558-2750   (Fax:
      +1410-563-5457)
      Network/Systems/Security Engineer -- SkyNetWEB, Ltd.  An Affinity Company
      3500 Boston St. #231  --  Baltimore, Maryland 21224



      -----Original Message-----
      From: Joe DeCosta [mailto:decosta at bayconnect.com]
      Sent: Wed

      nesday, January 03, 2001 6:26 PM
      To: Jawaid.Bazyar at forethought.net
      Cc: Clayton Lambert; 'Alec H. Peterson'; vwp at arin.net
      Subject: Re: Been quiet in here...


      now, how about this, raise the pricing, and then donate the profit to some
      NPO, or some such thing, i just *HATE* having to update the damned IP usage
      spreadsheet and sending it to our uplink who owns the class C we have.  its
      a pain in the ass, ever time we move stuff around on our network....... It
      costs too much time to do it that way.  If the IP's are on a free market,
      then why must we also then justify them?


      ----- Original Message -----
      From: <Jawaid.Bazyar at forethought.net>
      To: "Joe DeCosta" <decosta at bayconnect.com>
      Cc: "Clayton Lambert" <Clay at exodus.net>; "'Alec H. Peterson'"
      <ahp at hilander.com>; <vwp at arin.net>
      Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 3:12 PM
      Subject: Re: Been quiet in here...


      >
      > That's because in the lack of a "free market" for IP addresses, the
      > pricing was set arbitrarily - to cover the expenses of operating ARIN.
      >
      > That's not to say that that is bad, or without reasoning. It's just that
      > if you're going to disassociate the pricing from the costs necessary to
      > administer ARIN, instead of raising the price to discourage waste, you
      > should let people buy and sell blocks on an open market. Free markets are
      > very sensitive to the scarcity of resources via the price mechanism.
      >
      > That's not saying I think IPs are particularly scarce. I've made the
      > argument before that it seems that CIDR is more about saving face for
      > Cisco's underpowered heaps than conserving IP space.
      >
      > However, the current IP allocation system works fairly well, and in that
      > system the best approach is to tell people to stop provisioning web sites
      > in a wasteful manner that was only every necessitated by flaws in the
      > original technology.
      >
      > Besides, it's WAY easier to provision IP-less web sites. :)
      >
      >
      >
      > On Wed, 3 Jan 2001, Joe DeCosta wrote:
      >
      > > This modification i agree with, my only objection is that why should
      people
      > > have to justify the usage of their netblock, why not just up the costs
      to
      > > encourage them to use as few IP's as possible.  It would seem to be more
      > > effective.  Just my thoughts.
      > > ----- Original Message -----
      > > From: "Clayton Lambert" <Clay at exodus.net>
      > > To: "'Alec H. Peterson'" <ahp at hilander.com>; <vwp at arin.net>
      > > Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 2:40 PM
      > > Subject: RE: Been quiet in here...
      > >
      > >
      > > > We should re-institute the policy with modifications to the text for
      > > > clarity.  Service providing should be the catch word instead of
      > > web-hosting.
      > > >
      > > > There should be clear reference to technical exceptions to the policy
      > > (this
      > > > should NOT be in the form of specific exceptions, as technical reasons
      for
      > > > exception to the policy can easily step beyond the ability of a
      "list",
      > > > hence the reason for maintainer discretion), only technical exceptions
      > > > should be allowed (as opposed to policy exceptions). The entity
      assigned
      > > the
      > > > overall netblock should have discretion for determining the exceptions
      to
      > > > the policy and should maintain the documentation for the exception,
      and
      > > make
      > > > the info available to ARIN on in audit-style format (NDA should be
      > > manditory
      > > > between the Netblock maintainer and ARIN).
      > > >
      > > > Clay
      > > > Exodus Communications
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > -----Original Message-----
      > > > From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of Alec
      H.
      > > > Peterson
      > > > Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 12:54 PM
      > > > To: vwp at arin.net
      > > > Subject: Been quiet in here...
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > Are there any more thoughts on what we should do with the so-called
      > > 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!"
      > > >
      > > >
      > >
      > >
      >
      > --
      >  Jawaid Bazyar                 |   Affordable WWW & Internet Solutions
      >  foreThought.net               |   for Small Business
      >  jawaid.bazyar at foreThought.net |   910 16th Street, #1220  (303) 228-0070
      >  --The Future is Now!--        |   Denver, CO 80202        (303) 228-0077
      fax
      >
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://eris.arin.net/pipermail/vwp/attachments/20010104/b8eae459/attachment.html

From ahp at hilander.com  Thu Jan  4 12:32:27 2001
From: ahp at hilander.com (Alec H. Peterson)
Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2001 10:32:27 -0700
Subject: ARIN Justified...
References: <23AE217BF800D411B12500D0B73CF36E5B9F68@exchange.affinityla.com>
Message-ID: <3A54B3AB.B7130F33@hilander.com>

Scott Rogers wrote:
> 
> Issues;
> *       All browsers have to support HTTP/1.1 and name based browsing.
>         Mostly done now  AOL and COMPUSERVE were the biggest offenders.

Strictly speaking, a browser can support name-based browsing without having
full support for HTTP/1.1.

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 Clay at exodus.net  Thu Jan  4 12:44:34 2001
From: Clay at exodus.net (Clayton Lambert)
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 09:44:34 -0800
Subject: Been quiet in here...
In-Reply-To: <F0A77279DB36D111A6EC00A024DEE7AF3338D4@kronos.wustl.edu>
Message-ID: <200101041744.JAA22458@exoserv.exodus.net>

I was generalizing, not being vague.  It is an interesting point that
relates to this discussion.  I don't think the comment warrented an overly
deep analysis.  I am not at liberty to disclose the detailed demographics of
our Customers, but the trend is clear (for me, as the maintainer within my
company) that webhosting companies do indeed consume the lions share of IP
address space while operating a relatively small percentage of the physical
devices that we support.

-Clay

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of Bill
Darte
Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 7:00 AM
To: 'Clayton Lambert'; vwp at arin.net
Subject: RE: Been quiet in here...


Not to be contentious, but "a small percentage of our customer use the
overwhelmingly largeset amount of address space" IS very vague.
I'm all for conservation, I am willing to support policy that enforces
conservation when need exists, but I am unwilling to support policy that is
based upon these anecdotal, rather than factual references.
Bill Darte

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Clayton Lambert [mailto:Clay at exodus.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 4:48 PM
> To: 'Bill Darte'; 'Alec H. Peterson'; vwp at arin.net
> Subject: RE: Been quiet in here...
>
>
> it is more than a vague notion.  It is a fact...
>
> A small percentage of our Customers use the overwhelmingly
> largest amounts
> of address space.
>
> This policy should not scare web-hosters.  I think that
> webhosters should
> make the attempt to be efficient with their use of address
> space.  We have
> hammered our name-based hosting servers and we have not seen
> an appreciable
> drop in performance compared to the same servers running IP
> based hosting.
> If there is a valid reason for a service provider (any
> service, not just
> webhosters) to use IP-based hosting, I think it is not
> unreasonable to have
> them provide documentation to support that requirement.
> Accountability
> isn't something that is necessarily bad.
>
> -Clayton Lambert
> Exodus Communications
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of Bill
> Darte
> Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 1:24 PM
> To: 'Alec H. Peterson'; vwp at arin.net
> Subject: RE: Been quiet in here...
>
>
> I have seen no evidence that there is a problem. No scope, no
> magnitude, no
> trends, just a vague notion that it is wasting "lots" of addresses.
> Bill Darte
> AC
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Alec H. Peterson [mailto:ahp at hilander.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 2:54 PM
> > To: vwp at arin.net
> > Subject: Been quiet in here...
> >
> >
> > Are there any more thoughts on what we should do with the
> > so-called 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 lgilbert at rawhideinc.com  Thu Jan  4 12:58:45 2001
From: lgilbert at rawhideinc.com (Leo Gilbert)
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 12:58:45 -0500
Subject: ARIN Justified...
Message-ID: <9B6F2B6780A5A2409DA1F12DC363F01802A725@EXCHANGE02.rawhideinc.com>

We need to get the search engines to support HTTP/1.1 and named based
virtual servers. If this happens a big portion of our space problem can
be solved. 

-----Original Message-----
From: Jeffrey L Price [mailto:jeff at alexandriainternet.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 12:43 PM
To: Scott Rogers; 'Bill Cartwright'
Cc: Adam Douglass; vwp at arin.net
Subject: Re: ARIN Justified...


I have seen the term "lots" or "many", what I would like to know is
which search engines use IP address instead of URL?  Specifically by
name.
 
-jeff

----- Original Message ----- 
From: Scott  <mailto:SRogers at Affinity.com> Rogers 
To: 'Bill Cartwright' <mailto:bill at hergoods.com>  ; Scott
<mailto:SRogers at Affinity.com> Rogers 
Cc: Adam  <mailto:ADouglass at Affinity.com> Douglass ; 'vwp at arin.net'
<mailto:'vwp at arin.net'>  
Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 11:18 AM
Subject: RE: ARIN Justified...

Because if you don't, you will use up all the available IP addresses.
 
It's like tree's in a forest.  They are cheap.  But if you cut them ALL
down, then what do you do for wood ?
 
The problem is:
1.    We want lots of web sites.
2.    We need IP addresses.
3.    There are only so many IP addresses to go around.
So,
4.    How can I have lots of Web sites, without using up all the IP
addresses.
 
Big guys (GE, IBM, CISCO, EBAY, etc) can afford $1,000 or $2,000 per IP,
which is what they could cost if we exhaust them (and have only a small
pool left).
Can you afford that much money to start a web site?  
The law of supply and demand will eventually rule.

-----Original Message-----
From: Bill Cartwright [mailto:bill at hergoods.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 10:27 AM
To: Scott Rogers
Subject: Re: ARIN Justified...


Why bother with name based hosting with all the issues against it. If
name based hosting prevents you from getting on a search engine, why do
it.
Bill Cartwright
----- Original Message ----- 

From: Scott  <mailto:SRogers at Affinity.com> Rogers 
To: 'Joe  <mailto:decosta at bayconnect.com> DeCosta' ; 'vwp at arin.net'
<mailto:'vwp at arin.net'>  
Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 8:53 AM
Subject: ARIN Justified...

I'm the network engineer for a large dedicated server/colocation
facility
and I agree that  IP addresses and their maintenance is a large pain in
the
ass.  We have a little over 1/2 a clacc B equivelent and are still
growing.

I have been trying to push customers to use "Name Based" virtual
hosting,
and keep making the sales guys have customers justify needing more than
32 addresses.  We charge $1 per address per month, so it's an important
revenue stream.

As a "network engineer", it's also important to know that IP addresses
are a "fixed" resource.  When they are gone, that's it.  Yes, I know
that IPV6 will cure our problems.  Well they have been working on it
for over 8 years and we don't seem realistically very close to it.

People will hoard (hey anybody want to buy 48 pre CIDR class C addresse)
networks and address and then try to make a killing in the parket.  I
remember several years ago people offering to sell their class B
addresses
that they had from old APRANET days for tens and hundreds of thousands
of dollars.

My point is, that the revenue stream is usless is you can't get more
addresses later.  We have to push back at our customers for REAL 
justifications,  and my providers and ARIN have to push back to me
me for the same.  ARIN, RIPE, et. al. then have to justify to the IANA
(or whatever) for allocations as well.

Market pricing won't give us the conservation we need.

WHat will help is to eliminate the need for REAL IP so people can use
NAME based servers.

Issues;
* All browsers have to support HTTP/1.1 and name based browsing.
Mostly done now  AOL and COMPUSERVE were the biggest offenders.

* SSL Certificates may not always work with NAME based due to
reverse IP not matching the certificates.

* The biggest issue (to my customers), the SEARCH ENGINES need to
support HTTP/1.1 and name based virtual servers.  Most do not.
We, as a community, need to push the search engines into building
in support.  If we do this, we will solve a significant
portion of the problem.  The SSL requirements I feel are probably
not a siginficant portion of the problem

Just my 2 cents.
-- 
Scott W. Rogers  < SRogers at affinity.com <mailto:SRogers at affinity.com> >
+1-410-558-2750   (Fax:
+1410-563-5457)
Network/Systems/Security Engineer -- SkyNetWEB, Ltd.  An Affinity
Company
3500 Boston St. #231  --  Baltimore, Maryland 21224



-----Original Message-----
From: Joe DeCosta [mailto:decosta at bayconnect.com]
Sent: Wed

nesday, January 03, 2001 6:26 PM
To: Jawaid.Bazyar at forethought.net <mailto:Jawaid.Bazyar at forethought.net>

Cc: Clayton Lambert; 'Alec H. Peterson'; vwp at arin.net
<mailto:vwp at arin.net> 
Subject: Re: Been quiet in here...


now, how about this, raise the pricing, and then donate the profit to
some
NPO, or some such thing, i just *HATE* having to update the damned IP
usage
spreadsheet and sending it to our uplink who owns the class C we have.
its
a pain in the ass, ever time we move stuff around on our network.......
It
costs too much time to do it that way.  If the IP's are on a free
market,
then why must we also then justify them?


----- Original Message -----
From: < Jawaid.Bazyar at forethought.net
<mailto:Jawaid.Bazyar at forethought.net> >
To: "Joe DeCosta" < decosta at bayconnect.com
<mailto:decosta at bayconnect.com> >
Cc: "Clayton Lambert" < Clay at exodus.net <mailto:Clay at exodus.net> >;
"'Alec H. Peterson'"
< ahp at hilander.com <mailto:ahp at hilander.com> >; < vwp at arin.net
<mailto:vwp at arin.net> >
Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 3:12 PM
Subject: Re: Been quiet in here...


>
> That's because in the lack of a "free market" for IP addresses, the
> pricing was set arbitrarily - to cover the expenses of operating ARIN.
>
> That's not to say that that is bad, or without reasoning. It's just
that
> if you're going to disassociate the pricing from the costs necessary
to
> administer ARIN, instead of raising the price to discourage waste, you
> should let people buy and sell blocks on an open market. Free markets
are
> very sensitive to the scarcity of resources via the price mechanism.
>
> That's not saying I think IPs are particularly scarce. I've made the
> argument before that it seems that CIDR is more about saving face for
> Cisco's underpowered heaps than conserving IP space.
>
> However, the current IP allocation system works fairly well, and in
that
> system the best approach is to tell people to stop provisioning web
sites
> in a wasteful manner that was only every necessitated by flaws in the
> original technology.
>
> Besides, it's WAY easier to provision IP-less web sites. :)
>
>
>
> On Wed, 3 Jan 2001, Joe DeCosta wrote:
>
> > This modification i agree with, my only objection is that why should
people
> > have to justify the usage of their netblock, why not just up the
costs
to
> > encourage them to use as few IP's as possible.  It would seem to be
more
> > effective.  Just my thoughts.
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Clayton Lambert" < Clay at exodus.net <mailto:Clay at exodus.net> >
> > To: "'Alec H. Peterson'" < ahp at hilander.com
<mailto:ahp at hilander.com> >; < vwp at arin.net <mailto:vwp at arin.net> >
> > Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 2:40 PM
> > Subject: RE: Been quiet in here...
> >
> >
> > > We should re-institute the policy with modifications to the text
for
> > > clarity.  Service providing should be the catch word instead of
> > web-hosting.
> > >
> > > There should be clear reference to technical exceptions to the
policy
> > (this
> > > should NOT be in the form of specific exceptions, as technical
reasons
for
> > > exception to the policy can easily step beyond the ability of a
"list",
> > > hence the reason for maintainer discretion), only technical
exceptions
> > > should be allowed (as opposed to policy exceptions). The entity
assigned
> > the
> > > overall netblock should have discretion for determining the
exceptions
to
> > > the policy and should maintain the documentation for the
exception,
and
> > make
> > > the info available to ARIN on in audit-style format (NDA should be
> > manditory
> > > between the Netblock maintainer and ARIN).
> > >
> > > Clay
> > > Exodus Communications
> > >
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: owner-vwp at arin.net <mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net>
[mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of Alec
H.
> > > Peterson
> > > Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 12:54 PM
> > > To: vwp at arin.net <mailto:vwp at arin.net> 
> > > Subject: Been quiet in here...
> > >
> > >
> > > Are there any more thoughts on what we should do with the
so-called
> > virtual
> > > hosting policy?
> > >
> > > Alec
> > >
> > > --
> > > Alec H. Peterson - ahp at hilander.com <mailto:ahp at hilander.com> 
> > > Staff Scientist
> > > CenterGate Research Group - http://www.centergate.com
<http://www.centergate.com> 
> > > "Technology so advanced, even _we_ don't understand it!"
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
> --
>  Jawaid Bazyar                 |   Affordable WWW & Internet Solutions
>  foreThought.net               |   for Small Business
>  jawaid.bazyar at foreThought.net <mailto:jawaid.bazyar at foreThought.net>
|   910 16th Street, #1220  (303) 228-0070
>  --The Future is Now!--        |   Denver, CO 80202        (303)
228-0077
fax
>



From SRogers at Affinity.com  Thu Jan  4 14:01:07 2001
From: SRogers at Affinity.com (Scott Rogers)
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 11:01:07 -0800 
Subject: ARIN Justified...
Message-ID: <23AE217BF800D411B12500D0B73CF36E5B9F6B@exchange.affinityla.com>

Yahoo, Lycos, GO, ...

-----Original Message-----
From: Jeffrey L Price [mailto:jeff at alexandriainternet.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 12:43 PM
To: Scott Rogers; 'Bill Cartwright'
Cc: Adam Douglass; vwp at arin.net
Subject: Re: ARIN Justified...


I have seen the term "lots" or "many", what I would like to know is which
search engines use IP address instead of URL?  Specifically by name.
 
-jeff

----- Original Message ----- 
From: Scott  <mailto:SRogers at Affinity.com> Rogers 
To: 'Bill Cartwright' <mailto:bill at hergoods.com>  ; Scott
<mailto:SRogers at Affinity.com> Rogers 
Cc: Adam  <mailto:ADouglass at Affinity.com> Douglass ; 'vwp at arin.net'
<mailto:'vwp at arin.net'>  
Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 11:18 AM
Subject: RE: ARIN Justified...

Because if you don't, you will use up all the available IP addresses.
 
It's like tree's in a forest.  They are cheap.  But if you cut them ALL
down, then what do you do for wood ?
 
The problem is:
1.    We want lots of web sites.
2.    We need IP addresses.
3.    There are only so many IP addresses to go around.
So,
4.    How can I have lots of Web sites, without using up all the IP
addresses.
 
Big guys (GE, IBM, CISCO, EBAY, etc) can afford $1,000 or $2,000 per IP,
which is what they could cost if we exhaust them (and have only a small pool
left).
Can you afford that much money to start a web site?  
The law of supply and demand will eventually rule.

-----Original Message-----
From: Bill Cartwright [mailto:bill at hergoods.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 10:27 AM
To: Scott Rogers
Subject: Re: ARIN Justified...


Why bother with name based hosting with all the issues against it. If name
based hosting prevents you from getting on a search engine, why do it.
Bill Cartwright
----- Original Message ----- 

From: Scott  <mailto:SRogers at Affinity.com> Rogers 
To: 'Joe  <mailto:decosta at bayconnect.com> DeCosta' ; 'vwp at arin.net'
<mailto:'vwp at arin.net'>  
Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 8:53 AM
Subject: ARIN Justified...

I'm the network engineer for a large dedicated server/colocation facility
and I agree that  IP addresses and their maintenance is a large pain in the
ass.  We have a little over 1/2 a clacc B equivelent and are still growing.

I have been trying to push customers to use "Name Based" virtual hosting,
and keep making the sales guys have customers justify needing more than
32 addresses.  We charge $1 per address per month, so it's an important
revenue stream.

As a "network engineer", it's also important to know that IP addresses
are a "fixed" resource.  When they are gone, that's it.  Yes, I know
that IPV6 will cure our problems.  Well they have been working on it
for over 8 years and we don't seem realistically very close to it.

People will hoard (hey anybody want to buy 48 pre CIDR class C addresse)
networks and address and then try to make a killing in the parket.  I
remember several years ago people offering to sell their class B addresses
that they had from old APRANET days for tens and hundreds of thousands
of dollars.

My point is, that the revenue stream is usless is you can't get more
addresses later.  We have to push back at our customers for REAL 
justifications,  and my providers and ARIN have to push back to me
me for the same.  ARIN, RIPE, et. al. then have to justify to the IANA
(or whatever) for allocations as well.

Market pricing won't give us the conservation we need.

WHat will help is to eliminate the need for REAL IP so people can use
NAME based servers.

Issues;
* All browsers have to support HTTP/1.1 and name based browsing.
Mostly done now  AOL and COMPUSERVE were the biggest offenders.

* SSL Certificates may not always work with NAME based due to
reverse IP not matching the certificates.

* The biggest issue (to my customers), the SEARCH ENGINES need to
support HTTP/1.1 and name based virtual servers.  Most do not.
We, as a community, need to push the search engines into building
in support.  If we do this, we will solve a significant
portion of the problem.  The SSL requirements I feel are probably
not a siginficant portion of the problem

Just my 2 cents.
-- 
Scott W. Rogers  < SRogers at affinity.com <mailto:SRogers at affinity.com> >
+1-410-558-2750   (Fax:
+1410-563-5457)
Network/Systems/Security Engineer -- SkyNetWEB, Ltd.  An Affinity Company
3500 Boston St. #231  --  Baltimore, Maryland 21224



-----Original Message-----
From: Joe DeCosta [mailto:decosta at bayconnect.com]
Sent: Wed

nesday, January 03, 2001 6:26 PM
To: Jawaid.Bazyar at forethought.net <mailto:Jawaid.Bazyar at forethought.net> 
Cc: Clayton Lambert; 'Alec H. Peterson'; vwp at arin.net <mailto:vwp at arin.net> 
Subject: Re: Been quiet in here...


now, how about this, raise the pricing, and then donate the profit to some
NPO, or some such thing, i just *HATE* having to update the damned IP usage
spreadsheet and sending it to our uplink who owns the class C we have.  its
a pain in the ass, ever time we move stuff around on our network....... It
costs too much time to do it that way.  If the IP's are on a free market,
then why must we also then justify them?


----- Original Message -----
From: < Jawaid.Bazyar at forethought.net <mailto:Jawaid.Bazyar at forethought.net>
>
To: "Joe DeCosta" < decosta at bayconnect.com <mailto:decosta at bayconnect.com> >
Cc: "Clayton Lambert" < Clay at exodus.net <mailto:Clay at exodus.net> >; "'Alec
H. Peterson'"
< ahp at hilander.com <mailto:ahp at hilander.com> >; < vwp at arin.net
<mailto:vwp at arin.net> >
Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 3:12 PM
Subject: Re: Been quiet in here...


>
> That's because in the lack of a "free market" for IP addresses, the
> pricing was set arbitrarily - to cover the expenses of operating ARIN.
>
> That's not to say that that is bad, or without reasoning. It's just that
> if you're going to disassociate the pricing from the costs necessary to
> administer ARIN, instead of raising the price to discourage waste, you
> should let people buy and sell blocks on an open market. Free markets are
> very sensitive to the scarcity of resources via the price mechanism.
>
> That's not saying I think IPs are particularly scarce. I've made the
> argument before that it seems that CIDR is more about saving face for
> Cisco's underpowered heaps than conserving IP space.
>
> However, the current IP allocation system works fairly well, and in that
> system the best approach is to tell people to stop provisioning web sites
> in a wasteful manner that was only every necessitated by flaws in the
> original technology.
>
> Besides, it's WAY easier to provision IP-less web sites. :)
>
>
>
> On Wed, 3 Jan 2001, Joe DeCosta wrote:
>
> > This modification i agree with, my only objection is that why should
people
> > have to justify the usage of their netblock, why not just up the costs
to
> > encourage them to use as few IP's as possible.  It would seem to be more
> > effective.  Just my thoughts.
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Clayton Lambert" < Clay at exodus.net <mailto:Clay at exodus.net> >
> > To: "'Alec H. Peterson'" < ahp at hilander.com <mailto:ahp at hilander.com> >;
< vwp at arin.net <mailto:vwp at arin.net> >
> > Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 2:40 PM
> > Subject: RE: Been quiet in here...
> >
> >
> > > We should re-institute the policy with modifications to the text for
> > > clarity.  Service providing should be the catch word instead of
> > web-hosting.
> > >
> > > There should be clear reference to technical exceptions to the policy
> > (this
> > > should NOT be in the form of specific exceptions, as technical reasons
for
> > > exception to the policy can easily step beyond the ability of a
"list",
> > > hence the reason for maintainer discretion), only technical exceptions
> > > should be allowed (as opposed to policy exceptions). The entity
assigned
> > the
> > > overall netblock should have discretion for determining the exceptions
to
> > > the policy and should maintain the documentation for the exception,
and
> > make
> > > the info available to ARIN on in audit-style format (NDA should be
> > manditory
> > > between the Netblock maintainer and ARIN).
> > >
> > > Clay
> > > Exodus Communications
> > >
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: owner-vwp at arin.net <mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net>
[mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of Alec
H.
> > > Peterson
> > > Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 12:54 PM
> > > To: vwp at arin.net <mailto:vwp at arin.net> 
> > > Subject: Been quiet in here...
> > >
> > >
> > > Are there any more thoughts on what we should do with the so-called
> > virtual
> > > hosting policy?
> > >
> > > Alec
> > >
> > > --
> > > Alec H. Peterson - ahp at hilander.com <mailto:ahp at hilander.com> 
> > > Staff Scientist
> > > CenterGate Research Group - http://www.centergate.com
<http://www.centergate.com> 
> > > "Technology so advanced, even _we_ don't understand it!"
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
> --
>  Jawaid Bazyar                 |   Affordable WWW & Internet Solutions
>  foreThought.net               |   for Small Business
>  jawaid.bazyar at foreThought.net <mailto:jawaid.bazyar at foreThought.net>  |
910 16th Street, #1220  (303) 228-0070
>  --The Future is Now!--        |   Denver, CO 80202        (303) 228-0077
fax
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://eris.arin.net/pipermail/vwp/attachments/20010104/8c9e2cf4/attachment.html

From billd at cait.wustl.edu  Thu Jan  4 14:40:54 2001
From: billd at cait.wustl.edu (Bill Darte)
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 13:40:54 -0600 
Subject: Need for numbers related to Hosting
Message-ID: <F0A77279DB36D111A6EC00A024DEE7AF3338D6@kronos.wustl.edu>

The point was not to nit pick your verbage, but to express my concern for
recommending policy to the BoT based upon analysis devoid of fact which
fairly represents the problem and the urgency of remedy.  We can look at the
overall depletion of the v4 address space and speculate on its demise and
consequences.  I have seen absolutely no numbers associated with this
problem that suggests a magnitude and trend.
Bill Darte

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Clayton Lambert [mailto:Clay at exodus.net]
> Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 11:45 AM
> To: 'Bill Darte'; vwp at arin.net
> Subject: RE: Been quiet in here...
> 
> 
> I was generalizing, not being vague.  It is an interesting point that
> relates to this discussion.  I don't think the comment 
> warrented an overly
> deep analysis.  I am not at liberty to disclose the detailed 
> demographics of
> our Customers, but the trend is clear (for me, as the 
> maintainer within my
> company) that webhosting companies do indeed consume the 
> lions share of IP
> address space while operating a relatively small percentage 
> of the physical
> devices that we support.
> 
> -Clay
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of Bill
> Darte
> Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 7:00 AM
> To: 'Clayton Lambert'; vwp at arin.net
> Subject: RE: Been quiet in here...
> 
> 
> Not to be contentious, but "a small percentage of our customer use the
> overwhelmingly largeset amount of address space" IS very vague.
> I'm all for conservation, I am willing to support policy that enforces
> conservation when need exists, but I am unwilling to support 
> policy that is
> based upon these anecdotal, rather than factual references.
> Bill Darte
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Clayton Lambert [mailto:Clay at exodus.net]
> > Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 4:48 PM
> > To: 'Bill Darte'; 'Alec H. Peterson'; vwp at arin.net
> > Subject: RE: Been quiet in here...
> >
> >
> > it is more than a vague notion.  It is a fact...
> >
> > A small percentage of our Customers use the overwhelmingly
> > largest amounts
> > of address space.
> >
> > This policy should not scare web-hosters.  I think that
> > webhosters should
> > make the attempt to be efficient with their use of address
> > space.  We have
> > hammered our name-based hosting servers and we have not seen
> > an appreciable
> > drop in performance compared to the same servers running IP
> > based hosting.
> > If there is a valid reason for a service provider (any
> > service, not just
> > webhosters) to use IP-based hosting, I think it is not
> > unreasonable to have
> > them provide documentation to support that requirement.
> > Accountability
> > isn't something that is necessarily bad.
> >
> > -Clayton Lambert
> > Exodus Communications
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On 
> Behalf Of Bill
> > Darte
> > Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 1:24 PM
> > To: 'Alec H. Peterson'; vwp at arin.net
> > Subject: RE: Been quiet in here...
> >
> >
> > I have seen no evidence that there is a problem. No scope, no
> > magnitude, no
> > trends, just a vague notion that it is wasting "lots" of addresses.
> > Bill Darte
> > AC
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Alec H. Peterson [mailto:ahp at hilander.com]
> > > Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 2:54 PM
> > > To: vwp at arin.net
> > > Subject: Been quiet in here...
> > >
> > >
> > > Are there any more thoughts on what we should do with the
> > > so-called 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 Clay at exodus.net  Thu Jan  4 14:51:16 2001
From: Clay at exodus.net (Clayton Lambert)
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 11:51:16 -0800
Subject: Need for numbers related to Hosting
In-Reply-To: <F0A77279DB36D111A6EC00A024DEE7AF3338D6@kronos.wustl.edu>
Message-ID: <200101041951.LAA17010@exoserv.exodus.net>

Lack of published data does not preclude a real problem or potential
problem.

To require documented technical explanations from service providers is
primarily an issue of accountability and good practice.  If a service
provider has a need for address space, it should not have a problem with
providing a documented need for that request.  That brings up the issue of
what a 'need' is...The way I see it, a need for IP addresses is founded in
the technical requirement of the particular solution that is being
constructed.  This seems like common sense to me.  If a service provider
'needs' address space, then they should justify that need by virtue of a
physical amount of devices and a technically supported explanation of any
additional IP needs beyond the physical requirement.  Why is this so hard?
Service providers that don't want this policy seem to think that they should
be granted as many IP addresses as they wish to have, without regard or
concern for the actual need they have, nor do they apparently desire to have
any level of accountability levied towards them.

This is not that difficult...If the need is there, they should be given the
IP space.



-Clay

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of Bill
Darte
Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 11:41 AM
To: vwp at arin.net
Subject: Need for numbers related to Hosting


The point was not to nit pick your verbage, but to express my concern for
recommending policy to the BoT based upon analysis devoid of fact which
fairly represents the problem and the urgency of remedy.  We can look at the
overall depletion of the v4 address space and speculate on its demise and
consequences.  I have seen absolutely no numbers associated with this
problem that suggests a magnitude and trend.
Bill Darte

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Clayton Lambert [mailto:Clay at exodus.net]
> Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 11:45 AM
> To: 'Bill Darte'; vwp at arin.net
> Subject: RE: Been quiet in here...
>
>
> I was generalizing, not being vague.  It is an interesting point that
> relates to this discussion.  I don't think the comment
> warrented an overly
> deep analysis.  I am not at liberty to disclose the detailed
> demographics of
> our Customers, but the trend is clear (for me, as the
> maintainer within my
> company) that webhosting companies do indeed consume the
> lions share of IP
> address space while operating a relatively small percentage
> of the physical
> devices that we support.
>
> -Clay
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of Bill
> Darte
> Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 7:00 AM
> To: 'Clayton Lambert'; vwp at arin.net
> Subject: RE: Been quiet in here...
>
>
> Not to be contentious, but "a small percentage of our customer use the
> overwhelmingly largeset amount of address space" IS very vague.
> I'm all for conservation, I am willing to support policy that enforces
> conservation when need exists, but I am unwilling to support
> policy that is
> based upon these anecdotal, rather than factual references.
> Bill Darte
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Clayton Lambert [mailto:Clay at exodus.net]
> > Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 4:48 PM
> > To: 'Bill Darte'; 'Alec H. Peterson'; vwp at arin.net
> > Subject: RE: Been quiet in here...
> >
> >
> > it is more than a vague notion.  It is a fact...
> >
> > A small percentage of our Customers use the overwhelmingly
> > largest amounts
> > of address space.
> >
> > This policy should not scare web-hosters.  I think that
> > webhosters should
> > make the attempt to be efficient with their use of address
> > space.  We have
> > hammered our name-based hosting servers and we have not seen
> > an appreciable
> > drop in performance compared to the same servers running IP
> > based hosting.
> > If there is a valid reason for a service provider (any
> > service, not just
> > webhosters) to use IP-based hosting, I think it is not
> > unreasonable to have
> > them provide documentation to support that requirement.
> > Accountability
> > isn't something that is necessarily bad.
> >
> > -Clayton Lambert
> > Exodus Communications
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On
> Behalf Of Bill
> > Darte
> > Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 1:24 PM
> > To: 'Alec H. Peterson'; vwp at arin.net
> > Subject: RE: Been quiet in here...
> >
> >
> > I have seen no evidence that there is a problem. No scope, no
> > magnitude, no
> > trends, just a vague notion that it is wasting "lots" of addresses.
> > Bill Darte
> > AC
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Alec H. Peterson [mailto:ahp at hilander.com]
> > > Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 2:54 PM
> > > To: vwp at arin.net
> > > Subject: Been quiet in here...
> > >
> > >
> > > Are there any more thoughts on what we should do with the
> > > so-called 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 lgilbert at rawhideinc.com  Thu Jan  4 15:02:33 2001
From: lgilbert at rawhideinc.com (Leo Gilbert)
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 15:02:33 -0500
Subject: Need for numbers related to Hosting
Message-ID: <9B6F2B6780A5A2409DA1F12DC363F01802A726@EXCHANGE02.rawhideinc.com>

Very true, As long as the need is justified they should be given the ip
address space. This still does not solve the space issue.

-----Original Message-----
From: Clayton Lambert [mailto:Clay at exodus.net]
Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 2:51 PM
To: 'Bill Darte'; vwp at arin.net
Subject: RE: Need for numbers related to Hosting


Lack of published data does not preclude a real problem or potential
problem.

To require documented technical explanations from service providers is
primarily an issue of accountability and good practice.  If a service
provider has a need for address space, it should not have a problem with
providing a documented need for that request.  That brings up the issue
of
what a 'need' is...The way I see it, a need for IP addresses is founded
in
the technical requirement of the particular solution that is being
constructed.  This seems like common sense to me.  If a service provider
'needs' address space, then they should justify that need by virtue of a
physical amount of devices and a technically supported explanation of
any
additional IP needs beyond the physical requirement.  Why is this so
hard?
Service providers that don't want this policy seem to think that they
should
be granted as many IP addresses as they wish to have, without regard or
concern for the actual need they have, nor do they apparently desire to
have
any level of accountability levied towards them.

This is not that difficult...If the need is there, they should be given
the
IP space.



-Clay

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of Bill
Darte
Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 11:41 AM
To: vwp at arin.net
Subject: Need for numbers related to Hosting


The point was not to nit pick your verbage, but to express my concern
for
recommending policy to the BoT based upon analysis devoid of fact which
fairly represents the problem and the urgency of remedy.  We can look at
the
overall depletion of the v4 address space and speculate on its demise
and
consequences.  I have seen absolutely no numbers associated with this
problem that suggests a magnitude and trend.
Bill Darte

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Clayton Lambert [mailto:Clay at exodus.net]
> Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 11:45 AM
> To: 'Bill Darte'; vwp at arin.net
> Subject: RE: Been quiet in here...
>
>
> I was generalizing, not being vague.  It is an interesting point that
> relates to this discussion.  I don't think the comment
> warrented an overly
> deep analysis.  I am not at liberty to disclose the detailed
> demographics of
> our Customers, but the trend is clear (for me, as the
> maintainer within my
> company) that webhosting companies do indeed consume the
> lions share of IP
> address space while operating a relatively small percentage
> of the physical
> devices that we support.
>
> -Clay
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of Bill
> Darte
> Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 7:00 AM
> To: 'Clayton Lambert'; vwp at arin.net
> Subject: RE: Been quiet in here...
>
>
> Not to be contentious, but "a small percentage of our customer use the
> overwhelmingly largeset amount of address space" IS very vague.
> I'm all for conservation, I am willing to support policy that enforces
> conservation when need exists, but I am unwilling to support
> policy that is
> based upon these anecdotal, rather than factual references.
> Bill Darte
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Clayton Lambert [mailto:Clay at exodus.net]
> > Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 4:48 PM
> > To: 'Bill Darte'; 'Alec H. Peterson'; vwp at arin.net
> > Subject: RE: Been quiet in here...
> >
> >
> > it is more than a vague notion.  It is a fact...
> >
> > A small percentage of our Customers use the overwhelmingly
> > largest amounts
> > of address space.
> >
> > This policy should not scare web-hosters.  I think that
> > webhosters should
> > make the attempt to be efficient with their use of address
> > space.  We have
> > hammered our name-based hosting servers and we have not seen
> > an appreciable
> > drop in performance compared to the same servers running IP
> > based hosting.
> > If there is a valid reason for a service provider (any
> > service, not just
> > webhosters) to use IP-based hosting, I think it is not
> > unreasonable to have
> > them provide documentation to support that requirement.
> > Accountability
> > isn't something that is necessarily bad.
> >
> > -Clayton Lambert
> > Exodus Communications
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On
> Behalf Of Bill
> > Darte
> > Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 1:24 PM
> > To: 'Alec H. Peterson'; vwp at arin.net
> > Subject: RE: Been quiet in here...
> >
> >
> > I have seen no evidence that there is a problem. No scope, no
> > magnitude, no
> > trends, just a vague notion that it is wasting "lots" of addresses.
> > Bill Darte
> > AC
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Alec H. Peterson [mailto:ahp at hilander.com]
> > > Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 2:54 PM
> > > To: vwp at arin.net
> > > Subject: Been quiet in here...
> > >
> > >
> > > Are there any more thoughts on what we should do with the
> > > so-called 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 stephen at hnt.com  Thu Jan  4 15:20:16 2001
From: stephen at hnt.com (Stephen Elliott)
Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2001 15:20:16 -0500
Subject: ARIN Justified...
Message-ID: <3A54DB00.C6C7850E@hnt.com>

	The big guys that you refer to are generally not in the web hosting
business and therefore are outside of the scope of this conversation. 
The real concern is the big guys like Exodus and UUNet.  Since IPv6 is
not a viable option for general consumption yet, we need to concentrate
on conserving the existing IPv4 space.  As far as search engines go, if
enough sites start using HTTP1.1 software virtual servers, they will be
forced to upgrade their spiders to support it.  I would suggest that one
of the main issues at hand is billing.  Billing for web hosting
companies that is.  Most companies bundle bandwidth with their hosting
packages, and current billing packages utilize destination IP address
information to gather this information.  If there is not a way to get
this information without drastic changes to both billing software and in
some cases hardware, there will be very strong opposition to any changes
in the way IP addresses are given out.
-Stephen
 
--
Stephen Elliott                 Harrison & Troxell
Systems & Networking Manager    2 Faneuil Hall Marketplace
Systems & Networking Group      Boston, Ma 02109
(617)227-0494 Phone             (617)720-3918 Fax


From jmacknik at inflow.com  Thu Jan  4 15:17:58 2001
From: jmacknik at inflow.com (Jim Macknik)
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 13:17:58 -0700 
Subject: Need for numbers related to Hosting
Message-ID: <D71AE516100FD411BC5A00508B62C411025B0181@polo.admin.den.inflow.com>

I agree; but what are the standards for "justified" space? It seems to me
that this is the issue discussed here over the past couple of months. It
seems there is some disagreement about what is justified, and what is not.
What recourse is available for those hit by the "CyberMommy" issue (where
applications filter out entire providers due to offending content available
on just one virtual host)? What utilizations of SSL are justified uses of
one-to-one IP use? How are audits performed, who performs them, and what are
the consequences of a failed audit?

=- Mack -=

_________________________________________________

James M. Macknik
Manager, Systems Engineering
8025A N. IH-35
Austin, TX  78753
512/531.5430 (Office)
512/789.5806 (Cell)
jmacknik at inflow.com
www.inflow.com




-----Original Message-----
From: Leo Gilbert [mailto:lgilbert at rawhideinc.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 2:03 PM
To: Clayton Lambert; Bill Darte; vwp at arin.net
Subject: RE: Need for numbers related to Hosting


Very true, As long as the need is justified they should be given the ip
address space. This still does not solve the space issue.

-----Original Message-----
From: Clayton Lambert [mailto:Clay at exodus.net]
Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 2:51 PM
To: 'Bill Darte'; vwp at arin.net
Subject: RE: Need for numbers related to Hosting


Lack of published data does not preclude a real problem or potential
problem.

To require documented technical explanations from service providers is
primarily an issue of accountability and good practice.  If a service
provider has a need for address space, it should not have a problem with
providing a documented need for that request.  That brings up the issue
of
what a 'need' is...The way I see it, a need for IP addresses is founded
in
the technical requirement of the particular solution that is being
constructed.  This seems like common sense to me.  If a service provider
'needs' address space, then they should justify that need by virtue of a
physical amount of devices and a technically supported explanation of
any
additional IP needs beyond the physical requirement.  Why is this so
hard?
Service providers that don't want this policy seem to think that they
should
be granted as many IP addresses as they wish to have, without regard or
concern for the actual need they have, nor do they apparently desire to
have
any level of accountability levied towards them.

This is not that difficult...If the need is there, they should be given
the
IP space.



-Clay

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of Bill
Darte
Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 11:41 AM
To: vwp at arin.net
Subject: Need for numbers related to Hosting


The point was not to nit pick your verbage, but to express my concern
for
recommending policy to the BoT based upon analysis devoid of fact which
fairly represents the problem and the urgency of remedy.  We can look at
the
overall depletion of the v4 address space and speculate on its demise
and
consequences.  I have seen absolutely no numbers associated with this
problem that suggests a magnitude and trend.
Bill Darte

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Clayton Lambert [mailto:Clay at exodus.net]
> Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 11:45 AM
> To: 'Bill Darte'; vwp at arin.net
> Subject: RE: Been quiet in here...
>
>
> I was generalizing, not being vague.  It is an interesting point that
> relates to this discussion.  I don't think the comment
> warrented an overly
> deep analysis.  I am not at liberty to disclose the detailed
> demographics of
> our Customers, but the trend is clear (for me, as the
> maintainer within my
> company) that webhosting companies do indeed consume the
> lions share of IP
> address space while operating a relatively small percentage
> of the physical
> devices that we support.
>
> -Clay
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of Bill
> Darte
> Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 7:00 AM
> To: 'Clayton Lambert'; vwp at arin.net
> Subject: RE: Been quiet in here...
>
>
> Not to be contentious, but "a small percentage of our customer use the
> overwhelmingly largeset amount of address space" IS very vague.
> I'm all for conservation, I am willing to support policy that enforces
> conservation when need exists, but I am unwilling to support
> policy that is
> based upon these anecdotal, rather than factual references.
> Bill Darte
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Clayton Lambert [mailto:Clay at exodus.net]
> > Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 4:48 PM
> > To: 'Bill Darte'; 'Alec H. Peterson'; vwp at arin.net
> > Subject: RE: Been quiet in here...
> >
> >
> > it is more than a vague notion.  It is a fact...
> >
> > A small percentage of our Customers use the overwhelmingly
> > largest amounts
> > of address space.
> >
> > This policy should not scare web-hosters.  I think that
> > webhosters should
> > make the attempt to be efficient with their use of address
> > space.  We have
> > hammered our name-based hosting servers and we have not seen
> > an appreciable
> > drop in performance compared to the same servers running IP
> > based hosting.
> > If there is a valid reason for a service provider (any
> > service, not just
> > webhosters) to use IP-based hosting, I think it is not
> > unreasonable to have
> > them provide documentation to support that requirement.
> > Accountability
> > isn't something that is necessarily bad.
> >
> > -Clayton Lambert
> > Exodus Communications
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On
> Behalf Of Bill
> > Darte
> > Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 1:24 PM
> > To: 'Alec H. Peterson'; vwp at arin.net
> > Subject: RE: Been quiet in here...
> >
> >
> > I have seen no evidence that there is a problem. No scope, no
> > magnitude, no
> > trends, just a vague notion that it is wasting "lots" of addresses.
> > Bill Darte
> > AC
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Alec H. Peterson [mailto:ahp at hilander.com]
> > > Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 2:54 PM
> > > To: vwp at arin.net
> > > Subject: Been quiet in here...
> > >
> > >
> > > Are there any more thoughts on what we should do with the
> > > so-called 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 SRogers at Affinity.com  Thu Jan  4 15:31:24 2001
From: SRogers at Affinity.com (Scott Rogers)
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 12:31:24 -0800 
Subject: Need for numbers related to Hosting
Message-ID: <23AE217BF800D411B12500D0B73CF36E5B9F6F@exchange.affinityla.com>

I have a customer comming in that is transferring 3,000
web site, so I have a need for 3,000 IP addresses right!

The customer is not using SSL, is not using IP based accounting,
and does not depend upon search engines for anywhere from 30%
to 60% of the sites...

So, do I really need 3,000 IP addresses?
* Sales says yes, they want $3,000 per month in revenue ($1 per IP per
month_
* Customer says yes, it's too hard to configure name based hosting.
* The network dude (me) says:
	- Learn how, and educate the customer on name based hosting.
	- educate the sales team
	- the technocrat (me) wins they get what they need, not what they
want.

-----Original Message-----
From: Leo Gilbert [mailto:lgilbert at rawhideinc.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 3:03 PM
To: Clayton Lambert; Bill Darte; vwp at arin.net
Subject: RE: Need for numbers related to Hosting


Very true, As long as the need is justified they should be given the ip
address space. This still does not solve the space issue.

-----Original Message-----
From: Clayton Lambert [mailto:Clay at exodus.net]
Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 2:51 PM
To: 'Bill Darte'; vwp at arin.net
Subject: RE: Need for numbers related to Hosting


Lack of published data does not preclude a real problem or potential
problem.

To require documented technical explanations from service providers is
primarily an issue of accountability and good practice.  If a service
provider has a need for address space, it should not have a problem with
providing a documented need for that request.  That brings up the issue
of
what a 'need' is...The way I see it, a need for IP addresses is founded
in
the technical requirement of the particular solution that is being
constructed.  This seems like common sense to me.  If a service provider
'needs' address space, then they should justify that need by virtue of a
physical amount of devices and a technically supported explanation of
any
additional IP needs beyond the physical requirement.  Why is this so
hard?
Service providers that don't want this policy seem to think that they
should
be granted as many IP addresses as they wish to have, without regard or
concern for the actual need they have, nor do they apparently desire to
have
any level of accountability levied towards them.

This is not that difficult...If the need is there, they should be given
the
IP space.



-Clay

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of Bill
Darte
Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 11:41 AM
To: vwp at arin.net
Subject: Need for numbers related to Hosting


The point was not to nit pick your verbage, but to express my concern
for
recommending policy to the BoT based upon analysis devoid of fact which
fairly represents the problem and the urgency of remedy.  We can look at
the
overall depletion of the v4 address space and speculate on its demise
and
consequences.  I have seen absolutely no numbers associated with this
problem that suggests a magnitude and trend.
Bill Darte

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Clayton Lambert [mailto:Clay at exodus.net]
> Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 11:45 AM
> To: 'Bill Darte'; vwp at arin.net
> Subject: RE: Been quiet in here...
>
>
> I was generalizing, not being vague.  It is an interesting point that
> relates to this discussion.  I don't think the comment
> warrented an overly
> deep analysis.  I am not at liberty to disclose the detailed
> demographics of
> our Customers, but the trend is clear (for me, as the
> maintainer within my
> company) that webhosting companies do indeed consume the
> lions share of IP
> address space while operating a relatively small percentage
> of the physical
> devices that we support.
>
> -Clay
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of Bill
> Darte
> Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 7:00 AM
> To: 'Clayton Lambert'; vwp at arin.net
> Subject: RE: Been quiet in here...
>
>
> Not to be contentious, but "a small percentage of our customer use the
> overwhelmingly largeset amount of address space" IS very vague.
> I'm all for conservation, I am willing to support policy that enforces
> conservation when need exists, but I am unwilling to support
> policy that is
> based upon these anecdotal, rather than factual references.
> Bill Darte
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Clayton Lambert [mailto:Clay at exodus.net]
> > Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 4:48 PM
> > To: 'Bill Darte'; 'Alec H. Peterson'; vwp at arin.net
> > Subject: RE: Been quiet in here...
> >
> >
> > it is more than a vague notion.  It is a fact...
> >
> > A small percentage of our Customers use the overwhelmingly
> > largest amounts
> > of address space.
> >
> > This policy should not scare web-hosters.  I think that
> > webhosters should
> > make the attempt to be efficient with their use of address
> > space.  We have
> > hammered our name-based hosting servers and we have not seen
> > an appreciable
> > drop in performance compared to the same servers running IP
> > based hosting.
> > If there is a valid reason for a service provider (any
> > service, not just
> > webhosters) to use IP-based hosting, I think it is not
> > unreasonable to have
> > them provide documentation to support that requirement.
> > Accountability
> > isn't something that is necessarily bad.
> >
> > -Clayton Lambert
> > Exodus Communications
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On
> Behalf Of Bill
> > Darte
> > Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 1:24 PM
> > To: 'Alec H. Peterson'; vwp at arin.net
> > Subject: RE: Been quiet in here...
> >
> >
> > I have seen no evidence that there is a problem. No scope, no
> > magnitude, no
> > trends, just a vague notion that it is wasting "lots" of addresses.
> > B