ARIN Justified...

I must get my two cents in here as well.

I feel Clayton has the right track.

I manage IP allocation as well for dedicated and colocated clients.  Our
policy used to state each server was issued 16 IPs.  We provision with 1
IP only.  If a client asks for the rest I also require the need for the
IPs.  
Too often they want them for testing or only because they saw that they
get 16 IPs with a server.  They must supply the domain names and reasons
why they cannot use IPless hosting.  While I will not force IPless
hosting on clients I push it and train it's use for free.

We now state that you get a single IP with each dedicated server and
additional IPs are billed on a monthly basis.  This helps a lot to
defray usage.  While it is a revenue stream that is not it's purpose
whatsoever.

In Shared hosting though the issues are clearly Search engines and SSL
as far as I know.  

Most people understand why we watch our address space and appreciate it.

Douglas Cohn
Manager NY Engineering
Hostcentric, Inc.



-----Original Message-----
From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of Stephen
Elliott
Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 4:47 PM
To: Clayton Lambert; Virtual IP List
Subject: Re: ARIN Justified...


:-)  The reason I mentioned Exodus is because we are a customer of
Exodus, and in my opinion, the policy is too restrictive.  And the
statement was directed at the fact that Exodus hosts many companies that
are in the business of hosting websites, not Exodus as a company.  As I
have stated in earlier postings, simply clamping down and restricting
virtual web hosting is not the answer.  Any list of justifications, no
matter how much thought went into it, will not cover every possible
reason for needing the IP's.  Documentation is a great thing, just the
fact that someone has to sit down and write out a list of machines that
need IP's will deter most people from requesting extra IP's.
-Stephen

Clayton Lambert wrote:
> 
> Do you have ANY idea of what you are saying?  Sorry for appearing
brash,
> but...I run the IP maintenance organization at Exodus, and I would
easily
> stack our allocation policy up against anybody's.
> 
> You have no idea what you are talking about in regard to larger
companies.
> Exodus consumes a very modest amount of address space given our size
and
> presence on the Internet.  There are much smaller competitors of ours
that
> consume larger amounts of IP space.
> 
> Exodus is already pioneering the efficiency of use ideology that I
would
> like to see ARIN adopt (a strong HTTP1.1 stance on ARIN's part is a
good
> start).  We currently require extensive supporting documentation for
IP
> requests from all our Customers.  A Customer has to show a documented
need
> for their usage request and we file all these requests and refer to
past
> requests and detail as additional requests for address space occur.
This
> method gives us a very clear and honest indication of IP address usage
> growth. This allows us to support our Customers' IP addressing needs
in a
> very accurate and efficient way.  The end result is less consumption
of IPv4
> space across the board.
> 
> Clayton Lambert
> Exodus Communications
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of
Stephen
> Elliott
> Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 12:20 PM
> To: Virtual IP List
> Subject: RE: ARIN Justified...
> 
>         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

-- 
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