ARIN Justified...

How does one tell, in advance to connection, which users need a 
"real" IP address, and which users need NAT?  At the bare minimum NAT 
breaks P2P networks, which, in case you hadn't noticed, are becoming 
more popular.  I will point out that large dial ISP's do already use 
DHCP, so a user only has an IP assigned for the period of time that 
the user is logged on.




At 3:00 PM -0800 1/9/01, Joe DeCosta wrote:
>Well, what do you think that the best approach to this would be, I think a
>BIG part of the entire IP space problem is the HUGE market of ISP's like
>earthlink, Genuity(aka BBN), and the free services that just give any schmoe
>an IP address, I don't think that this is soemthing that  is viable, we even
>to a small Extent use NAT/Name based Virtual Hosting for  some of the
>domains runing on the secondary T1 in our office.  This all works fine, and
>uses 1 ip for many things.  Perhaps this is a viable options, but i do think
>that ARIN should enforce some sort of NAT with providers (aol, earthlink,
>freebie ISPs et al.) who allow just anybody to have an IP when its not
>needed.  from an admin point of view this can be a bit hellish but well
>worth the IP space that is being wasted on people that dont *NEED* random
>inbound traffic.
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Clayton Lambert" <Clay at exodus.net>
>To: "'Joe DeCosta'" <decosta at bayconnect.com>; "'Douglas Cohn'"
><Douglas.Cohn at Virtualscape.com>; <vwp at arin.net>
>Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2001 2:17 PM
>Subject: RE: ARIN Justified...
>
>
>>  No argument at all on those points either Joe,
>>
>>  In fact, it seems there is a lot of common ground on this topic, maybe we
>>  should try to identify the specific agreed-upon points and
>disagreements...?
>>
>>  It might be something to work from.
>>
>>  -Clay
>>
>>  -----Original Message-----
>>  From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of Joe
>>  DeCosta
>>  Sent: Monday, January 08, 2001 6:44 PM
>>  To: Clayton Lambert; 'Douglas Cohn'; vwp at arin.net
>>  Subject: Re: ARIN Justified...
>>
>>
>>  agreed, but with all of the home users, shouldn't some of the major ISP's
>be
>>  considering NAT for DSL/ISDN and Dialup users? i mean, it's an idea, i
>don't
>>  know how well it would be accepted, i also think that AOL should be forced
>>  to use NAT.........its rediclous to see how many IP blocks they own, but
>>  dialup/isdn/dsl NAT i think could be a suggestion to ISP's no??
>>
>>
>>  ----- Original Message -----
>>  From: "Clayton Lambert" <Clay at exodus.net>
>>  To: "'Douglas Cohn'" <Douglas.Cohn at Virtualscape.com>; <vwp at arin.net>
>>  Sent: Monday, January 08, 2001 4:59 PM
>>  Subject: RE: ARIN Justified...
>>
>>
>>  > IPv6 is not the panacea you seem to think it is...
>>  >
>>  > With a mentality like that, we'd burn thru IPv6 in 10 years or less...
>>  >
>>  > -Clay
>>  >
>>  > -----Original Message-----
>>  > From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of Douglas
>>  > Cohn
>>  > Sent: Friday, January 05, 2001 6:59 AM
>>  > To: vwp at arin.net
>>  > Subject: FW: ARIN Justified...
>>  >
>>  >
>>  > I forwarded your email to the list for you
>>  >
>>  > -----Original Message-----
>>  > From: Allen Ahoffman [mailto:ahoffman at announce.com]
>>  > Sent: Friday, July 10, 2893 6:44 PM
>>  > To: Douglas Cohn
>>  > Subject: Re: ARIN Justified...
>>  >
>>  >
>>  > OK let me interject a question into this discussion:
>>  >
>>  > Why are we requiring a /19 or in some cases /20 of space before being
>>  > allowed to get our own allocation?
>>  > I realize management is an issue, but a $2500/year it encourages small
>>  > users to build up to that point.
>>  >
>>  > We get users who don't want us to have iI space from other vendors, so
>>  > we
>>  > get pressure for more iP usage and pressure for less.
>>  >
>>  > For example, in converting from one provider to another I have had
>>  > difficult time getting replacment iP space in less than 8 months now,
>>  > but
>>  > was making efforts to not purchase the /19.  I thik we might bge by
>  > > without it but the minimum size creates pressure to fill IP(s).
>>  > I do agree that users seem to want IP(s) without reason, seems like IPV6
>>  > might look more appealing every day?
>>  >
>>  >
>>  > [Charset
>>  > iso-8859-1 unsupported,
>>  > filtering to ASCII...] > 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
>>  > >
>>  >
>>  >
>>
>>
>>

-- 

Justin W. Newton
Senior Director, Networking and Telecommunications
NetZero, Inc.