ARIN Justified...

Well, they get a NAT address by defualt, and if they complain that they need
a real one, a real one is assigned.  but who is going to run a server of
anykind of 56k analog dialup?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Justin W. Newton" <justin at gid.net>
To: "Joe DeCosta" <decosta at bayconnect.com>; "Clayton Lambert"
<Clay at exodus.net>; "'Douglas Cohn'" <Douglas.Cohn at Virtualscape.com>;
<vwp at arin.net>
Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2001 5:22 PM
Subject: Re: 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.
>
>