ARIN Justified...

Uhm, Chris, I happen to WORK for an ISP right now, and do DSL installs on a
regular basis, yes i do know what support is like, and NAT still is the same
thing, clients use a DHCP to get a NONrouteable IP from some server.....so
either way the support stays the same, you can still do all the diagnosis
from pings and such.  Well, all i have to say is this, Enginnering of a
system like this would be hell, but it would be worth it i think because
there are too many people with entire class A's that i am sure NEVER EVER
see the light of day for more than half the IP addresses......... The
enthusiasts that do do these kinds of things can request a static routeable
IP.  It's not that complicated.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris Hershey" <hershey at easystreet.com>
To: "'Joe DeCosta'" <decosta at bayconnect.com>; "Clayton Lambert"
<Clay at exodus.net>; "'Douglas Cohn'" <Douglas.Cohn at Virtualscape.com>;
<vwp at arin.net>; "Justin W. Newton" <justin at gid.net>
Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2001 6:11 PM
Subject: RE: ARIN Justified...


>
> Look, I don't mean any disrespect, and I'm sure I've got a whole let less
> technical experience than most of the people on this list, probably
> including yourself, but have you ever worked at an ISP before?  And have
you
> ever dealt with either the engineering of dial-up or DSL networks, or the
> support of dial-up or DSL customers?
>
> Because, from the point of view of somebody that deals with that sort of
> thing every day, the notion of giving customers a NAT address and waiting
> until they complain to give them a routable one, I have to tell you, is
> something the other side of rediculous.  From either an engineering, or a
> support point of view alone, let alone the combined effects of both sides
of
> the equation it would be essentially an impossible proposition.
>
> Also, the issue of NAT not working can have very little to do with whether
> or not a server is running over the connection.  But, even with that, yes,
> there are a great many dial-up users who do run servers of various kinds,
> and they do it over connections ranging from 28.8 (or slower) to high
speed
> DSL or cable connections.  There are a great many enthusiasts out there
who
> just play with things and setup their own mail servers, or set up ftp
> servers just so they can trade files with their friends.
>
> And, doing anything just for dial-up users doesn't really make sense,
> because all of the growth is in broadband.  So the only solutions that
would
> have any impact, would have to encompass broadband services.  And then
> you're dealing with an even more sophisticated consumer, many of whom run
> servers of any and all kinds you can imagine.  Whether it be ftp, http,
any
> number of game servers, messaging, e-mail, and whatever else they can get
> thier hands on.
>
> Heck, even without servers there are an uncountable number of applications
> and services that would be absolutely unusable in a NAT environment.  At a
> minimum very special configuration (over the head of most users) is
required
> in some applications as basic as ICQ.  Not to mention the more
sophisticated
> applications such as VPN solutions and allowances that must be made for
> persons gaining access to their company networks through firewalls based
on
> their static routable IP address.
>
> The negative publicity alone for any ISP trying to implement such a plan
> would drive away existing an potential customers, and ultimately force
them
> out of business.  I'd be willing to bet you could lose as much as half
your
> client base within 30 to 60 days.  You can't even predict all the
> applications you might break trying to do such a thing.  And there's no
way
> you could staff enough people to handle the support burdon.
>
> I wholly encourage the use of NAT wherever possible.  But possible almost
> always means in highly controlled environments such as corporate LANs.  It
> is not nearly an appropriate solution for general access networks.
>
> The ultimate issue I'd like to see dealt with in all this, is there seem
to
> be a whole of people commenting within this policy discussion, who really
> don't understand how the policy will affect the ISPs that are the gateway
to
> the Internet.  I don't know what the solution is, but it might help if
> peoples signatures included a title or position, or some other description
> of what their background is.  I think that all comments are welcome, but
the
> people making the decisions need to understand how informed (or
> ill-informed) those comments are.
>
> I for one, am a junior system administrator and primary hostmaster for
> EasyStreet Online Services, Inc. (www.easystreet.com).
> --
>
> -Chris Hershey
> hershey at easystreet.com
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of Joe
> > DeCosta
> > Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2001 5:30 PM
> > To: Clayton Lambert; 'Douglas Cohn'; vwp at arin.net; Justin W. Newton
> > Subject: Re: 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.
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>