ARIN Justified..

Could you clairfy why computers on INTERNAL networks would need a fully
routeable STATIC ip address? I don't see why a private computer inside a
corporate network at some secrataries desk needs a fully routeable
static ip. etc etc...



"Gilbert Martin @ Learning Solutions" wrote:
> 
> Exactly what I said yesterday, wouldn't it be more simple for people not
> accessing external networks via the INternet to rather be given a static
> address and then if the need arises let them also be able to request a newer
> address, the end result will be that only those using ISP's will be using up
> address space?
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chris Miller [mailto:ctodd at netgate.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2001 3:09 AM
> To: Jim Macknik
> Cc: vwp at arin.net
> Subject: RE: ARIN Justified..
> 
> Sun Microsystems (and others companies I'm sure) has many addresses that
> never see the internet, they use most of these strictly for their internal
> networks. Surely they could use reserved addresses for many of these
> purposes.....
> 
> Sun Microsystems, Inc. (NETBLK-SUN4)
>    2550 Garcia Avenue
>    Mountain View, CA 94043
> 
>    Netname: SUN4
>    Netblock: 129.144.0.0 - 129.159.255.255
> 
> Chris
> 
> On Tue, 9 Jan 2001, Jim Macknik wrote:
> 
> > This brings up a good point, as well. How will ARIN enforce its policies?
> > There are large companies out there that have several Class B or Class A
> > ranges all to themselves that they "reserved" years ago. I doubt many of
> > these organizations could properly justify this space at this time.
> >
> > Will ARIN require them to justify their use and take away the extras,
> > requiring huge organizations or ISPs to completely re-allocate their
> > addressing? If they don't, how will they be able to justify revoking
> denying
> > space to others looking to increase their allocation?
> >
> > This isn't an easy one, but it certainly has to be addressed if ARIN is
> > concerned about political ramifications of a policy that will affect
> whether
> > businesses can even *do* business.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Joe DeCosta [mailto:decosta at bayconnect.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2001 4:00 PM
> > To: Clayton Lambert; 'Douglas Cohn'; vwp at arin.net
> > Subject: Re: ARIN Justified...
> >
> >
> > 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
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> 
> **********************************************************************
> 
> 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.
> 
> *******************************************************************