ARIN Justified..

[Charles Scott]

On Thu, 11 Jan 2001, Clayton Lambert wrote:

 
>   Also, policy and business model must have some bearing on justification
> because it is one's policies and models that makes a business successful.
> If in order to impliment a competative business model there is a need for
> IP based hosting (such as bandwidth profiling) then isn't that as valid as
> something like technical justification for giving dial-up/DSL/cable
> customers globally routable addresses space.
> 
> ++  Agreed, on the policy and bizz model stuff...But, if a company tracks
> anything via the IP address and that method of tracking isn't limited due to
> something protocol specific, the justification isn't there.  Again, vendor
> specific limitations should NOT be considered a technical justification.

Clayton:
  The example I was referring to was bandwidth limitation (as opposed to
tracking). As far as I can tell, there's no good technical way to limit
bandwidth to a particular virtual server other than providing it with a
separate IP address. So, considering that deciding to sell use of virtual
servers based on bandwidth available to each is a policy/business model
decision, would you consider that not to be justification even though
there's no good technical solution for doing this with name based hosting.
I'm sure there are other similar cases as well. In other words, how does
one decide which business policy/model decisions are adequate
justification for ip based hosting?
  A peripheral concern of this is with regards to downstream IP requests.
I just wonder how much hassle ARIN is willing to deal with when more and
more downstream requests for address space are rejected and require appeal
to ARIN. If the policy implies, or stipulates, that business policy/model
is not justification, then I suspect those appeals will in fact 
increase significantly. I also think it would be unfortunate if the policy
for justification resulted in a narrowing of what types and styles of
services can be offered.

Chuck Scott