Comments on Name Based Virtual Hosting Policy Recommendation

i dont think that the issue here is some random T1 customer requesting a
/24 i think its blocks larger than that are being abused and need to be
audited.......the people using blocks larger than /24's are generally
knowing of what qualifies for a real IP and what can be non routeable....,
or in the case of VWP, if they NEED to have their own IP for vhosting with
ssl etc....

On Fri, 8 Jun 2001, Jim Macknik wrote:

> This is where it gets confusing. "Qualify" for what? If this is just to
> gather information, then ARIN should be gathering information on why people
> request address space for IP-based hosting, whether it's technical (SSL
> requirements, etc.) or simply preference.
> 
> Once ARIN has gathered the information, then they can create a policy. But
> to say that a justification document does not "qualify" for an
> information-gathering stage doesn't work. It's either required by ARIN, then
> reviewed for its validity and IP space is assigned after it is approved, or
> it is required when space is requested from ARIN so that ARIN can collect
> information, regardless of the space requested.
> 
> Otherwise, its a double standard and an excellent explanation for why people
> do not understand what is being requested of them.
> 
> =- Mack -=
> 
> _________________________________________________
> 
> James M. Macknik
> Manager, Systems Engineering
> 2401 15th St.
> Denver, CO  80202
> 303/824.2506 (Office)
> 720/840.5329 (Cell)
> jmacknik at inflow.com
> www.inflow.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sweeting, John [mailto:John.Sweeting at teleglobe.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2001 11:47 AM
> To: 'Charles Scott'; Sweeting, John
> Cc: A. M. Salim; vwp at arin.net
> Subject: RE: Comments on Name Based Virtualk Hosting Policy
> Recommendation
> 
> 
> Agreed. 
> 
> Bill Darte, do you think it we can possibly change the wording to show that
> the technical reasons are definitely not going to be evaluated at this time
> for the purpose of approving the request? I also think that we need to
> emphasize the fact that the technical reason must be a technical reason and
> not an administrative reason (such as it is easier to do it this way or
> costs less to do it this way) in order to qualify. What do you think?
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Charles Scott [mailto:cscott at gaslightmedia.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2001 1:39 PM
> To: Sweeting, John
> Cc: A. M. Salim; vwp at arin.net
> Subject: RE: Comments on Name Based Virtualk Hosting Policy
> Recommendation
> 
> 
> 
> John:
>   I only need quote from some of the earlier posts to show that confusion
> exists with the current wording.
> 
>   "I really think we need ARIN to really lay down what "technical 
>   justifications" there are for requesting IP space for IP-based hosting"
> 
>   "Since technical reasons can be pretty specific I agree with the fact
>   that there should be a list of technical reasons to justify IP address 
>   allocations and an escalation procedure to suggest new ones."
> 
>   If the people who wrote this understood the policy was for data
> collection only, they probably would have argued that point. That they
> were looking for a specific list indicates to me that they assumed the
> policy meant that the supplied technical justifications would be evaluated
> as part of the decision to assign space.
> 
> Chuck
> 
> 
> 
> On Wed, 9 May 2001, Sweeting, John wrote:
> 
> > Please do not be confused. ARIN is not going to review the request but
> > rather the technical reasons being supplied so that wheels can be set in
> > motion to either solve the technical reasons (not necessarily something
> that
> > ARIN will do, but the Internet community as a whole) or accept the fact
> that
> > it is an issue that cannot be resolved and allow that to stand in the
> future
> > as an acceptable reason for using IP-based webhosting. No where is it
> > inferred that ARIN will refuse address space based on the technical
> > justification at this time.
> > 
>