From susanh at arin.net  Wed May  2 16:08:23 2001
From: susanh at arin.net (Susan Hamlin)
Date: Wed, 2 May 2001 16:08:23 -0400
Subject: Named-based Web Hosting Policy: Last Call for Comments
Message-ID: <NEBBIIHJKDAAGDEGJMHPEECJCNAA.susanh@arin.net>

Pursuant to ARIN's recently adopted policy evaluation process, this is the
last call for comments on the ARIN Advisory Council's policy recommendation 
regarding Name-based Web Hosting.

The announcement posted today on the ARIN website refers back to an April 
16 posting to the Public Policy and Virtual Web hosting mailing lists:

http://www.arin.net/announcements/last_call_name_based_hosting.html

All comments should be sent to the vwp mailing list. 

This last call for comments expires at 1700 Eastern Time, 16 May 2001.


Regards,

Susan Hamlin
Director, Member Services
American Registry for Internet Numbers



From Clay at exodus.net  Wed May  2 21:41:02 2001
From: Clay at exodus.net (Clay)
Date: Wed, 2 May 2001 18:41:02 -0700
Subject: WebHosting Policy approval recommendation
Message-ID: <00d901c0d372$1dab9350$4e00ff0a@CLAMBERTW2KD>

Wow, I didn't think I would be able to say this but...This looks great!  :-)

I recommend this policy for approval.

That is a Yeah vote.

Clayton Lambert
Compliance Services Director
Exodus Communications

------------------------
POLICY

When an ISP submits a request for IP address space to be used for IP-based
web hosting, they will supply technical justification for this practice.
ARIN will collect this data for review of the policy in light of operational
experience.
----------------------------


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of Susan
Hamlin
Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2001 1:08 PM
To: vwp at arin.net
Subject: Named-based Web Hosting Policy: Last Call for Comments


Pursuant to ARIN's recently adopted policy evaluation process, this is the
last call for comments on the ARIN Advisory Council's policy recommendation
regarding Name-based Web Hosting.

The announcement posted today on the ARIN website refers back to an April
16 posting to the Public Policy and Virtual Web hosting mailing lists:

http://www.arin.net/announcements/last_call_name_based_hosting.html

All comments should be sent to the vwp mailing list.

This last call for comments expires at 1700 Eastern Time, 16 May 2001.


Regards,

Susan Hamlin
Director, Member Services
American Registry for Internet Numbers



From steve at host-all.com  Wed May  2 21:53:16 2001
From: steve at host-all.com (steve)
Date: Wed, 2 May 2001 21:53:16 -0400
Subject: WebHosting Policy approval recommendation
References: <00d901c0d372$1dab9350$4e00ff0a@CLAMBERTW2KD>
Message-ID: <03a301c0d373$d4fca200$019f72ce@hostall.com>

I agree Clay.  However, is "they will supply technical justification" a bit
broad?


Steve Conzett
Host-All.Com

----- Original Message -----
From: "Clay" <Clay at exodus.net>
To: <vwp at arin.net>
Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2001 9:41 PM
Subject: WebHosting Policy approval recommendation


> Wow, I didn't think I would be able to say this but...This looks great!
:-)
>
> I recommend this policy for approval.
>
> That is a Yeah vote.
>
> Clayton Lambert
> Compliance Services Director
> Exodus Communications
>
> ------------------------
> POLICY
>
> When an ISP submits a request for IP address space to be used for IP-based
> web hosting, they will supply technical justification for this practice.
> ARIN will collect this data for review of the policy in light of
operational
> experience.
> ----------------------------
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of Susan
> Hamlin
> Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2001 1:08 PM
> To: vwp at arin.net
> Subject: Named-based Web Hosting Policy: Last Call for Comments
>
>
> Pursuant to ARIN's recently adopted policy evaluation process, this is the
> last call for comments on the ARIN Advisory Council's policy
recommendation
> regarding Name-based Web Hosting.
>
> The announcement posted today on the ARIN website refers back to an April
> 16 posting to the Public Policy and Virtual Web hosting mailing lists:
>
> http://www.arin.net/announcements/last_call_name_based_hosting.html
>
> All comments should be sent to the vwp mailing list.
>
> This last call for comments expires at 1700 Eastern Time, 16 May 2001.
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Susan Hamlin
> Director, Member Services
> American Registry for Internet Numbers



From jmacknik at inflow.com  Thu May  3 08:11:03 2001
From: jmacknik at inflow.com (Jim Macknik)
Date: Thu, 3 May 2001 06:11:03 -0600 
Subject: IP-Hosting Policy Specifics
Message-ID: <D71AE516100FD411BC5A00508B62C411025B0688@polo.admin.den.inflow.com>

I really think we need ARIN to really lay down what "technical
justifications" there are for requesting IP space for IP-based hosting. This
request has appeared many times on this discussion list, but the only answer
I have seen to date indicates that ARIN requires "technical justification;"
this is a little too vague for businesses that depend on IP space, and the
customers which they support.

Is there a definitive list of justifiable reasoning behind IP-based hosting.
If there is not, then there is no way that anyone offering any IP space to
their customers could be sure they are requesting the right information from
their customers. This could conceivably cause them to lose their ability to
do business if ARIN indicates they don't believe that organization is
providing proper justification. 

Is there any way we can come up with a list of justifiable reasons to use
IP-based hosting? If so, can we then also come up with an escalation
procedure for requesting additions to the list as technology and standard
practices change? If we had these in place, then companies offering ISP
services could follow, to the letter, exactly what ARIN needs for them to be
compliant. They would also have an opportunity to argue a case for alternate
technical reasons for IP space.

-= Mack =-

James M. Macknik
Manager, Systems Engineering
2401 15th St. Suite 200
Denver, CO  80202
303/824.2506 (Office)
720/840.5329 (Mobile)
jmacknik at inflow.com



From sigma at pair.com  Thu May  3 09:01:53 2001
From: sigma at pair.com (sigma at pair.com)
Date: Thu, 3 May 2001 09:01:53 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: IP-Hosting Policy Specifics
Message-ID: <20010503130153.4576.qmail@smx.pair.com>


The consensus reached at the meeting was that ARIN was not seeking to
establish a laundry list of what reasons are acceptable or not, and that
doing so would be inappropriate.  ARIN is simply gathering data about what
the obstacles are at this point, which is frankly a very good idea, since
everyone is considering only their own perception of the whole "Web
hosting issue", or viewing it in terms of what *they* need (or don't need).

I believe it was asked if "just because" is an acceptable answer.  I
suppose it isn't technical enough.  But "just because we use switch X" or
"just because we offer virtualized FTP sites" or "just because we have our
bandwidth tracking sniffer built that way" are all valid.

Kevin

>I really think we need ARIN to really lay down what "technical
>justifications" there are for requesting IP space for IP-based hosting. This
>request has appeared many times on this discussion list, but the only answer
>I have seen to date indicates that ARIN requires "technical justification;"
>this is a little too vague for businesses that depend on IP space, and the
>customers which they support.
>
>Is there a definitive list of justifiable reasoning behind IP-based hosting.
>If there is not, then there is no way that anyone offering any IP space to
>their customers could be sure they are requesting the right information from
>their customers. This could conceivably cause them to lose their ability to
>do business if ARIN indicates they don't believe that organization is
>providing proper justification. 
>
>Is there any way we can come up with a list of justifiable reasons to use
>IP-based hosting? If so, can we then also come up with an escalation
>procedure for requesting additions to the list as technology and standard
>practices change? If we had these in place, then companies offering ISP
>services could follow, to the letter, exactly what ARIN needs for them to be
>compliant. They would also have an opportunity to argue a case for alternate
>technical reasons for IP space.



From albertm at innerhost.com  Thu May  3 09:40:02 2001
From: albertm at innerhost.com (Alberto Mujica)
Date: Thu, 3 May 2001 09:40:02 -0400 
Subject: IP-Hosting Policy Specifics
Message-ID: <0A64A2C6A7E1D411994700D0B7A7047C49C658@EXCHANGE.CORP.INNERHOST.COM>

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.

My main concern, would providing SSL to our customers be a sufficient
technical justification?
In theory, SSL can be provided with host names, but Windows 2000 and NT for
example allow binding of a certificate to only one IP Address.

Thanks,

Alberto Mujica
Database Administrator
MCDBA, MCSE, MCP+I, A+
albertm at innerhost.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Macknik [mailto:jmacknik at inflow.com] 
Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2001 8:11 AM
To: 'vwp at arin.net'
Subject: IP-Hosting Policy Specifics


I really think we need ARIN to really lay down what "technical
justifications" there are for requesting IP space for IP-based hosting. This
request has appeared many times on this discussion list, but the only answer
I have seen to date indicates that ARIN requires "technical justification;"
this is a little too vague for businesses that depend on IP space, and the
customers which they support.

Is there a definitive list of justifiable reasoning behind IP-based hosting.
If there is not, then there is no way that anyone offering any IP space to
their customers could be sure they are requesting the right information from
their customers. This could conceivably cause them to lose their ability to
do business if ARIN indicates they don't believe that organization is
providing proper justification. 

Is there any way we can come up with a list of justifiable reasons to use
IP-based hosting? If so, can we then also come up with an escalation
procedure for requesting additions to the list as technology and standard
practices change? If we had these in place, then companies offering ISP
services could follow, to the letter, exactly what ARIN needs for them to be
compliant. They would also have an opportunity to argue a case for alternate
technical reasons for IP space.

-= Mack =-

James M. Macknik
Manager, Systems Engineering
2401 15th St. Suite 200
Denver, CO  80202
303/824.2506 (Office)
720/840.5329 (Mobile)
jmacknik at inflow.com


From cscott at gaslightmedia.com  Thu May  3 10:21:31 2001
From: cscott at gaslightmedia.com (Charles Scott)
Date: Thu, 3 May 2001 10:21:31 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: IP-Hosting Policy Specifics
In-Reply-To: <D71AE516100FD411BC5A00508B62C411025B0688@polo.admin.den.inflow.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0105031000480.29263-100000@harbor.gaslightmedia.com>


On Thu, 3 May 2001, Jim Macknik wrote:

> I really think we need ARIN to really lay down what "technical
> justifications" there are for requesting IP space for IP-based hosting.

Jim:
  When I read the current "Policy" paragraph I don't get the impression
that ARIN is currently intending to "require" any particular technical
justification before granting address space, only that the ISP must supply
"their" technical justification for wanting to do so. This is supported by
the fact that it doesn't say "adequate techinical justification" and by
the second sentance which clearly makes this a data collection effort at
this time. I believe the difference between required justification and a
reasonable effort to apply address conservation techniques was the primary
stumbling point in coming up with a policy in the first place.
  If there is any intent to interpret this policy in such a way that ARIN
(or ISP's to their customers) are going to make a value judgement as to
whether a particular technical justification is acceptable or not, then I
think we need to get that out in the open now and do battle on each and
every one of those acceptable justifications. Just keep in mind where that
went when we tried to define that before. 

Chuck Scott





From jmacknik at inflow.com  Thu May  3 10:48:40 2001
From: jmacknik at inflow.com (Jim Macknik)
Date: Thu, 3 May 2001 08:48:40 -0600 
Subject: IP-Hosting Policy Specifics
Message-ID: <D71AE516100FD411BC5A00508B62C411025B068D@polo.admin.den.inflow.com>

Heh...I hear you. I would say there is some difficulty then...some people I
have spoken are not sure what will be registered as justified. Even if they
are just data-collecting right now, what happens when the policy is in place
at full force? Some people are worried that they may receive charge-backs
due to inadequate justification...they may be unable to get more addresses
because their justification was invalidated, but those arguments were made
at a time when justification was not defined.

I guess my concern is: if the "policy" is just for information gathering
(and I agree that it is currently worded in this way), then there is the
likelihood that most people will want to blow it off. Why put together a lot
of justification documentation when it's not required? The returns that ARIN
gets are likely to be skewed to a select few organizations that are diligent
in providing information. This data, as a result, may not be representative
of how addresses are used in general.

If the policy is released as a requirement to have this data in hand before
IP space can be allocated, then we will need to have clear borders around
it. I'm just a little worried that the policy, as it is currently worded, is
a continuation of the current status quo. Right now, justification is highly
recommended but not an absolute requirement (unless I missed a memo about
the re-instatement of RFC2050). How much data has ARIN received in the last
6 months about how IP space is being allocated?

I worry that if we give people an option to ignore a policy, most users will
do just that.

=- 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: Charles Scott [mailto:cscott at gaslightmedia.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2001 8:22 AM
To: Jim Macknik
Cc: 'vwp at arin.net'
Subject: Re: IP-Hosting Policy Specifics



On Thu, 3 May 2001, Jim Macknik wrote:

> I really think we need ARIN to really lay down what "technical
> justifications" there are for requesting IP space for IP-based hosting.

Jim:
  When I read the current "Policy" paragraph I don't get the impression
that ARIN is currently intending to "require" any particular technical
justification before granting address space, only that the ISP must supply
"their" technical justification for wanting to do so. This is supported by
the fact that it doesn't say "adequate techinical justification" and by
the second sentance which clearly makes this a data collection effort at
this time. I believe the difference between required justification and a
reasonable effort to apply address conservation techniques was the primary
stumbling point in coming up with a policy in the first place.
  If there is any intent to interpret this policy in such a way that ARIN
(or ISP's to their customers) are going to make a value judgement as to
whether a particular technical justification is acceptable or not, then I
think we need to get that out in the open now and do battle on each and
every one of those acceptable justifications. Just keep in mind where that
went when we tried to define that before. 

Chuck Scott




From steve at host-all.com  Thu May  3 10:52:03 2001
From: steve at host-all.com (steve)
Date: Thu, 3 May 2001 10:52:03 -0400
Subject: IP-Hosting Policy Specifics
References: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0105031000480.29263-100000@harbor.gaslightmedia.com>
Message-ID: <042e01c0d3e0$9dea7fe0$019f72ce@hostall.com>

>   When I read the current "Policy" paragraph I don't get the impression
> that ARIN is currently intending to "require" any particular technical
> justification before granting address space, only that the ISP must supply
> "their" technical justification for wanting to do so.

I don't believe the problem will be with Arin.. It is my opinion that the
language opens a door for broad interpretation by folks outside Arin.  But,
I also see the need to start an IP conservation effort. Since Arin is
willing to gather data in an effort to manage the effort, I applaud them and
give them a thumbs up.

In a perfect world, we would have a resolution process whereby mom&pop
hosting company could appeal the decision of a tier 1 to not allow IP space
allotment because of this effort.

Steve Conzett
Host-All.Com





From cscott at gaslightmedia.com  Thu May  3 11:34:22 2001
From: cscott at gaslightmedia.com (Charles Scott)
Date: Thu, 3 May 2001 11:34:22 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: IP-Hosting Policy Specifics
In-Reply-To: <042e01c0d3e0$9dea7fe0$019f72ce@hostall.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0105031123330.11214-100000@harbor.gaslightmedia.com>


On Thu, 3 May 2001, steve wrote:

> I don't believe the problem will be with Arin.. It is my opinion that the
> language opens a door for broad interpretation by folks outside Arin.  

  I agree entirely, and this has been my concern all along. I'm very
concerned that tier-2 ISP's will see the full spectrum from their tier-1
providers, all refering to the same ARIN policy. Also, if ARIN does
consider this to be more than just an information and conservation
request, that it will be hard pressed to avoid problems with inconsistant
implimenatation. 

> But, I also see the need to start an IP conservation effort. Since
> Arin is willing to gather data in an effort to manage the effort, I
> applaud them and give them a thumbs up.

  I doubt anyone would dissagree with this in a broad sence. The devil is
clearly in the implimentation.
 
> In a perfect world, we would have a resolution process whereby mom&pop
> hosting company could appeal the decision of a tier 1 to not allow IP space
> allotment because of this effort.

  See my concerns above. Unless the policy and process is well defined and
understood, it's a sure course to litigation. 

Chuck




From Clay at exodus.net  Thu May  3 12:56:08 2001
From: Clay at exodus.net (Clay)
Date: Thu, 3 May 2001 09:56:08 -0700
Subject: WebHosting Policy approval recommendation
In-Reply-To: <03a301c0d373$d4fca200$019f72ce@hostall.com>
Message-ID: <00f001c0d3f1$f38124c0$4e00ff0a@CLAMBERTW2KD>

Nope...

I think there should be room for the ISP or upstream to determine (filter)
tech-just.
It may sound a little broad but it allows for application of common-sense
for localized special issues that could never be entirely
quantified/qualified in a highly detailed policy.  This gives the Upstream
room to do their job, and I like that.

-Clay

-----Original Message-----
From: steve [mailto:steve at host-all.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2001 6:53 PM
To: Clay at exodus.net; vwp at arin.net
Subject: Re: WebHosting Policy approval recommendation


I agree Clay.  However, is "they will supply technical justification" a bit
broad?


Steve Conzett
Host-All.Com

----- Original Message -----
From: "Clay" <Clay at exodus.net>
To: <vwp at arin.net>
Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2001 9:41 PM
Subject: WebHosting Policy approval recommendation


> Wow, I didn't think I would be able to say this but...This looks great!
:-)
>
> I recommend this policy for approval.
>
> That is a Yeah vote.
>
> Clayton Lambert
> Compliance Services Director
> Exodus Communications
>
> ------------------------
> POLICY
>
> When an ISP submits a request for IP address space to be used for IP-based
> web hosting, they will supply technical justification for this practice.
> ARIN will collect this data for review of the policy in light of
operational
> experience.
> ----------------------------
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of Susan
> Hamlin
> Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2001 1:08 PM
> To: vwp at arin.net
> Subject: Named-based Web Hosting Policy: Last Call for Comments
>
>
> Pursuant to ARIN's recently adopted policy evaluation process, this is the
> last call for comments on the ARIN Advisory Council's policy
recommendation
> regarding Name-based Web Hosting.
>
> The announcement posted today on the ARIN website refers back to an April
> 16 posting to the Public Policy and Virtual Web hosting mailing lists:
>
> http://www.arin.net/announcements/last_call_name_based_hosting.html
>
> All comments should be sent to the vwp mailing list.
>
> This last call for comments expires at 1700 Eastern Time, 16 May 2001.
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Susan Hamlin
> Director, Member Services
> American Registry for Internet Numbers



From jfleming at anet.com  Thu May  3 12:59:15 2001
From: jfleming at anet.com (JIM FLEMING)
Date: Thu, 3 May 2001 11:59:15 -0500
Subject: IP-Hosting Policy Specifics
References: <D71AE516100FD411BC5A00508B62C411025B0688@polo.admin.den.inflow.com>
Message-ID: <000f01c0d3f2$6338ff40$df00a8c0@vaio>

ARIN is only one of many companies that are in the address registry
business.
Here are the first 64 blocks out of 256 (not all can be used).

http://www.isi.edu/in-notes/iana/assignments/ipv4-address-space
000/8  IANA - Reserved    Sep 81
001/8  IANA - Reserved    Sep 81
002/8  IANA - Reserved    Sep 81
003/8  General Electric Company  May 94
004/8  Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc.  Dec 92
005/8  IANA - Reserved    Jul 95
006/8  Army Information Systems Center  Feb 94
007/8  IANA - Reserved    Apr 95
008/8  Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc.  Dec 92
009/8  IBM     Aug 92
010/8  IANA - Private Use   Jun 95
011/8  DoD Intel Information Systems  May 93
012/8  AT&T Bell Laboratories   Jun 95
013/8  Xerox Corporation   Sep 91
014/8  IANA - Public Data Network  Jun 91
015/8  Hewlett-Packard Company   Jul 94
016/8  Digital Equipment Corporation  Nov 94
017/8  Apple Computer Inc.   Jul 92
018/8  MIT     Jan 94
019/8  Ford Motor Company   May 95
020/8  Computer Sciences Corporation  Oct 94
021/8  DDN-RVN     Jul 91
022/8  Defense Information Systems Agency May 93
023/8  IANA - Reserved    Jul 95
024/8  IANA - Cable Block   Jul 95
025/8  Royal Signals and Radar Establishment Jan 95
026/8  Defense Information Systems Agency May 95
027/8  IANA - Reserved    Apr 95
028/8  DSI-North    Jul 92
029/8  Defense Information Systems Agency Jul 91
030/8  Defense Information Systems Agency Jul 91
031/8  IANA - Reserved    Apr 99
032/8  Norsk Informasjonsteknologi  Jun 94
033/8  DLA Systems Automation Center  Jan 91
034/8  Halliburton Company   Mar 93
035/8  MERIT Computer Network   Apr 94
036/8  IANA - Reserved    Jul 00
                (Formerly Stanford University)          Apr 93
037/8  IANA - Reserved    Apr 95
038/8  Performance Systems International Sep 94
039/8  IANA - Reserved    Apr 95
040/8  Eli Lily and Company   Jun 94
041/8  IANA - Reserved    May 95
042/8  IANA - Reserved    Jul 95
043/8  Japan Inet    Jan 91
044/8  Amateur Radio Digital Communications Jul 92
045/8  Interop Show Network   Jan 95
046/8  Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc.  Dec 92
047/8  Bell-Northern Research   Jan 91
048/8  Prudential Securities Inc.  May 95
049/8  Joint Technical Command   May 94
  Returned to IANA   Mar 98
050/8  Joint Technical Command   May 94
  Returned to IANA   Mar 98
051/8  Deparment of Social Security of UK Aug 94
052/8  E.I. duPont de Nemours and Co., Inc. Dec 91
053/8  Cap Debis CCS    Oct 93
054/8  Merck and Co., Inc.   Mar 92
055/8  Boeing Computer Services  Apr 95
056/8  U.S. Postal Service   Jun 94
057/8  SITA     May 95
058/8  IANA - Reserved    Sep 81
059/8  IANA - Reserved    Sep 81
060/8  IANA - Reserved    Sep 81
061/8  APNIC - Pacific Rim   Apr 97
062/8  RIPE NCC - Europe   Apr 97
063/8  ARIN     Apr 97

@@@@@@@@@

Maybe people should focus on obtaining allocations from other companies ?

Also, for IPv8, the address space is allocated (for management) to the TLD
managers.

Jim Fleming
http://www.unir.com
Mars 128n 128e
http://www.unir.com/images/architech.gif
http://www.unir.com/images/address.gif
http://www.unir.com/images/headers.gif
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt
http://msdn.microsoft.com/downloads/sdks/platform/tpipv6/start.asp




----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Macknik" <jmacknik at inflow.com>
To: <vwp at arin.net>
Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2001 7:11 AM
Subject: IP-Hosting Policy Specifics


> I really think we need ARIN to really lay down what "technical
> justifications" there are for requesting IP space for IP-based hosting.
This
> request has appeared many times on this discussion list, but the only
answer
> I have seen to date indicates that ARIN requires "technical
justification;"
> this is a little too vague for businesses that depend on IP space, and the
> customers which they support.
>
> Is there a definitive list of justifiable reasoning behind IP-based
hosting.
> If there is not, then there is no way that anyone offering any IP space to
> their customers could be sure they are requesting the right information
from
> their customers. This could conceivably cause them to lose their ability
to
> do business if ARIN indicates they don't believe that organization is
> providing proper justification.
>
> Is there any way we can come up with a list of justifiable reasons to use
> IP-based hosting? If so, can we then also come up with an escalation
> procedure for requesting additions to the list as technology and standard
> practices change? If we had these in place, then companies offering ISP
> services could follow, to the letter, exactly what ARIN needs for them to
be
> compliant. They would also have an opportunity to argue a case for
alternate
> technical reasons for IP space.
>
> -= Mack =-
>
> James M. Macknik
> Manager, Systems Engineering
> 2401 15th St. Suite 200
> Denver, CO  80202
> 303/824.2506 (Office)
> 720/840.5329 (Mobile)
> jmacknik at inflow.com
>
>



From Clay at exodus.net  Thu May  3 14:32:15 2001
From: Clay at exodus.net (Clay)
Date: Thu, 3 May 2001 11:32:15 -0700
Subject: WebHosting Policy approval recommendation
In-Reply-To: <01C0D3CC.C2102140.sburns@rackspace.com>
Message-ID: <00ff01c0d3ff$6152ee40$4e00ff0a@CLAMBERTW2KD>

It should be grand-fathered in cases just as you described.  We approve most
grand fathered allocations involving ISP moves.  Exceptions to this occur,
but they normally involve a Customer having a (for example) /21 assigned yet
they are only currently occupying a /22.  In the case where the
grand-fathered subnets have a significant portion unused, I think it is
reasonable and good netizen practice, to assign what is needed for the
renumbering (and an adequate amount for near-term growth) and then come back
and ask for more when it is needed...at that time however, technical
justification would have to be provided.

-Clay

-----Original Message-----
From: sharon [mailto:sburns at rackspace.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2001 10:30 AM
To: 'Clay at exodus.net'; 'steve'
Cc: vwp at arin.net
Subject: RE: WebHosting Policy approval recommendation


1)   Will IP space that we've already assigned for IP-based web hosting be
justified as "grandfather-ed" if we approach ARIN for additional IP space?

2)    Situation:

	New customer is coming from another ISP. Currently this customer has been
given x amount of space from their current provider for IP-based hosting.
The customer now wants an equivalent amount of IP space from us, stating
that they will be returning the space to their current provider.

	Will this be an acceptable assignment?

Sharon

On Thursday, May 03, 2001 11:56 AM, Clay [SMTP:Clay at exodus.net] wrote:
> Nope...
>
> I think there should be room for the ISP or upstream to determine
(filter)
> tech-just.
> It may sound a little broad but it allows for application of common-sense
> for localized special issues that could never be entirely
> quantified/qualified in a highly detailed policy.  This gives the
Upstream
> room to do their job, and I like that.
>
> -Clay
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: steve [mailto:steve at host-all.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2001 6:53 PM
> To: Clay at exodus.net; vwp at arin.net
> Subject: Re: WebHosting Policy approval recommendation
>
>
> I agree Clay.  However, is "they will supply technical justification" a
bit
> broad?
>
>
> Steve Conzett
> Host-All.Com
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Clay" <Clay at exodus.net>
> To: <vwp at arin.net>
> Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2001 9:41 PM
> Subject: WebHosting Policy approval recommendation
>
>
> > Wow, I didn't think I would be able to say this but...This looks great!
> :-)
> >
> > I recommend this policy for approval.
> >
> > That is a Yeah vote.
> >
> > Clayton Lambert
> > Compliance Services Director
> > Exodus Communications
> >
> > ------------------------
> > POLICY
> >
> > When an ISP submits a request for IP address space to be used for
IP-based
> > web hosting, they will supply technical justification for this
practice.
> > ARIN will collect this data for review of the policy in light of
> operational
> > experience.
> > ----------------------------
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of Susan
> > Hamlin
> > Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2001 1:08 PM
> > To: vwp at arin.net
> > Subject: Named-based Web Hosting Policy: Last Call for Comments
> >
> >
> > Pursuant to ARIN's recently adopted policy evaluation process, this is
the
> > last call for comments on the ARIN Advisory Council's policy
> recommendation
> > regarding Name-based Web Hosting.
> >
> > The announcement posted today on the ARIN website refers back to an
April
> > 16 posting to the Public Policy and Virtual Web hosting mailing lists:
> >
> > http://www.arin.net/announcements/last_call_name_based_hosting.html
> >
> > All comments should be sent to the vwp mailing list.
> >
> > This last call for comments expires at 1700 Eastern Time, 16 May 2001.
> >
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Susan Hamlin
> > Director, Member Services
> > American Registry for Internet Numbers



From Gilbert.Martin at za.didata.com  Thu May  3 13:21:41 2001
From: Gilbert.Martin at za.didata.com (Gilbert Martin @ Learning Solutions)
Date: Thu, 3 May 2001 19:21:41 +0200 
Subject: WebHosting Policy approval recommendation
Message-ID: <DC7ABD0A8338D311B2010008C79122EE03A52EB6@zajnbddsexc1.didata.co.za>

I am under the impression that they probably will supply "technical
justification" otherwize its just a suggestion without a purpose???? Ignore
Me!!
Gilbert
IT Specialist

-----Original Message-----
From: Clay [mailto:Clay at exodus.net]
Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2001 6:56 PM
To: 'steve'; vwp at arin.net
Subject: RE: WebHosting Policy approval recommendation


Nope...

I think there should be room for the ISP or upstream to determine (filter)
tech-just.
It may sound a little broad but it allows for application of common-sense
for localized special issues that could never be entirely
quantified/qualified in a highly detailed policy.  This gives the Upstream
room to do their job, and I like that.

-Clay

-----Original Message-----
From: steve [mailto:steve at host-all.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2001 6:53 PM
To: Clay at exodus.net; vwp at arin.net
Subject: Re: WebHosting Policy approval recommendation


I agree Clay.  However, is "they will supply technical justification" a bit
broad?


Steve Conzett
Host-All.Com

----- Original Message -----
From: "Clay" <Clay at exodus.net>
To: <vwp at arin.net>
Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2001 9:41 PM
Subject: WebHosting Policy approval recommendation


> Wow, I didn't think I would be able to say this but...This looks great!
:-)
>
> I recommend this policy for approval.
>
> That is a Yeah vote.
>
> Clayton Lambert
> Compliance Services Director
> Exodus Communications
>
> ------------------------
> POLICY
>
> When an ISP submits a request for IP address space to be used for IP-based
> web hosting, they will supply technical justification for this practice.
> ARIN will collect this data for review of the policy in light of
operational
> experience.
> ----------------------------
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of Susan
> Hamlin
> Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2001 1:08 PM
> To: vwp at arin.net
> Subject: Named-based Web Hosting Policy: Last Call for Comments
>
>
> Pursuant to ARIN's recently adopted policy evaluation process, this is the
> last call for comments on the ARIN Advisory Council's policy
recommendation
> regarding Name-based Web Hosting.
>
> The announcement posted today on the ARIN website refers back to an April
> 16 posting to the Public Policy and Virtual Web hosting mailing lists:
>
> http://www.arin.net/announcements/last_call_name_based_hosting.html
>
> All comments should be sent to the vwp mailing list.
>
> This last call for comments expires at 1700 Eastern Time, 16 May 2001.
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Susan Hamlin
> Director, Member Services
> American Registry for Internet Numbers


*******************************************************************
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.

*******************************************************************


From susan at arcana.manske.net  Thu May  3 16:32:36 2001
From: susan at arcana.manske.net (Susan Zeigler)
Date: Thu, 03 May 2001 15:32:36 -0500
Subject: IP-Hosting Policy Specifics
References: <0A64A2C6A7E1D411994700D0B7A7047C49C658@EXCHANGE.CORP.INNERHOST.COM>
Message-ID: <3AF1C064.9A970859@arcana.manske.net>

The post I sent earlier today didn't seem to go through so I'm posting it again,
apologies if anyone receives this twice:

Several months ago, I wrote and FAQ and posted information regarding SSL and
host-header based hosting. Following is an exerpt from that:

In order for a certificate to work on more than one site, 2 of three
things need to be different: domain, port, or IP.

If you are maintaining multiple web sites on one certificate, it can
easily be done using only one IP. There must always be one IP per
certificate, however, so if you are running multiple certificates on the
same server you will need more than one IP assigned to that server--one 
for each certificate.

The certificate should be registered with a designated host-name under
your primary domain. (example: secure.webhostersmaindomain.com)
This will point to the root site of your server if you are running IIS 4
or anywhere on IIS 5 and other web hosting applications.

This is the directory you will set up SSL for and where all of the
actual home directories of the sites that will be accessed via SSL. You
then set up the virtual site and any time you want to access via SSL
site, you set up a redirect to the the URL
<secure.webhostersmaindomain.com/mydirectory> where
<mydirectory> is the name of the home directory. In addition, creating
the sites as an application under that root site can help to easily
designate them.

The only exposure this scheme has is with identity. If someone would
click on the lock, it will list the secure.webhostersmaindomain.com as
the owner, however this issue is the same for anyone who is running
multiple sites off the same certificate, so it doesn't come into play
with regards to the IP scheme. The only way to combat this argument is
to then have multiple certificates, with each individual client owning
their own. This is costly, however, so many web hosting companies don't
do this.

The web-hosting clients that I have don't get any complaints with this
method. In fact, their clients love it because they don't have to buy
their own certificate.




Alberto Mujica wrote:
> 
> 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.
> 
> My main concern, would providing SSL to our customers be a sufficient
> technical justification?
> In theory, SSL can be provided with host names, but Windows 2000 and NT for
> example allow binding of a certificate to only one IP Address.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Alberto Mujica
> Database Administrator
> MCDBA, MCSE, MCP+I, A+
> albertm at innerhost.com
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jim Macknik [mailto:jmacknik at inflow.com]
> Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2001 8:11 AM
> To: 'vwp at arin.net'
> Subject: IP-Hosting Policy Specifics
> 
> I really think we need ARIN to really lay down what "technical
> justifications" there are for requesting IP space for IP-based hosting. This
> request has appeared many times on this discussion list, but the only answer
> I have seen to date indicates that ARIN requires "technical justification;"
> this is a little too vague for businesses that depend on IP space, and the
> customers which they support.
> 
> Is there a definitive list of justifiable reasoning behind IP-based hosting.
> If there is not, then there is no way that anyone offering any IP space to
> their customers could be sure they are requesting the right information from
> their customers. This could conceivably cause them to lose their ability to
> do business if ARIN indicates they don't believe that organization is
> providing proper justification.
> 
> Is there any way we can come up with a list of justifiable reasons to use
> IP-based hosting? If so, can we then also come up with an escalation
> procedure for requesting additions to the list as technology and standard
> practices change? If we had these in place, then companies offering ISP
> services could follow, to the letter, exactly what ARIN needs for them to be
> compliant. They would also have an opportunity to argue a case for alternate
> technical reasons for IP space.
> 
> -= Mack =-
> 
> James M. Macknik
> Manager, Systems Engineering
> 2401 15th St. Suite 200
> Denver, CO  80202
> 303/824.2506 (Office)
> 720/840.5329 (Mobile)
> jmacknik at inflow.com

-- 

-- 
-Susan
-- 
Susan Zeigler            |      Technical Services
szeigler at spindustry.com  |      Spindustry Systems
515.225.0920             |


From John.Sweeting at teleglobe.com  Thu May  3 08:54:15 2001
From: John.Sweeting at teleglobe.com (Sweeting, John)
Date: Thu, 3 May 2001 08:54:15 -0400 
Subject: IP-Hosting Policy Specifics
Message-ID: <170E5E7779BCD3118C2A0008C7F40C1901344642@usresms03.teleglobe.com>

My understanding is that there is no "list" that everyone agrees on and that
is why this policy is being put in place to collect the different "technical
justifications" that people believe exist.  It should then be easier to
determine alternatives to these reasons while at the same time allowing
businesses to remain competitive while dealing with their "technical"
challenges. One possible outcome of this policy is a "list" will be put
together that everyone can agree on; this is the way that was decided on to
come up with the "list".

-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Macknik [mailto:jmacknik at inflow.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2001 8:11 AM
To: 'vwp at arin.net'
Subject: IP-Hosting Policy Specifics


I really think we need ARIN to really lay down what "technical
justifications" there are for requesting IP space for IP-based hosting. This
request has appeared many times on this discussion list, but the only answer
I have seen to date indicates that ARIN requires "technical justification;"
this is a little too vague for businesses that depend on IP space, and the
customers which they support.

Is there a definitive list of justifiable reasoning behind IP-based hosting.
If there is not, then there is no way that anyone offering any IP space to
their customers could be sure they are requesting the right information from
their customers. This could conceivably cause them to lose their ability to
do business if ARIN indicates they don't believe that organization is
providing proper justification. 

Is there any way we can come up with a list of justifiable reasons to use
IP-based hosting? If so, can we then also come up with an escalation
procedure for requesting additions to the list as technology and standard
practices change? If we had these in place, then companies offering ISP
services could follow, to the letter, exactly what ARIN needs for them to be
compliant. They would also have an opportunity to argue a case for alternate
technical reasons for IP space.

-= Mack =-

James M. Macknik
Manager, Systems Engineering
2401 15th St. Suite 200
Denver, CO  80202
303/824.2506 (Office)
720/840.5329 (Mobile)
jmacknik at inflow.com


From Clay at exodus.net  Thu May  3 18:48:03 2001
From: Clay at exodus.net (Clay)
Date: Thu, 3 May 2001 15:48:03 -0700
Subject: IP-Hosting Policy Specifics
In-Reply-To: <170E5E7779BCD3118C2A0008C7F40C1901344642@usresms03.teleglobe.com>
Message-ID: <012101c0d423$1cff2140$4e00ff0a@CLAMBERTW2KD>

The fact that there are a multitude of technical reasons and that more may
come into common use all the time is why it is smart to rely upon upstream
providers and ARIN to analyze the solution and document those particular
technical reasons for further awareness and assurance down the road.

-Clay

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of
Sweeting, John
Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2001 5:54 AM
To: 'Jim Macknik'; 'vwp at arin.net'
Subject: RE: IP-Hosting Policy Specifics


My understanding is that there is no "list" that everyone agrees on and that
is why this policy is being put in place to collect the different "technical
justifications" that people believe exist.  It should then be easier to
determine alternatives to these reasons while at the same time allowing
businesses to remain competitive while dealing with their "technical"
challenges. One possible outcome of this policy is a "list" will be put
together that everyone can agree on; this is the way that was decided on to
come up with the "list".

-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Macknik [mailto:jmacknik at inflow.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2001 8:11 AM
To: 'vwp at arin.net'
Subject: IP-Hosting Policy Specifics


I really think we need ARIN to really lay down what "technical
justifications" there are for requesting IP space for IP-based hosting. This
request has appeared many times on this discussion list, but the only answer
I have seen to date indicates that ARIN requires "technical justification;"
this is a little too vague for businesses that depend on IP space, and the
customers which they support.

Is there a definitive list of justifiable reasoning behind IP-based hosting.
If there is not, then there is no way that anyone offering any IP space to
their customers could be sure they are requesting the right information from
their customers. This could conceivably cause them to lose their ability to
do business if ARIN indicates they don't believe that organization is
providing proper justification.

Is there any way we can come up with a list of justifiable reasons to use
IP-based hosting? If so, can we then also come up with an escalation
procedure for requesting additions to the list as technology and standard
practices change? If we had these in place, then companies offering ISP
services could follow, to the letter, exactly what ARIN needs for them to be
compliant. They would also have an opportunity to argue a case for alternate
technical reasons for IP space.

-= Mack =-

James M. Macknik
Manager, Systems Engineering
2401 15th St. Suite 200
Denver, CO  80202
303/824.2506 (Office)
720/840.5329 (Mobile)
jmacknik at inflow.com



From steve at host-all.com  Thu May  3 20:36:52 2001
From: steve at host-all.com (steve)
Date: Thu, 3 May 2001 20:36:52 -0400
Subject: IP-Hosting Policy Specifics
References: <0A64A2C6A7E1D411994700D0B7A7047C49C658@EXCHANGE.CORP.INNERHOST.COM> <3AF1C064.9A970859@arcana.manske.net>
Message-ID: <010b01c0d432$50d89b40$019f72ce@hostall.com>

geezz.. I don't condone this at all.. the *very reason* for a cert is to
identify the site. Let's please stay with rationality and assume NT SSL
requires an IP per host name.  :))

Steve Conzett
host-all.com

----- Original Message -----
From: "Susan Zeigler" <susan at arcana.manske.net>
To: <vwp at arin.net>
Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2001 4:32 PM
Subject: Re: IP-Hosting Policy Specifics


> The post I sent earlier today didn't seem to go through so I'm posting it
again,
> apologies if anyone receives this twice:
>
> Several months ago, I wrote and FAQ and posted information regarding SSL
and
> host-header based hosting. Following is an exerpt from that:
>
> In order for a certificate to work on more than one site, 2 of three
> things need to be different: domain, port, or IP.
>
> If you are maintaining multiple web sites on one certificate, it can
> easily be done using only one IP. There must always be one IP per
> certificate, however, so if you are running multiple certificates on the
> same server you will need more than one IP assigned to that server--one
> for each certificate.
>
> The certificate should be registered with a designated host-name under
> your primary domain. (example: secure.webhostersmaindomain.com)
> This will point to the root site of your server if you are running IIS 4
> or anywhere on IIS 5 and other web hosting applications.
>
> This is the directory you will set up SSL for and where all of the
> actual home directories of the sites that will be accessed via SSL. You
> then set up the virtual site and any time you want to access via SSL
> site, you set up a redirect to the the URL
> <secure.webhostersmaindomain.com/mydirectory> where
> <mydirectory> is the name of the home directory. In addition, creating
> the sites as an application under that root site can help to easily
> designate them.
>
> The only exposure this scheme has is with identity. If someone would
> click on the lock, it will list the secure.webhostersmaindomain.com as
> the owner, however this issue is the same for anyone who is running
> multiple sites off the same certificate, so it doesn't come into play
> with regards to the IP scheme. The only way to combat this argument is
> to then have multiple certificates, with each individual client owning
> their own. This is costly, however, so many web hosting companies don't
> do this.
>
> The web-hosting clients that I have don't get any complaints with this
> method. In fact, their clients love it because they don't have to buy
> their own certificate.
>
>
>
>
> Alberto Mujica wrote:
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > My main concern, would providing SSL to our customers be a sufficient
> > technical justification?
> > In theory, SSL can be provided with host names, but Windows 2000 and NT
for
> > example allow binding of a certificate to only one IP Address.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Alberto Mujica
> > Database Administrator
> > MCDBA, MCSE, MCP+I, A+
> > albertm at innerhost.com
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Jim Macknik [mailto:jmacknik at inflow.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2001 8:11 AM
> > To: 'vwp at arin.net'
> > Subject: IP-Hosting Policy Specifics
> >
> > I really think we need ARIN to really lay down what "technical
> > justifications" there are for requesting IP space for IP-based hosting.
This
> > request has appeared many times on this discussion list, but the only
answer
> > I have seen to date indicates that ARIN requires "technical
justification;"
> > this is a little too vague for businesses that depend on IP space, and
the
> > customers which they support.
> >
> > Is there a definitive list of justifiable reasoning behind IP-based
hosting.
> > If there is not, then there is no way that anyone offering any IP space
to
> > their customers could be sure they are requesting the right information
from
> > their customers. This could conceivably cause them to lose their ability
to
> > do business if ARIN indicates they don't believe that organization is
> > providing proper justification.
> >
> > Is there any way we can come up with a list of justifiable reasons to
use
> > IP-based hosting? If so, can we then also come up with an escalation
> > procedure for requesting additions to the list as technology and
standard
> > practices change? If we had these in place, then companies offering ISP
> > services could follow, to the letter, exactly what ARIN needs for them
to be
> > compliant. They would also have an opportunity to argue a case for
alternate
> > technical reasons for IP space.
> >
> > -= Mack =-
> >
> > James M. Macknik
> > Manager, Systems Engineering
> > 2401 15th St. Suite 200
> > Denver, CO  80202
> > 303/824.2506 (Office)
> > 720/840.5329 (Mobile)
> > jmacknik at inflow.com
>
> --
>
> --
> -Susan
> --
> Susan Zeigler            |      Technical Services
> szeigler at spindustry.com  |      Spindustry Systems
> 515.225.0920             |



From susan at arcana.manske.net  Fri May  4 01:04:58 2001
From: susan at arcana.manske.net (Susan Zeigler)
Date: Fri, 04 May 2001 00:04:58 -0500
Subject: IP-Hosting Policy Specifics
References: <0A64A2C6A7E1D411994700D0B7A7047C49C658@EXCHANGE.CORP.INNERHOST.COM> <3AF1C064.9A970859@arcana.manske.net> <010b01c0d432$50d89b40$019f72ce@hostall.com>
Message-ID: <3AF2387A.1AF28DBA@arcana.manske.net>

That is one reason for a certificate and it is obviously very valid,
however there are other ways they are implemented. "Shopping cart" sites
for smaller businesses probably make up the majority of the ones I've
seen. Considering that the regional ISP that I worked for until very
recently had upwards of 60 collocated/dedicated clients, none of which
had more than one cert per box but many had multiple clients per box,
like it or not this is indeed a solution that is being implemented. 

Additionally, this scenario was similar for the clients who hosted their
servers on their own networks. As IP adminstrator, I was fully aware of
the uses and needs of these clients--less than 1% of the 1500 high-speed
access business clients we had utilized anything but host-headers and
less than 5 had projected that they would eventually install more than
one certificate on a server. The sites that were large enough to want
(and pay for) their own certificates were usually on either a dedicated
or collocated server/server cluster. These included some fairly large
international sites.

There were other technical justifications for hard-IPing sites on a
server that we were occassionally presented with, but one of the few we
could actually justify as mandatory was that multiple certificates on a
server required multiple IPs--multiple NICs is obviously another one. 

The jist of what I was saying was this:
If you only have one cert, you only need one IP. 

steve wrote:
> 
> geezz.. I don't condone this at all.. the *very reason* for a cert is to
> identify the site. Let's please stay with rationality and assume NT SSL
> requires an IP per host name.  :))
> 
> Steve Conzett
> host-all.com
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Susan Zeigler" <susan at arcana.manske.net>
> To: <vwp at arin.net>
> Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2001 4:32 PM
> Subject: Re: IP-Hosting Policy Specifics
> 
> > The post I sent earlier today didn't seem to go through so I'm posting it
> again,
> > apologies if anyone receives this twice:
> >
> > Several months ago, I wrote and FAQ and posted information regarding SSL
> and
> > host-header based hosting. Following is an exerpt from that:
> >
> > In order for a certificate to work on more than one site, 2 of three
> > things need to be different: domain, port, or IP.
> >
> > If you are maintaining multiple web sites on one certificate, it can
> > easily be done using only one IP. There must always be one IP per
> > certificate, however, so if you are running multiple certificates on the
> > same server you will need more than one IP assigned to that server--one
> > for each certificate.
> >
> > The certificate should be registered with a designated host-name under
> > your primary domain. (example: secure.webhostersmaindomain.com)
> > This will point to the root site of your server if you are running IIS 4
> > or anywhere on IIS 5 and other web hosting applications.
> >
> > This is the directory you will set up SSL for and where all of the
> > actual home directories of the sites that will be accessed via SSL. You
> > then set up the virtual site and any time you want to access via SSL
> > site, you set up a redirect to the the URL
> > <secure.webhostersmaindomain.com/mydirectory> where
> > <mydirectory> is the name of the home directory. In addition, creating
> > the sites as an application under that root site can help to easily
> > designate them.
> >
> > The only exposure this scheme has is with identity. If someone would
> > click on the lock, it will list the secure.webhostersmaindomain.com as
> > the owner, however this issue is the same for anyone who is running
> > multiple sites off the same certificate, so it doesn't come into play
> > with regards to the IP scheme. The only way to combat this argument is
> > to then have multiple certificates, with each individual client owning
> > their own. This is costly, however, so many web hosting companies don't
> > do this.
> >
> > The web-hosting clients that I have don't get any complaints with this
> > method. In fact, their clients love it because they don't have to buy
> > their own certificate.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Alberto Mujica wrote:
> > >
> > > 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.
> > >
> > > My main concern, would providing SSL to our customers be a sufficient
> > > technical justification?
> > > In theory, SSL can be provided with host names, but Windows 2000 and NT
> for
> > > example allow binding of a certificate to only one IP Address.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > > Alberto Mujica
> > > Database Administrator
> > > MCDBA, MCSE, MCP+I, A+
> > > albertm at innerhost.com

> > --
> >
> > --
> > -Susan
> > --
> > Susan Zeigler            |      Technical Services
> > szeigler at spindustry.com  |      Spindustry Systems
> > 515.225.0920             |


From salim at localweb.com  Wed May  9 11:55:42 2001
From: salim at localweb.com (A. M. Salim)
Date: Wed, 9 May 2001 11:55:42 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Comments on Name Based Virtualk Hosting Policy Recommendation
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.04.10105091148160.983-100000@mx.localweb.com>


Hi,

The POLICY simply states that the ISP will provide "technical
justification", and that ARIN will review it in the light of "OPERATIONAL
EXPERIENCE".

a) I feel these terms need elaboration, otherwise there is immense room
for individual interpretation by the reviewer.

b) Is the intent of this policy to coax small ISP's out of business?  If
not, please be aware that this is what I am currently staring at in the
face, a a direct result of this policy recommendation.  Here is a real
life example:

I am currently using 6-7 class C's (quite efficinelty by my reckoning but
who knows how ARIN's reviewer will judge it on any given day).

My current provider decided to give up their ISP business six months ago
and asked a third party company to take over being the upstream ISP for
all their existing customers, myself included (for reasons unrelated to
me, for their own business reasons). The new ISP is steadfastly refusing
to grant me more than 1.5 class C's not because I can't justify them and
not because they have studied my justification and decided I don't need
that many IP's, but because they are scared that ARIN's new policy will
force them to return IP's they have been allocated etc. etc.

They are specifically pointing to the "Last Call for Name-based Web
Hosting Policy Recommendation" on http://www.arin.net/.  True, it can be
argued that they should not be referring to that page, that they are being
unreasonably cautious etc. etc. but the hard facts remain that they are
taking this position on the basis of this "Last Call for Name-based Web
Hosting Policy Recommendation" and I am a victim of it.  I do not have the
luxury of debating their position with them.

If I do not get my 6 class C's in the next 20 days, I am dead.

ARIN's wordings needs to change asap!

I recommend the following be phrased into the wording of the policy and/or
best practice:

a) that the policy duly take into account existing allocations and not
force existing allocations to be squeezed/returned when the ISP can show
unreasonable business distress would result from this requirement to them
or their client(s).

b) when an ISP requests an allocation of two or more class C IP's to
replace an allocation that is equal in size to an existing allocation that
they currently have been using from their existing provider (for say at
least 6 months or 1 year or some suitable grandfather period) that request
should be granted regardless of size of requested allocation, and
regardless of whether it is being efficiently used or not, provided they
agree to return a portion of it to the pool within 18 months, the portion
to be returned being decided by mutual discussion between ARIN and the
ISP, and provided that this request is being made because the requesting
ISP is changing their upstream provider and will no longer be using the IP
allocation being replaced, and that the new and old providers are in
agreement with the request.

(Why 2 or more clas C's and not 16 and not 1?  If someone is using just 1
class C, chances are they are not an ISP.  If they are using 2, chances
are very high they are an ISP of one kind or another. By the same token
there are many ISP's who do not yet use 16 C's but maybe 5 or 6 or 12, and
that is by no means a negligible "drop in the bucket" number.  If less
than 16 Class C's is a negligible amount, then there would not be such a
fuss about IP shortages in the first place!).

best regards
Mike.



From sigma at pair.com  Wed May  9 12:07:22 2001
From: sigma at pair.com (sigma at pair.com)
Date: Wed, 9 May 2001 12:07:22 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Comments on Name Based Virtualk Hosting Policy Recommendation
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.04.10105091148160.983-100000@mx.localweb.com> from "A. M. Salim" at "May 9, 1 11:55:42 am"
Message-ID: <20010509160722.25104.qmail@smx.pair.com>


The policy was originally a *requirement* that name-based hosting be used,
which was a shock to most of the Web hosting industry, leading to outcry,
discussion, etc.  Now the policy is merely a recommendation which attempts
to collect information so that some day we can see some path towards
avoiding the one-IP-per-domain in some cases.

Your ISP is completely wrong to think that the policy means anyone will be
denied allocation.  One of the things raised at ARIN meetings was the
possibility that upstream ISPs would squeeze their downstreams on the fear
that ARIN would squeeze them, or on misinterpretation of the policy.
However, it's not ARIN's fault if an ISP makes that mistake, which they
could do for any policy imaginable, really.

Go back to your provider and help them understand the policy and what went
before it.  Have them ask their ARIN contact about it.  They should know
better, so help them know better.

Kevin

> 
> Hi,
> 
> The POLICY simply states that the ISP will provide "technical
> justification", and that ARIN will review it in the light of "OPERATIONAL
> EXPERIENCE".
> 
> a) I feel these terms need elaboration, otherwise there is immense room
> for individual interpretation by the reviewer.
> 
> b) Is the intent of this policy to coax small ISP's out of business?  If
> not, please be aware that this is what I am currently staring at in the
> face, a a direct result of this policy recommendation.  Here is a real
> life example:
> 
> I am currently using 6-7 class C's (quite efficinelty by my reckoning but
> who knows how ARIN's reviewer will judge it on any given day).
> 
> My current provider decided to give up their ISP business six months ago
> and asked a third party company to take over being the upstream ISP for
> all their existing customers, myself included (for reasons unrelated to
> me, for their own business reasons). The new ISP is steadfastly refusing
> to grant me more than 1.5 class C's not because I can't justify them and
> not because they have studied my justification and decided I don't need
> that many IP's, but because they are scared that ARIN's new policy will
> force them to return IP's they have been allocated etc. etc.
> 
> They are specifically pointing to the "Last Call for Name-based Web
> Hosting Policy Recommendation" on http://www.arin.net/.  True, it can be
> argued that they should not be referring to that page, that they are being
> unreasonably cautious etc. etc. but the hard facts remain that they are
> taking this position on the basis of this "Last Call for Name-based Web
> Hosting Policy Recommendation" and I am a victim of it.  I do not have the
> luxury of debating their position with them.
> 
> If I do not get my 6 class C's in the next 20 days, I am dead.
> 
> ARIN's wordings needs to change asap!
> 
> I recommend the following be phrased into the wording of the policy and/or
> best practice:
> 
> a) that the policy duly take into account existing allocations and not
> force existing allocations to be squeezed/returned when the ISP can show
> unreasonable business distress would result from this requirement to them
> or their client(s).
> 
> b) when an ISP requests an allocation of two or more class C IP's to
> replace an allocation that is equal in size to an existing allocation that
> they currently have been using from their existing provider (for say at
> least 6 months or 1 year or some suitable grandfather period) that request
> should be granted regardless of size of requested allocation, and
> regardless of whether it is being efficiently used or not, provided they
> agree to return a portion of it to the pool within 18 months, the portion
> to be returned being decided by mutual discussion between ARIN and the
> ISP, and provided that this request is being made because the requesting
> ISP is changing their upstream provider and will no longer be using the IP
> allocation being replaced, and that the new and old providers are in
> agreement with the request.
> 
> (Why 2 or more clas C's and not 16 and not 1?  If someone is using just 1
> class C, chances are they are not an ISP.  If they are using 2, chances
> are very high they are an ISP of one kind or another. By the same token
> there are many ISP's who do not yet use 16 C's but maybe 5 or 6 or 12, and
> that is by no means a negligible "drop in the bucket" number.  If less
> than 16 Class C's is a negligible amount, then there would not be such a
> fuss about IP shortages in the first place!).
> 
> best regards
> Mike.
> 



From salim at localweb.com  Wed May  9 12:30:36 2001
From: salim at localweb.com (A. M. Salim)
Date: Wed, 9 May 2001 12:30:36 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Comments on Name Based Virtualk Hosting Policy Recommendation
In-Reply-To: <20010509160722.25104.qmail@smx.pair.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.04.10105091227010.983-100000@mx.localweb.com>


Hi,

> Go back to your provider and help them understand the policy and what
> went before it.  Have them ask their ARIN contact about it.  They
> should know better, so help them know better.

thank you for your suggestion, however as I indicated in my original
posting that although it could be argued they are being unreasonable, that
does not help me.  I am stuck with what is displayed on the ARIN page and
their interpretation of it.  It can also be argued that their
interpretation is correct and as I also indicated in my original email, I
do not have the luxury of being able to debate and convince them, nor do I
have the luxury of finding another provider in the next 20 days.

I am experiencing a genuine, business hardship directly as a result of
ARIN's "recommendation".

best regards
Mike



From cscott at gaslightmedia.com  Wed May  9 12:52:45 2001
From: cscott at gaslightmedia.com (Charles Scott)
Date: Wed, 9 May 2001 12:52:45 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Comments on Name Based Virtualk Hosting Policy Recommendation
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.04.10105091148160.983-100000@mx.localweb.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0105091242400.10305-100000@harbor.gaslightmedia.com>


Mike:
  I personally agree with you. This is exactly what I've been concerned
about since the discussion of such a policy started and I don't think it's
been clarified by the latest wording. If it's a data collection effort
only, then it should say that. If there's some kind of requirement to
provide some specifically acceptable technical justification, then it
should say so and there should be some description of what that would be.

Chuck



On Wed, 9 May 2001, A. M. Salim wrote:

> 
> Hi,
> 
> The POLICY simply states that the ISP will provide "technical
> justification", and that ARIN will review it in the light of "OPERATIONAL
> EXPERIENCE".
.
.
.
> They are specifically pointing to the "Last Call for Name-based Web
> Hosting Policy Recommendation" on http://www.arin.net/.  True, it can be
> argued that they should not be referring to that page, that they are being
> unreasonably cautious etc. etc. but the hard facts remain that they are
> taking this position on the basis of this "Last Call for Name-based Web
> Hosting Policy Recommendation" and I am a victim of it.  I do not have the
> luxury of debating their position with them.
.
.
.




From HRyu at norlight.com  Wed May  9 13:12:23 2001
From: HRyu at norlight.com (Hyunseog Ryu)
Date: Wed, 9 May 2001 12:12:23 -0500
Subject: Comments on Name Based Virtualk Hosting Policy Recommendation
Message-ID: <OF10D8F9AB.13FA0481-ON86256A47.005BE8CC@norlight.com>


I think the problem is how we can address the difference of viewpoint and
time when it applied.
Yes, this proposal is recommendation.
But from Policy, ISP should - "will"  supply technical justification to
ARIN for additional IP request.
O.k...
What if there is the difference of viewpoint between ISP and ARIN?
ISP already assigned IP address to customer, and have to deal with ARIN for
additial IP address.
That means if there is some difference of viewpoint, they might be the
issue with additional IP address issuing size.
Is there any apeal procedure for this?
Or ISP just give up to convince ARIN IP request reviewer, and follow
his/her viewpoint because of length arguement with ARIN.
>From ISP standpoint, ISP need to think about this, and it might cause
aggresive attitude, which Mike did experience.

If this is real recommendation, there has to be some word, which ARIN
guarantees that there will be no prejudice for IP-based hosting.
ARIN should allow IP-based hosting and name-based hosting IP justfication
equally for ISP without any difference for IP justification result.
And then ISP volunteers to submit technical document to encourage
named-based hosting with several solutions.
According to ARIN's proposal, it gives some nuance that IP-based hosting
justification will make hard for ISP to justify their future allocations.
If that's ARIN's intention, I won't call it as recommendation.

At least, ARIN could leave the judgement to ISP, and should guarantee that
ARIN will not make unequal judgement for IP-base hosting.
At least, give one year's practice time to ISPs, and ask ISP to submit  the
their own proposal to ARIN based on their own practice.
And then propose final proposal to Internet community based on each ISP's
common practice result.
Yes, it will take one or two year to enforce name-based hosting to ISP by
ARIN.
But I think that's fair for ISPs and hosting providers.
At least, they will have some time to practice their own policy, and can
change their provisioning system.
Then they will join to name-based hosting movement to save IP addresses for
their business.



Hyun




~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Hyunseog Ryu / CCDA, MCSE
Network Engineer/Applications Engineering
Norlight Telecommunications, Inc.
The Guardians of Data
275 North Corporate Drive
Brookfield, WI 53045-5818
Tel. +1.262.792.7965
Fax. +1.262.792.7733


                                                                                                           
                    sigma at pair.co                                                                          
                    m                    To:     salim at localweb.com (A. M. Salim)                          
                    Sent by:             cc:     vwp at arin.net, (bcc: Hyunseog Ryu/Brookfield/Norlight)     
                    owner-vwp at ari        Fax to:                                                           
                    n.net                Subject:     Re: Comments on Name Based Virtualk Hosting Policy   
                                         Recommendation                                                    
                                                                                                           
                    05/09/2001                                                                             
                    11:07 AM                                                                               
                                                                                                           
                                                                                                           





The policy was originally a *requirement* that name-based hosting be used,
which was a shock to most of the Web hosting industry, leading to outcry,
discussion, etc.  Now the policy is merely a recommendation which attempts
to collect information so that some day we can see some path towards
avoiding the one-IP-per-domain in some cases.

Your ISP is completely wrong to think that the policy means anyone will be
denied allocation.  One of the things raised at ARIN meetings was the
possibility that upstream ISPs would squeeze their downstreams on the fear
that ARIN would squeeze them, or on misinterpretation of the policy.
However, it's not ARIN's fault if an ISP makes that mistake, which they
could do for any policy imaginable, really.

Go back to your provider and help them understand the policy and what went
before it.  Have them ask their ARIN contact about it.  They should know
better, so help them know better.

Kevin

>
> Hi,
>
> The POLICY simply states that the ISP will provide "technical
> justification", and that ARIN will review it in the light of "OPERATIONAL
> EXPERIENCE".
>
> a) I feel these terms need elaboration, otherwise there is immense room
> for individual interpretation by the reviewer.
>
> b) Is the intent of this policy to coax small ISP's out of business?  If
> not, please be aware that this is what I am currently staring at in the
> face, a a direct result of this policy recommendation.  Here is a real
> life example:
>
> I am currently using 6-7 class C's (quite efficinelty by my reckoning but
> who knows how ARIN's reviewer will judge it on any given day).
>
> My current provider decided to give up their ISP business six months ago
> and asked a third party company to take over being the upstream ISP for
> all their existing customers, myself included (for reasons unrelated to
> me, for their own business reasons). The new ISP is steadfastly refusing
> to grant me more than 1.5 class C's not because I can't justify them and
> not because they have studied my justification and decided I don't need
> that many IP's, but because they are scared that ARIN's new policy will
> force them to return IP's they have been allocated etc. etc.
>
> They are specifically pointing to the "Last Call for Name-based Web
> Hosting Policy Recommendation" on http://www.arin.net/.  True, it can be
> argued that they should not be referring to that page, that they are
being
> unreasonably cautious etc. etc. but the hard facts remain that they are
> taking this position on the basis of this "Last Call for Name-based Web
> Hosting Policy Recommendation" and I am a victim of it.  I do not have
the
> luxury of debating their position with them.
>
> If I do not get my 6 class C's in the next 20 days, I am dead.
>
> ARIN's wordings needs to change asap!
>
> I recommend the following be phrased into the wording of the policy
and/or
> best practice:
>
> a) that the policy duly take into account existing allocations and not
> force existing allocations to be squeezed/returned when the ISP can show
> unreasonable business distress would result from this requirement to them
> or their client(s).
>
> b) when an ISP requests an allocation of two or more class C IP's to
> replace an allocation that is equal in size to an existing allocation
that
> they currently have been using from their existing provider (for say at
> least 6 months or 1 year or some suitable grandfather period) that
request
> should be granted regardless of size of requested allocation, and
> regardless of whether it is being efficiently used or not, provided they
> agree to return a portion of it to the pool within 18 months, the portion
> to be returned being decided by mutual discussion between ARIN and the
> ISP, and provided that this request is being made because the requesting
> ISP is changing their upstream provider and will no longer be using the
IP
> allocation being replaced, and that the new and old providers are in
> agreement with the request.
>
> (Why 2 or more clas C's and not 16 and not 1?  If someone is using just 1
> class C, chances are they are not an ISP.  If they are using 2, chances
> are very high they are an ISP of one kind or another. By the same token
> there are many ISP's who do not yet use 16 C's but maybe 5 or 6 or 12,
and
> that is by no means a negligible "drop in the bucket" number.  If less
> than 16 Class C's is a negligible amount, then there would not be such a
> fuss about IP shortages in the first place!).
>
> best regards
> Mike.
>







From John.Sweeting at teleglobe.com  Wed May  9 13:14:26 2001
From: John.Sweeting at teleglobe.com (Sweeting, John)
Date: Wed, 9 May 2001 13:14:26 -0400 
Subject: Comments on Name Based Virtualk Hosting Policy Recommendation
Message-ID: <170E5E7779BCD3118C2A0008C7F40C190134467B@usresms03.teleglobe.com>

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.

-----Original Message-----
From: Charles Scott [mailto:cscott at gaslightmedia.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2001 12:53 PM
To: A. M. Salim
Cc: vwp at arin.net
Subject: Re: Comments on Name Based Virtualk Hosting Policy
Recommendation



Mike:
  I personally agree with you. This is exactly what I've been concerned
about since the discussion of such a policy started and I don't think it's
been clarified by the latest wording. If it's a data collection effort
only, then it should say that. If there's some kind of requirement to
provide some specifically acceptable technical justification, then it
should say so and there should be some description of what that would be.

Chuck



On Wed, 9 May 2001, A. M. Salim wrote:

> 
> Hi,
> 
> The POLICY simply states that the ISP will provide "technical
> justification", and that ARIN will review it in the light of "OPERATIONAL
> EXPERIENCE".
.
.
.
> They are specifically pointing to the "Last Call for Name-based Web
> Hosting Policy Recommendation" on http://www.arin.net/.  True, it can be
> argued that they should not be referring to that page, that they are being
> unreasonably cautious etc. etc. but the hard facts remain that they are
> taking this position on the basis of this "Last Call for Name-based Web
> Hosting Policy Recommendation" and I am a victim of it.  I do not have the
> luxury of debating their position with them.
.
.
.



From sigma at pair.com  Wed May  9 13:17:41 2001
From: sigma at pair.com (sigma at pair.com)
Date: Wed, 9 May 2001 13:17:41 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Comments on Name Based Virtualk Hosting Policy Recommendation
In-Reply-To: <170E5E7779BCD3118C2A0008C7F40C190134467B@usresms03.teleglobe.com> from "Sweeting, John" at "May 9, 1 01:14:26 pm"
Message-ID: <20010509171741.28693.qmail@smx.pair.com>


Perhaps it would help if the statement had a sentence clearly indicating
what you've just explained.  It appears that some ISPs either don't
understand, or prefer not to understand, for their own reasons.

I didn't think this was necessary before, but apparently there is no limit
to the obtuseness of some providers (referring to no one in particular).

Kevin

> 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.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Charles Scott [mailto:cscott at gaslightmedia.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2001 12:53 PM
> To: A. M. Salim
> Cc: vwp at arin.net
> Subject: Re: Comments on Name Based Virtualk Hosting Policy
> Recommendation
> 
> 
> 
> Mike:
>   I personally agree with you. This is exactly what I've been concerned
> about since the discussion of such a policy started and I don't think it's
> been clarified by the latest wording. If it's a data collection effort
> only, then it should say that. If there's some kind of requirement to
> provide some specifically acceptable technical justification, then it
> should say so and there should be some description of what that would be.
> 
> Chuck
> 
> 
> 
> On Wed, 9 May 2001, A. M. Salim wrote:
> 
> > 
> > Hi,
> > 
> > The POLICY simply states that the ISP will provide "technical
> > justification", and that ARIN will review it in the light of "OPERATIONAL
> > EXPERIENCE".
> .
> .
> .
> > They are specifically pointing to the "Last Call for Name-based Web
> > Hosting Policy Recommendation" on http://www.arin.net/.  True, it can be
> > argued that they should not be referring to that page, that they are being
> > unreasonably cautious etc. etc. but the hard facts remain that they are
> > taking this position on the basis of this "Last Call for Name-based Web
> > Hosting Policy Recommendation" and I am a victim of it.  I do not have the
> > luxury of debating their position with them.
> .
> .
> .
> 



From cscott at gaslightmedia.com  Wed May  9 13:38:37 2001
From: cscott at gaslightmedia.com (Charles Scott)
Date: Wed, 9 May 2001 13:38:37 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Comments on Name Based Virtualk Hosting Policy Recommendation
In-Reply-To: <170E5E7779BCD3118C2A0008C7F40C190134467B@usresms03.teleglobe.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0105091331090.13930-100000@harbor.gaslightmedia.com>


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.
> 



From HRyu at norlight.com  Wed May  9 13:40:40 2001
From: HRyu at norlight.com (Hyunseog Ryu)
Date: Wed, 9 May 2001 12:40:40 -0500
Subject: Comments on Name Based Virtualk Hosting Policy Recommendation
Message-ID: <OFCF2DC780.5D3DFC7F-ON86256A47.005F249A@norlight.com>


>From ARIN's statement,

                                                                            
           When an ISP submits a request for IP address space to be used    
           for IP-based web hosting, they will supply technical             
           justification for this practice. ARIN will collect this data for 
           review of the policy in light of operational experience.         
                                                                            



What if ISP submit technical justification and ARIN doesn't agree with
that?
Is that considered as inefficient use?
In that case, it will have some impact on IP address issuing size.

What if ISP doesn't submit technical justification because of the
customer's strong argument?
For an example, the customer pointed that ARIN's recommendation is just
recommendation, and they said that they need to use IP-based hosting
because of traditional management method. What can we say?
If we assign IP address to that customer, what kind of technical document
we can submit?
In that case, ISP is unable to submit technical document except URL listing
for each IP address.
How does ARIN treat this ?

I don't think ARIN will refuse IP address request.
But they is a possibility that ARIN can consider IP-based hosting as
inefficient use of IP address, and
just reduce IP address issuing size based on inefficient manner blah blah
blah...

Because new proposal doesn't state the situation when ISP allows IP-based
hosting for hosting customer.
That's the point you have to think about.
For big ISP, I don't think this can be issue. Because they already have
large block of IP address, they can avoid this from assigning available IP
address from existing IP address block to this kind of customer.
Who cares if they have A Class IP address and it's not fully utilized?

If this is just recommendation, there has to be no relationship between
technical document and IP address utilization reviewing process.
ARIN should mention that in recommendation proposal.

Hyun


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Hyunseog Ryu / CCDA, MCSE
Network Engineer/Applications Engineering
Norlight Telecommunications, Inc.
The Guardians of Data
275 North Corporate Drive
Brookfield, WI 53045-5818
Tel. +1.262.792.7965
Fax. +1.262.792.7733


                                                                                                                 
                    "Sweeting, John"                                                                             
                    <John.Sweeting at tele        To:     "'Charles Scott'" <cscott at gaslightmedia.com>, "A. M.      
                    globe.com>                 Salim" <salim at localweb.com>                                       
                    Sent by:                   cc:     vwp at arin.net, (bcc: Hyunseog Ryu/Brookfield/Norlight)     
                    owner-vwp at arin.net         Fax to:                                                           
                                               Subject:     RE: Comments on Name Based Virtualk Hosting Policy   
                                               Recommendation                                                    
                    05/09/2001 12:14 PM                                                                          
                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                 




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.

-----Original Message-----
From: Charles Scott [mailto:cscott at gaslightmedia.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2001 12:53 PM
To: A. M. Salim
Cc: vwp at arin.net
Subject: Re: Comments on Name Based Virtualk Hosting Policy
Recommendation



Mike:
  I personally agree with you. This is exactly what I've been concerned
about since the discussion of such a policy started and I don't think it's
been clarified by the latest wording. If it's a data collection effort
only, then it should say that. If there's some kind of requirement to
provide some specifically acceptable technical justification, then it
should say so and there should be some description of what that would be.

Chuck



On Wed, 9 May 2001, A. M. Salim wrote:

>
> Hi,
>
> The POLICY simply states that the ISP will provide "technical
> justification", and that ARIN will review it in the light of "OPERATIONAL
> EXPERIENCE".
.
.
.
> They are specifically pointing to the "Last Call for Name-based Web
> Hosting Policy Recommendation" on http://www.arin.net/.  True, it can be
> argued that they should not be referring to that page, that they are
being
> unreasonably cautious etc. etc. but the hard facts remain that they are
> taking this position on the basis of this "Last Call for Name-based Web
> Hosting Policy Recommendation" and I am a victim of it.  I do not have
the
> luxury of debating their position with them.
.
.
.







From sigma at pair.com  Wed May  9 13:44:56 2001
From: sigma at pair.com (sigma at pair.com)
Date: Wed, 9 May 2001 13:44:56 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Comments on Name Based Virtualk Hosting Policy Recommendation
In-Reply-To: <DC7ABD0A8338D311B2010008C79122EE03A52FD3@zajnbddsexc1.didata.co.za> from "Gilbert Martin @ Learning Solutions" at "May 9, 1 07:23:44 pm"
Message-ID: <20010509174456.29959.qmail@smx.pair.com>

> I am extremely concerned and somewhat think I have missed the bus totally,
> what is going to happen to current IP address space that has been issued to
> ISP's?? Will the IP Address space be re-released or still kept as its
> constituency??
> Maybe I am totally confused but I am under the impression that IP-based web
> hosting is going to require that all previously released address space be
> reissued???
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: sigma at pair.com [mailto:sigma at pair.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2001 7:18 PM
> To: vwp at arin.net
> Subject: Re: Comments on Name Based Virtualk Hosting Policy
> Recommendation
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps it would help if the statement had a sentence clearly indicating
> what you've just explained.  It appears that some ISPs either don't
> understand, or prefer not to understand, for their own reasons.
> 
> I didn't think this was necessary before, but apparently there is no limit
> to the obtuseness of some providers (referring to no one in particular).
> 
> Kevin
> 
> > 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.
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Charles Scott [mailto:cscott at gaslightmedia.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2001 12:53 PM
> > To: A. M. Salim
> > Cc: vwp at arin.net
> > Subject: Re: Comments on Name Based Virtualk Hosting Policy
> > Recommendation
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Mike:
> >   I personally agree with you. This is exactly what I've been concerned
> > about since the discussion of such a policy started and I don't think it's
> > been clarified by the latest wording. If it's a data collection effort
> > only, then it should say that. If there's some kind of requirement to
> > provide some specifically acceptable technical justification, then it
> > should say so and there should be some description of what that would be.
> > 
> > Chuck
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > On Wed, 9 May 2001, A. M. Salim wrote:
> > 
> > > 
> > > Hi,
> > > 
> > > The POLICY simply states that the ISP will provide "technical
> > > justification", and that ARIN will review it in the light of
> "OPERATIONAL
> > > EXPERIENCE".
> > .
> > .
> > .
> > > They are specifically pointing to the "Last Call for Name-based Web
> > > Hosting Policy Recommendation" on http://www.arin.net/.  True, it can be
> > > argued that they should not be referring to that page, that they are
> being
> > > unreasonably cautious etc. etc. but the hard facts remain that they are
> > > taking this position on the basis of this "Last Call for Name-based Web
> > > Hosting Policy Recommendation" and I am a victim of it.  I do not have
> the
> > > luxury of debating their position with them.
> > .
> > .
> > .
> > 
> 
> 
> *******************************************************************
> 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.
> 
> *******************************************************************
> 



From sigma at pair.com  Wed May  9 13:45:56 2001
From: sigma at pair.com (sigma at pair.com)
Date: Wed, 9 May 2001 13:45:56 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Comments on Name Based Virtualk Hosting Policy Recommendation
In-Reply-To: <DC7ABD0A8338D311B2010008C79122EE03A52FD3@zajnbddsexc1.didata.co.za> from "Gilbert Martin @ Learning Solutions" at "May 9, 1 07:23:44 pm"
Message-ID: <20010509174556.154.qmail@smx.pair.com>


Yes, you've missed the bus.  The policy has nothing to do with existing
allocations.  It doesn't even restrict future allocations.  ARIN simply
wants to gather more information about a potential problem.

Kevin

> I am extremely concerned and somewhat think I have missed the bus totally,
> what is going to happen to current IP address space that has been issued to
> ISP's?? Will the IP Address space be re-released or still kept as its
> constituency??
> Maybe I am totally confused but I am under the impression that IP-based web
> hosting is going to require that all previously released address space be
> reissued???
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: sigma at pair.com [mailto:sigma at pair.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2001 7:18 PM
> To: vwp at arin.net
> Subject: Re: Comments on Name Based Virtualk Hosting Policy
> Recommendation
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps it would help if the statement had a sentence clearly indicating
> what you've just explained.  It appears that some ISPs either don't
> understand, or prefer not to understand, for their own reasons.
> 
> I didn't think this was necessary before, but apparently there is no limit
> to the obtuseness of some providers (referring to no one in particular).
> 
> Kevin
> 
> > 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.
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Charles Scott [mailto:cscott at gaslightmedia.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2001 12:53 PM
> > To: A. M. Salim
> > Cc: vwp at arin.net
> > Subject: Re: Comments on Name Based Virtualk Hosting Policy
> > Recommendation
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Mike:
> >   I personally agree with you. This is exactly what I've been concerned
> > about since the discussion of such a policy started and I don't think it's
> > been clarified by the latest wording. If it's a data collection effort
> > only, then it should say that. If there's some kind of requirement to
> > provide some specifically acceptable technical justification, then it
> > should say so and there should be some description of what that would be.
> > 
> > Chuck
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > On Wed, 9 May 2001, A. M. Salim wrote:
> > 
> > > 
> > > Hi,
> > > 
> > > The POLICY simply states that the ISP will provide "technical
> > > justification", and that ARIN will review it in the light of
> "OPERATIONAL
> > > EXPERIENCE".
> > .
> > .
> > .
> > > They are specifically pointing to the "Last Call for Name-based Web
> > > Hosting Policy Recommendation" on http://www.arin.net/.  True, it can be
> > > argued that they should not be referring to that page, that they are
> being
> > > unreasonably cautious etc. etc. but the hard facts remain that they are
> > > taking this position on the basis of this "Last Call for Name-based Web
> > > Hosting Policy Recommendation" and I am a victim of it.  I do not have
> the
> > > luxury of debating their position with them.
> > .
> > .
> > .
> > 
> 
> 
> *******************************************************************
> 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.
> 
> *******************************************************************
> 



From John.Sweeting at teleglobe.com  Wed May  9 13:47:06 2001
From: John.Sweeting at teleglobe.com (Sweeting, John)
Date: Wed, 9 May 2001 13:47:06 -0400 
Subject: Comments on Name Based Virtualk Hosting Policy Recommendation
Message-ID: <170E5E7779BCD3118C2A0008C7F40C190134467D@usresms03.teleglobe.com>

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.
> 


From HRyu at norlight.com  Wed May  9 13:55:53 2001
From: HRyu at norlight.com (Hyunseog Ryu)
Date: Wed, 9 May 2001 12:55:53 -0500
Subject: Comments on Name Based Virtualk Hosting Policy Recommendation
Message-ID: <OF55103154.9A7723FB-ON86256A47.0061778F@norlight.com>


I understand the point of this recommendation.
I agree with the background of this idea.

But most thing that ISP interpret this as different meaning is following.

                                                                            
           When an ISP submits a request for IP address space to be used    
           for IP-based web hosting, they will supply technical             
           justification for this practice. ARIN will collect this data for 
           review of the policy in light of operational experience.         
                                                                            



>From above policy statement,

they "will" or they "should"?

"Will" means "willingness" or "wish".
So they might supply technical justification or they might not.

Some ISP interpret this as "should".
That's why a lot of small ISP is so aggresive to the customer based on
previous policy and this recommendation.

I don't want to argue with English grammar, because I'm not a
English-as-a-primary-language person.

I'm sure that nobody want for hosting provider to close their business
because of this.

Therefore if ARIN interpret this "will" as volunteer thing, they should
specify that ISP can still allow IP-based hosting and/or named-based
hosting
without any disadvantages from ARIN's IP reviewing process.

If ARIN interpret this as must-do thing, it's better for us to change this
from recommendation to policy.


That's it for today. :-)


Hyun


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Hyunseog Ryu / CCDA, MCSE
Network Engineer/Applications Engineering
Norlight Telecommunications, Inc.
The Guardians of Data
275 North Corporate Drive
Brookfield, WI 53045-5818
Tel. +1.262.792.7965
Fax. +1.262.792.7733


                                                                                                           
                    sigma at pair.co                                                                          
                    m                    To:     vwp at arin.net                                              
                    Sent by:             cc:     (bcc: Hyunseog Ryu/Brookfield/Norlight)                   
                    owner-vwp at ari        Fax to:                                                           
                    n.net                Subject:     Re: Comments on Name Based Virtualk Hosting Policy   
                                         Recommendation                                                    
                                                                                                           
                    05/09/2001                                                                             
                    12:17 PM                                                                               
                                                                                                           
                                                                                                           





Perhaps it would help if the statement had a sentence clearly indicating
what you've just explained.  It appears that some ISPs either don't
understand, or prefer not to understand, for their own reasons.

I didn't think this was necessary before, but apparently there is no limit
to the obtuseness of some providers (referring to no one in particular).

Kevin

> 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.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Charles Scott [mailto:cscott at gaslightmedia.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2001 12:53 PM
> To: A. M. Salim
> Cc: vwp at arin.net
> Subject: Re: Comments on Name Based Virtualk Hosting Policy
> Recommendation
>
>
>
> Mike:
>   I personally agree with you. This is exactly what I've been concerned
> about since the discussion of such a policy started and I don't think
it's
> been clarified by the latest wording. If it's a data collection effort
> only, then it should say that. If there's some kind of requirement to
> provide some specifically acceptable technical justification, then it
> should say so and there should be some description of what that would be.
>
> Chuck
>
>
>
> On Wed, 9 May 2001, A. M. Salim wrote:
>
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > The POLICY simply states that the ISP will provide "technical
> > justification", and that ARIN will review it in the light of
"OPERATIONAL
> > EXPERIENCE".
> .
> .
> .
> > They are specifically pointing to the "Last Call for Name-based Web
> > Hosting Policy Recommendation" on http://www.arin.net/.  True, it can
be
> > argued that they should not be referring to that page, that they are
being
> > unreasonably cautious etc. etc. but the hard facts remain that they are
> > taking this position on the basis of this "Last Call for Name-based Web
> > Hosting Policy Recommendation" and I am a victim of it.  I do not have
the
> > luxury of debating their position with them.
> .
> .
> .
>







From salim at localweb.com  Wed May  9 14:39:16 2001
From: salim at localweb.com (A. M. Salim)
Date: Wed, 9 May 2001 14:39:16 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Comments on Name Based Virtualk Hosting Policy Recommendation
In-Reply-To: <20010509174556.154.qmail@smx.pair.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.04.10105091431330.983-100000@mx.localweb.com>


On Wed, 9 May 2001 sigma at pair.com wrote:
> Yes, you've missed the bus.  The policy has nothing to do with existing
> allocations.  It doesn't even restrict future allocations.  ARIN simply
> wants to gather more information about a potential problem.
> Kevin

I think you've missed one bus and I've missed another :-)

The point is not to figure out what ARIN intended.  The point is that
ARIN's current wording is confusing and leads to widely differing
interpretations, to the extent that I find myself a victim of one of these
interpretations.  These interpretations vary from "they are just trying to
collect data" to "you will be required to technically justify any
allocation request" to "if you are found to be using addresses that cannot
be technically justified you will be required to return them" and anything
in between and beyond.

The wording needs to be clarified (and only ARIN can do that). Otherwise
these situations will continually arise.

best regards
Mike



From Gilbert.Martin at za.didata.com  Wed May  9 15:28:22 2001
From: Gilbert.Martin at za.didata.com (Gilbert Martin @ Learning Solutions)
Date: Wed, 9 May 2001 21:28:22 +0200 
Subject: Comments on Name Based Virtualk Hosting Policy Recommendation
Message-ID: <DC7ABD0A8338D311B2010008C79122EE03A52FD4@zajnbddsexc1.didata.co.za>

Joke: I have a solution to that let the whole world solve its problems,
unplug your PC!!!

-----Original Message-----
From: A. M. Salim [mailto:salim at localweb.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2001 8:39 PM
To: vwp at arin.net
Subject: Re: Comments on Name Based Virtualk Hosting Policy
Recommendation



On Wed, 9 May 2001 sigma at pair.com wrote:
> Yes, you've missed the bus.  The policy has nothing to do with existing
> allocations.  It doesn't even restrict future allocations.  ARIN simply
> wants to gather more information about a potential problem.
> Kevin

I think you've missed one bus and I've missed another :-)

The point is not to figure out what ARIN intended.  The point is that
ARIN's current wording is confusing and leads to widely differing
interpretations, to the extent that I find myself a victim of one of these
interpretations.  These interpretations vary from "they are just trying to
collect data" to "you will be required to technically justify any
allocation request" to "if you are found to be using addresses that cannot
be technically justified you will be required to return them" and anything
in between and beyond.

The wording needs to be clarified (and only ARIN can do that). Otherwise
these situations will continually arise.

best regards
Mike


**********************************************************************

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.

*******************************************************************


From sigma at pair.com  Wed May  9 15:41:19 2001
From: sigma at pair.com (sigma at pair.com)
Date: Wed, 9 May 2001 15:41:19 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Comments on Name Based Virtualk Hosting Policy Recommendation
In-Reply-To: <OFCF2DC780.5D3DFC7F-ON86256A47.005F249A@norlight.com> from Hyunseog Ryu at "May 9, 1 12:40:40 pm"
Message-ID: <20010509194119.5432.qmail@smx.pair.com>


At the meetings, it was asked if a technical answer such as "just because"
would be accepted, and I believe it would be.

Of course, that does not appear in the policy, so I can understand where
the confusion comes from.

Kevin

> >From ARIN's statement,
> 
>                                                                             
>            When an ISP submits a request for IP address space to be used    
>            for IP-based web hosting, they will supply technical             
>            justification for this practice. ARIN will collect this data for 
>            review of the policy in light of operational experience.         
>                                                                             
> 
> 
> 
> What if ISP submit technical justification and ARIN doesn't agree with
> that?
> Is that considered as inefficient use?
> In that case, it will have some impact on IP address issuing size.
> 
> What if ISP doesn't submit technical justification because of the
> customer's strong argument?
> For an example, the customer pointed that ARIN's recommendation is just
> recommendation, and they said that they need to use IP-based hosting
> because of traditional management method. What can we say?
> If we assign IP address to that customer, what kind of technical document
> we can submit?
> In that case, ISP is unable to submit technical document except URL listing
> for each IP address.
> How does ARIN treat this ?
> 
> I don't think ARIN will refuse IP address request.
> But they is a possibility that ARIN can consider IP-based hosting as
> inefficient use of IP address, and
> just reduce IP address issuing size based on inefficient manner blah blah
> blah...
> 
> Because new proposal doesn't state the situation when ISP allows IP-based
> hosting for hosting customer.
> That's the point you have to think about.
> For big ISP, I don't think this can be issue. Because they already have
> large block of IP address, they can avoid this from assigning available IP
> address from existing IP address block to this kind of customer.
> Who cares if they have A Class IP address and it's not fully utilized?
> 
> If this is just recommendation, there has to be no relationship between
> technical document and IP address utilization reviewing process.
> ARIN should mention that in recommendation proposal.
> 
> Hyun
> 
> 
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Hyunseog Ryu / CCDA, MCSE
> Network Engineer/Applications Engineering
> Norlight Telecommunications, Inc.
> The Guardians of Data
> 275 North Corporate Drive
> Brookfield, WI 53045-5818
> Tel. +1.262.792.7965
> Fax. +1.262.792.7733
> 
> 
>                                                                                                                  
>                     "Sweeting, John"                                                                             
>                     <John.Sweeting at tele        To:     "'Charles Scott'" <cscott at gaslightmedia.com>, "A. M.      
>                     globe.com>                 Salim" <salim at localweb.com>                                       
>                     Sent by:                   cc:     vwp at arin.net, (bcc: Hyunseog Ryu/Brookfield/Norlight)     
>                     owner-vwp at arin.net         Fax to:                                                           
>                                                Subject:     RE: Comments on Name Based Virtualk Hosting Policy   
>                                                Recommendation                                                    
>                     05/09/2001 12:14 PM                                                                          
>                                                                                                                  
>                                                                                                                  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Charles Scott [mailto:cscott at gaslightmedia.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2001 12:53 PM
> To: A. M. Salim
> Cc: vwp at arin.net
> Subject: Re: Comments on Name Based Virtualk Hosting Policy
> Recommendation
> 
> 
> 
> Mike:
>   I personally agree with you. This is exactly what I've been concerned
> about since the discussion of such a policy started and I don't think it's
> been clarified by the latest wording. If it's a data collection effort
> only, then it should say that. If there's some kind of requirement to
> provide some specifically acceptable technical justification, then it
> should say so and there should be some description of what that would be.
> 
> Chuck
> 
> 
> 
> On Wed, 9 May 2001, A. M. Salim wrote:
> 
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > The POLICY simply states that the ISP will provide "technical
> > justification", and that ARIN will review it in the light of "OPERATIONAL
> > EXPERIENCE".
> .
> .
> .
> > They are specifically pointing to the "Last Call for Name-based Web
> > Hosting Policy Recommendation" on http://www.arin.net/.  True, it can be
> > argued that they should not be referring to that page, that they are
> being
> > unreasonably cautious etc. etc. but the hard facts remain that they are
> > taking this position on the basis of this "Last Call for Name-based Web
> > Hosting Policy Recommendation" and I am a victim of it.  I do not have
> the
> > luxury of debating their position with them.
> .
> .
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 



From billd at cait.wustl.edu  Wed May  9 16:46:28 2001
From: billd at cait.wustl.edu (Bill Darte)
Date: Wed, 9 May 2001 15:46:28 -0500 
Subject: Comments on Name Based Virtualk Hosting Policy Recommendation
Message-ID: <F0A77279DB36D111A6EC00A024DEE7AF4DDEC9@kronos.wustl.edu>

Listen folks, Kevin's statement below is totally accurate....
Again for those who have missed this in the past.... 
ARIN will not supply a technical justification list that is exhaustive
because this list doesn't exist.  When the policy was originally proffered
it was met with a hailstorm of protest which referenced many technical
reasons why the policy could not be comprehensively met.  Those reasons
exist in the archives of this listserver.  ARIN respected the protest and
its inability to identify all the possible reasons, so it suspended the
policy and is in the process of revising that policy. (sorry about the
history lesson).

The policy as suggested...
           When an ISP submits a request for IP address space to be used    
           for IP-based web hosting, they will supply technical             
           justification for this practice. ARIN will collect this data for 
           review of the policy in light of operational experience.....

                                                                         
says that an ISP will (meaning ARIN's Registration process will require) a
technical (that is a reason founded in technology) for requesting IP address
space to be used for IP-based web hosting.  This information gathering will
be used to document the reasons that ISP feel unable to to do name-based
virtual web hosting.  These reasons in generic form may be (as was mentioned
in another post) analyzed and refuted or the Internet community or as a
basis for providing work-arounds or whatever..... ARIN will use the reasons
and the frequency of occurrence and the number of IP addresses involved,
and/or other information to assess whether this IS a really big problem
which requires a more strict policy or not, or somewhere in between, or even
ignoring the whole issue in the future.

Regardless of that.  ARIN's above policy has as its only actions specified,
the collection and analysis of the technical justifications presented from
ISPs for doing IP-based web hosting.  This specified collection policy will
have no impact on the current request for IP address space.  It will have no
impact on past allocations nor on future allocations except as the
information over time would indicate the need for a CHANGE in policy.

Now, relative to "because" as a technical justification.  It would be my
council as a member of the AC that no such justification would be accepted.
Rather, if this was the best 'technical' justification that an ISP could
come up with, then it would be rendered as a more generic "without technical
justification" notation in the records.  This decision of what to capture
and how, has not been decided because there is no policy in place to require
it.  That's what the policy in current form hopes to achieve.  In any case,
even a reason which might appear to the registration authorities as lacking
technical justification would NOT block an allocation.

Now all this would make for a rather explicit but verbose policy statement.
Even then, those who see everything ARIN does as sinister and intent upon
ruining their business would find fault.

If you have specific and succinct language which you think modifies the
policy to reflect this information...well, please offer it as that's what
this forum is trying to achieve.... 

Bill Darte
ARIN AC

> Yes, you've missed the bus.  The policy has nothing to do 
> with existing
> allocations.  It doesn't even restrict future allocations.  
> ARIN simply
> wants to gather more information about a potential problem.
> 
> Kevin
> 
> 


From steve at host-all.com  Wed May  9 16:57:08 2001
From: steve at host-all.com (steve)
Date: Wed, 9 May 2001 16:57:08 -0400
Subject: Comments on Name Based Virtualk Hosting Policy Recommendation
References: <F0A77279DB36D111A6EC00A024DEE7AF4DDEC9@kronos.wustl.edu>
Message-ID: <00df01c0d8ca$9f056c20$019f72ce@hostall.com>

> If you have specific and succinct language which you think modifies the
> policy to reflect this information...well, please offer it as that's what
> this forum is trying to achieve....

The policy as suggested...
           When an ISP submits a request for IP address space to be used
           for IP-based web hosting, they will supply technical
           justification for this practice. ARIN will collect this data for
           review of the policy in light of operational experience.....

Possible policy:
           When an ISP submits a request for IP address space to be used
           for IP-based web hosting to their upstream provider, they will
supply
           technical justification for this practice. The upstream provider
will use
           existing procedures to determine allocations. ARIN will collect
the
           justification forms for further review of this policy.

Something simple that tries to explain to upstreams not to change their
existing policies..

Steve Conzett
Host-All.Com





From sigma at pair.com  Wed May  9 17:44:57 2001
From: sigma at pair.com (sigma at pair.com)
Date: Wed, 9 May 2001 17:44:57 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Comments on Name Based Virtualk Hosting Policy Recommendation
In-Reply-To: <00df01c0d8ca$9f056c20$019f72ce@hostall.com> from steve at "May 9, 1 04:57:08 pm"
Message-ID: <20010509214457.11509.qmail@smx.pair.com>


I believe that the word "justification" is a big part of the problem.  If
one must "justify" something, the implication is that it is being judged by
some standard, and it is possible to fail to "justify" adequately.

Kevin

> > If you have specific and succinct language which you think modifies the
> > policy to reflect this information...well, please offer it as that's what
> > this forum is trying to achieve....
> 
> The policy as suggested...
>            When an ISP submits a request for IP address space to be used
>            for IP-based web hosting, they will supply technical
>            justification for this practice. ARIN will collect this data for
>            review of the policy in light of operational experience.....
> 
> Possible policy:
>            When an ISP submits a request for IP address space to be used
>            for IP-based web hosting to their upstream provider, they will
> supply
>            technical justification for this practice. The upstream provider
> will use
>            existing procedures to determine allocations. ARIN will collect
> the
>            justification forms for further review of this policy.
> 
> Something simple that tries to explain to upstreams not to change their
> existing policies..
> 
> Steve Conzett
> Host-All.Com
> 
> 
> 



From Gilbert.Martin at za.didata.com  Wed May  9 13:23:44 2001
From: Gilbert.Martin at za.didata.com (Gilbert Martin @ Learning Solutions)
Date: Wed, 9 May 2001 19:23:44 +0200 
Subject: Comments on Name Based Virtualk Hosting Policy Recommendation
Message-ID: <DC7ABD0A8338D311B2010008C79122EE03A52FD3@zajnbddsexc1.didata.co.za>

I am extremely concerned and somewhat think I have missed the bus totally,
what is going to happen to current IP address space that has been issued to
ISP's?? Will the IP Address space be re-released or still kept as its
constituency??
Maybe I am totally confused but I am under the impression that IP-based web
hosting is going to require that all previously released address space be
reissued???

-----Original Message-----
From: sigma at pair.com [mailto:sigma at pair.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2001 7:18 PM
To: vwp at arin.net
Subject: Re: Comments on Name Based Virtualk Hosting Policy
Recommendation



Perhaps it would help if the statement had a sentence clearly indicating
what you've just explained.  It appears that some ISPs either don't
understand, or prefer not to understand, for their own reasons.

I didn't think this was necessary before, but apparently there is no limit
to the obtuseness of some providers (referring to no one in particular).

Kevin

> 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.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Charles Scott [mailto:cscott at gaslightmedia.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2001 12:53 PM
> To: A. M. Salim
> Cc: vwp at arin.net
> Subject: Re: Comments on Name Based Virtualk Hosting Policy
> Recommendation
> 
> 
> 
> Mike:
>   I personally agree with you. This is exactly what I've been concerned
> about since the discussion of such a policy started and I don't think it's
> been clarified by the latest wording. If it's a data collection effort
> only, then it should say that. If there's some kind of requirement to
> provide some specifically acceptable technical justification, then it
> should say so and there should be some description of what that would be.
> 
> Chuck
> 
> 
> 
> On Wed, 9 May 2001, A. M. Salim wrote:
> 
> > 
> > Hi,
> > 
> > The POLICY simply states that the ISP will provide "technical
> > justification", and that ARIN will review it in the light of
"OPERATIONAL
> > EXPERIENCE".
> .
> .
> .
> > They are specifically pointing to the "Last Call for Name-based Web
> > Hosting Policy Recommendation" on http://www.arin.net/.  True, it can be
> > argued that they should not be referring to that page, that they are
being
> > unreasonably cautious etc. etc. but the hard facts remain that they are
> > taking this position on the basis of this "Last Call for Name-based Web
> > Hosting Policy Recommendation" and I am a victim of it.  I do not have
the
> > luxury of debating their position with them.
> .
> .
> .
> 


*******************************************************************
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.

*******************************************************************


From billd at cait.wustl.edu  Wed May  9 18:05:18 2001
From: billd at cait.wustl.edu (Bill Darte)
Date: Wed, 9 May 2001 17:05:18 -0500 
Subject: Comments on Name Based Virtualk Hosting Policy Recommendation
Message-ID: <F0A77279DB36D111A6EC00A024DEE7AF4DDECF@kronos.wustl.edu>


> 
> I believe that the word "justification" is a big part of the 
> problem.  If
> one must "justify" something, the implication is that it is 
> being judged by
> some standard, and it is possible to fail to "justify" adequately.
> 
> Kevin
> 
> 

Well, I think justification is appropriate.  The forward to the proposed
policy states:

ARIN subscription holders who provide virtual webhosting services to
their customers, and organizations that request new address space from ARIN,
are strongly encouraged to employ a name-based system of webhosting -- a
current best practice method which enables multiple domains to be hosted
by a single IP address. In contrast, an IP-based system requires a
distinct IP number for each domain, which, where not required for the
technical basis of services offered, is an inefficient use of addresses.
Widespread use of the name-based system will significantly reduce the
number of addresses needed for webhosting and will help to conserve the
limited supply of available address space.

This information provides the basis for the policy which asks providers to
"justify" in technical terms their reasons for NOT using name-based
solutions which are stongly encouraged.

What I believe you are reading into justification is some sort of
consequences for inadequate justification..... and these just aren't there
in the policy as proposed.

Bill Darte
ARIN AC


From william at elan.net  Tue May  8 21:25:58 2001
From: william at elan.net (william at elan.net)
Date: Tue, 8 May 2001 18:25:58 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Comments on Name Based Virtualk Hosting Policy Recommendation
In-Reply-To: <00df01c0d8ca$9f056c20$019f72ce@hostall.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0105081819370.17918-100000@sokol.elan.net>

That change would be wrong. ARIN is responsible for making decisions for
ip blocks directly to ISPs that are members of ARIN and these ISPs do not
have upstream provider. It should be left to such an ISP to use ARIN
policies to create their own policies for their downstream customers.

On Wed, 9 May 2001, steve wrote:

> > If you have specific and succinct language which you think modifies the
> > policy to reflect this information...well, please offer it as that's what
> > this forum is trying to achieve....
> 
> The policy as suggested...
>            When an ISP submits a request for IP address space to be used
>            for IP-based web hosting, they will supply technical
>            justification for this practice. ARIN will collect this data for
>            review of the policy in light of operational experience.....
> 
> Possible policy:
>            When an ISP submits a request for IP address space to be used
>            for IP-based web hosting to their upstream provider, they will
> supply
>            technical justification for this practice. The upstream provider
> will use
>            existing procedures to determine allocations. ARIN will collect
> the
>            justification forms for further review of this policy.
> 
> Something simple that tries to explain to upstreams not to change their
> existing policies..
> 
> Steve Conzett
> Host-All.Com
> 
> 
> 




From HRyu at norlight.com  Wed May  9 18:07:44 2001
From: HRyu at norlight.com (Hyunseog Ryu)
Date: Wed, 9 May 2001 17:07:44 -0500
Subject: Comments on Name Based Virtualk Hosting Policy Recommendation
Message-ID: <OF11081B99.4AFCF489-ON86256A47.00792EE9@norlight.com>


Sorry, guys.
I broke my word that I will not post today again. :-)

For Steve's statement, I think this change will be somewhat better.

for further review of this policy. -> only for informational and further
study purpose of future better practice.

How's that?

Hyun


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Hyunseog Ryu / CCDA, MCSE
Network Engineer/Applications Engineering
Norlight Telecommunications, Inc.
The Guardians of Data
275 North Corporate Drive
Brookfield, WI 53045-5818
Tel. +1.262.792.7965
Fax. +1.262.792.7733


                                                                                                           
                    steve                                                                                  
                    <steve at host-a        To:     <vwp at arin.net>                                            
                    ll.com>              cc:     (bcc: Hyunseog Ryu/Brookfield/Norlight)                   
                    Sent by:             Fax to:                                                           
                    owner-vwp at ari        Subject:     Re: Comments on Name Based Virtualk Hosting Policy   
                    n.net                Recommendation                                                    
                                                                                                           
                                                                                                           
                    05/09/2001                                                                             
                    03:57 PM                                                                               
                                                                                                           
                                                                                                           




> If you have specific and succinct language which you think modifies the
> policy to reflect this information...well, please offer it as that's what
> this forum is trying to achieve....

The policy as suggested...
           When an ISP submits a request for IP address space to be used
           for IP-based web hosting, they will supply technical
           justification for this practice. ARIN will collect this data for
           review of the policy in light of operational experience.....

Possible policy:
           When an ISP submits a request for IP address space to be used
           for IP-based web hosting to their upstream provider, they will
supply
           technical justification for this practice. The upstream provider
will use
           existing procedures to determine allocations. ARIN will collect
the
           justification forms for further review of this policy.

Something simple that tries to explain to upstreams not to change their
existing policies..

Steve Conzett
Host-All.Com









From John.Sweeting at teleglobe.com  Thu May 10 09:03:29 2001
From: John.Sweeting at teleglobe.com (Sweeting, John)
Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 09:03:29 -0400
Subject: Comments on Name Based Virtualk Hosting Policy Recommendation
Message-ID: <170E5E7779BCD3118C2A0008C7F40C1901344682@usresms03.teleglobe.com>

and to further that thought, you do have to justify your request for address
space and since the recommendation is to use name-based system for
webhosting then only a "technical" justification will be accepted for not
following the recommendation, in other words not an administrative one,
financial one etc, only a technical one.

-----Original Message-----
From: Bill Darte [mailto:billd at cait.wustl.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2001 6:05 PM
To: 'sigma at pair.com'; vwp at arin.net
Subject: RE: Comments on Name Based Virtualk Hosting Policy
Recommendation



> 
> I believe that the word "justification" is a big part of the 
> problem.  If
> one must "justify" something, the implication is that it is 
> being judged by
> some standard, and it is possible to fail to "justify" adequately.
> 
> Kevin
> 
> 

Well, I think justification is appropriate.  The forward to the proposed
policy states:

ARIN subscription holders who provide virtual webhosting services to
their customers, and organizations that request new address space from ARIN,
are strongly encouraged to employ a name-based system of webhosting -- a
current best practice method which enables multiple domains to be hosted
by a single IP address. In contrast, an IP-based system requires a
distinct IP number for each domain, which, where not required for the
technical basis of services offered, is an inefficient use of addresses.
Widespread use of the name-based system will significantly reduce the
number of addresses needed for webhosting and will help to conserve the
limited supply of available address space.

This information provides the basis for the policy which asks providers to
"justify" in technical terms their reasons for NOT using name-based
solutions which are stongly encouraged.

What I believe you are reading into justification is some sort of
consequences for inadequate justification..... and these just aren't there
in the policy as proposed.

Bill Darte
ARIN AC


From cscott at gaslightmedia.com  Thu May 10 09:43:08 2001
From: cscott at gaslightmedia.com (Charles Scott)
Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 09:43:08 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Comments on Name Based Virtualk Hosting Policy Recommendation
In-Reply-To: <170E5E7779BCD3118C2A0008C7F40C1901344682@usresms03.teleglobe.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0105100912410.1550-100000@harbor.gaslightmedia.com>


On Thu, 10 May 2001, Sweeting, John wrote:

> and to further that thought, you do have to justify your request for address
> space and since the recommendation is to use name-based system for
> webhosting then only a "technical" justification will be accepted for not
> following the recommendation, in other words not an administrative one,
> financial one etc, only a technical one.

And around we go again...

  Once again clear evidence that there's no concensus on what ARIN's
position is on this issue. 
  Also, John, should I infer from the above that you feel a technical
justification resulting from a business decision, is, or is not
acceptable?
  Regardless, if the prevailing feeling is that it is only required to
provide one's own technical justification (something other than "just
because") then how about the following.


When an ISP submits a request for IP address space to be used for IP-based
web hosting, they will supply, for informational purposes only, their
technical justification for this practice. ARIN will collect this data for
future consideration of a formal policy on IP based web hosting.


  Note the phrase "THEIR technical justification", which clarifies that
ARIN's interest is to collect data on why people feel compelled to use IP
based hosting. I believe this was the true intent of the latest policy.
  Frankly, I think this policy will in fact result in addional
conservation in that it get's people thinking about why they are using IP
based hosting and how they may be able to avoid doing so where their
reasons are trivial. I suppose it could be interpreted as a threat of
possible future restrictions as well, which would reinforce conservation.
  If I could suggest one addional sentance to the policy...


Further, ISP's are encouraged to conserve IP address space across the
board where technically feasable and to assist their customers in doing so
on downstream networks.


  Well, that may need some rewording, but the point is to make it clear
that the policy is part of a larger issue and that everyone needs to be
part of the solution.


Chuck






From billd at cait.wustl.edu  Thu May 10 10:17:28 2001
From: billd at cait.wustl.edu (Bill Darte)
Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 09:17:28 -0500
Subject: Comments on Name Based Virtualk Hosting Policy Recommendation
Message-ID: <F0A77279DB36D111A6EC00A024DEE7AF4DDED4@kronos.wustl.edu>

Charles Scott wrote:
> 
> When an ISP submits a request for IP address space to be used 
> for IP-based
> web hosting, they will supply, for informational purposes only, their
> technical justification for this practice. ARIN will collect 
> this data for
> future consideration of a formal policy on IP based web hosting.

I have no problem with this addition. It captures the intent.
> 
> 
> Further, ISP's are encouraged to conserve IP address space across the
> board where technically feasable and to assist their 
> customers in doing so
> on downstream networks.
> 
I am not in favor of such an addition, because it is covered by the policy
preface and in the spirit of all ARIN policy and operations, and is
therefore redundant...IMHO.

Bill Darte
ARIN AC