WebHosting Policy approval recommendation

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