Comments on Name Based Virtualk Hosting Policy Recommendation

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.
> .
> .
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
>