guideline for name-based web hosting justification

[Matt Bailey]

Your missing the point completely.
I can create a Netflow based usuage in 30 seconds to parse one customers
40Gigabytes worth of logs would take days let alone the machine dedicated to
processing it.. Your telling me I should save the traffic log for all the
sites would could be 100ish gigs per month and parse them? Why? I can use
Netflow based accounting on an IP address and cough up an answer in real
time anytime I want it.

Obviously you don;t have much web hosting.. I would like to hear comments
from some of the web hosting big boys (concentric, etc..) on what they view
of this.. What gets tricky is when you have one site scattered over several
machines because part of it uses a database/Part of it needs SSL etc.. This
just can not happen yet.

SSL requires and IP.. So I put a customer into the system. Your telling me I
have to rip them out and re-add them to my systems because now they need an
IP.. That is total BS.

Log files are archaic forms of gathering data. Most of us gather data in
Real Time rather than parsing logs. My Customers can get a second by second
count of how their website is doing.

Ohhh yes and that one website owner who is a total asshole to AOL and you
get your 30,000 site IIS box blackholed. Is that fair to the 29,999 other
customers? Have you ever tried to get out of an AOL blacklist? I have over
40 IP's I can not use for anything other than office machines as they are
blackholed and the customers are LONG GONE..

Of course since we issue an FTP site based on their virtual websites IP we
get away with using 30,000 IP's since there is no header in FTP...
And of course the virtual mail server on the other box which requires an IP
Nope no headers yet there either.. Guess what I burn two for every customer,
and guess what ARIN can not stop it cause technically I use FTP and MAIL
which can not yet run under one IP. IP Based websites are nothing more than
a HACK in the protocol. If the WWC was smart for 1.2 or 2.0 whatever they
are working on they would pull virtual headers back out since 60% or so of
the people still send http/1.0 requests. I could not tell 30,000 web clients
that if someone wants to visit their site they have to upgrade from netscape
2.0 (yes we still have customers using win 3.1 and netscape 2.0 with the
netscape dialer.. I cringe but they are the customer they are always
right..)

I think ARIN needs to rethink what they are suggesting those of us that can
not change the way we host websites will work the loopholes. Which I don't
agree with. ARIN should have asked the community what we can do to help
limit the waste. Rather than forcing it upon us. I would guess if they Asked
MIT or GE or some of the other companies out there to give back unused space
that they would.. I try very hard to convince my dedicated customers to use
NAT and overload IP's as much as they can. If they have an absolute need
then we assign them space. This is only fair.

OK lets check this out.. We have 200 dedicated dial-ups we can use 200 IP's
for this. We have 200 dedicated web sites we can only use 1?
Why does that work.. OK Now lets say ARIN says they will not assign you more
than 1 IP per piece of modem gear because you can use NAT.. Don't bitch if
you support this on Virtual Webhosting as these are the equiv. infact more
will work via NAT than with Virtual web.. Someone at ARIN please please tell
me why that wasn't added to the policy? This would free up 75% of the IP's
on the internet if you require NAT...

OK I am getting a headache.. Some people just don;t understand why this is a
bad idea.