guideline for name-based web hosting justification

[Mike Horwath]

On Tue, Sep 12, 2000 at 03:34:57AM -0500, Jeremy Porter wrote:
> 
> I don't think Alec has called anyone whiners.

...Whining about how today's methods of accounting won't work with
tomorrow's methods of virtual hosting is a lot like complaining about
how yesterday's...

Yah, we are whining I guess.

> The policy has been discussed and as presented does not change the
> business climate for for existing users of addresses.  For new
> assignments I quote:

But I am an existing user of addresses but I now mush change going
forward.

Yah, that sounds fun, inefficient, timeconsuming, and expensive.

Not everyone runs domains for parents for their children to show off
their pictures of their vacation.

Some of us actually host some of the sites you yourself are visiting
on a regular basis that generate logs that are unparsable using
current CPUs of today.  These same sites are also cylic in their usage
of bandwidth (and we all pay for bandwidth right?), so we much charge
them accordingly for their peak utilization (or thereabouts).

Writing code to do this would be a bitch, would tear apart todays
CPUs, and would require us to purchase, at this rate, multiple
computers per web site just to do log parsing.

> If you are sure that your use of one IP per Host is justfiable, then
> you should have no problem getting an exception approved.

When was the last time you got IP addresses?

We had a /16 and a /17, I went to request space (after we were down to
under 5 /24s left) and it took almost 2 weeks (by which time we had
burned all but 1 /24 out of that space).  And the issue wasn't SWIPing
at all, we were down with that...

So, I submit for more addressing, which already takes 2 weeks at a
minimum but now we must get 'approval' for on a case by case basis,
this could take 2-6 weeks at a minimum.

Which would cause us to find ways around this policy decision, ways
that are 100% legit.

75-80% of our customers already use NAT and DMZs, we have been stingy
with address space and we are very very accountable for that space.

This new ruling doesn't help us or the 'net one bit and in fact causes
hording to happen all over again.

I have customers with a very large blocks assigned to them, yet their
utilization of these blocks is under 10%.  These IP blocks were
assigned to them by the old interNIC back when you could get a /20
just by asking.

If there is worry about addressing, why not write code to ping IP
addresses and start investigating where the hell they all are.

Isn't that why we pay ARIN for space?  So that it can be managed?

Manage the fucking IP space, find the wasters out there and get IP
space back.

Get off the backs of providers and overall general good 'netizens who
are doing what they can to both conserve IP wastage and still be a
business on the 'net.

> "Back in the day" when I ran an ISP and Web hosting business for a living,
> we used single IPs for WWW (http 1.1 didn't exist), assigned static
> IPs to all customers, etc.  When new technologies came about
> and policies changed, we followed.  We ended up renumber those static
> customers and some significiant business cost, because it was the
> right thing to do.  It wasn't easy, the customers didn't like it,
> it made accounting and access control harder.

It has been shown that HTTP/1.0 requests account for over 45% of the
requests.  If needed, I'll grep my logs as well.

It isn't just 'cost of change', it is just cost for the sake of cost.

Review my statements above - ARIN should be reclaiming wasted IP space
from the 'old users' of the 'net who have large blocks but aren't
using them.

> With that said, theses issues were discussed at the ARIN policy
> meeting, and there weren't huge objections, so the conclusion was
> reached that there were significant objectors.  Luckily there is a
> meeting in just a few weeks, where you are invited to discusse it
> more, and perhaps better wording can be determined that would allow
> existing operations to switch to more efficient technologies in a
> reasonable time frame, while still encouraging better utilization of
> IP addressing.

Or start gathering IP space from the wasters while coming up with a
plan that will force the 'net in general to change to 100% HTTP/1.1
requests.

If everyone can agree on this, then hell, I'll convert every one of my
sites today, buy the few hundred thousand in CPU I will need to do
billing, and shut the hell up.

But while I see this hypocracy continue I can't be on the side of you
or ARIN for this decision.

As far as going to yet another meeting... YUCK.  Might be time to hire
someone whose sole job at my company is to go to meetings and fight on
the side of common sense.

> I'm sure if several vocal www hosting business pushed for changed
> wording that still encouraged better utilization, that it would be
> considered.

And how many of those web hosting businesses actually get space from
ARIN and not their provider?

> From my recollection of the last ARIN meeting there was a
> significant lack of input from WWW hosting companies, as there were
> only a handful present.

You are making my point.

> "Whining" (your words) about it on the mailing list might not be
> enough.  Also I'd think you find Alec would be more than willing to
> help address any technical issues you might find, but telling him
> "math is hard" isn't likely to win you much, and personal attacks,
> will likely just be ignored, as he's been doing this long enough to
> not take the "bait".

You took the bait.. :)

-- 
Mike Horwath           IRC: Drechsau         drechsau at Geeks.ORG
Home: 763-540-6815  1901 Sumter Ave N, Golden Valley, MN  55427
Opinions stated in this message, or any message posted by myself
through my Geeks.ORG address, are mine and mine alone, period.