guideline for name-based web hosting justification

[Mury]

On Tue, 12 Sep 2000, Jeremy Porter wrote:

> 
> I don't think Alec has called anyone whiners.  

Jeremy,

"Whining" was not my word.  Please read his response to me more
carefully, and I'll quote it here, so you don't have to scroll down:

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

It's pretty easy to disqualify someone's techincal issues by retorting
with it's just whining.

> 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:
> http://www.arin.net/announcements/policy_changes.html
> 	Exceptions may be made for ISPs that provide justification for 
> 	requiring static addresses. ARIN will determine, on a case-by-case 
> 	basis, whether an exception is appropriate. 
> 
> If you are sure that your use of one IP per Host is justfiable, then
> you should have no problem getting an exception approved.
> Perhaps if you are complaining maybe you don't feel that your
> use has technical merit?

Here we go with just calling me a complainer again. Dear sir, do you know
what an awful process it is to get more space from ARIN.  I beleive the
point is an exception should be a policy if in general you would have to
grant more exceptions than not.  If the hosting world is not quite ready
for name based hosting why make most people fight to get exceptions?  
Shouldn't it be a policy?

And don't get me wrong again, I can here it coming.  I am concerned about
wasted IP space.  I'm not advocating wasting IP space just because it's an
easier thing to do than conserve it.  

> "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.

Of course, name one ISP that hasn't done that.  I haven't run into any.

> 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.

Where is the meeting?  Who shows up?  Isn't emailing the group just as
an acceptable way of communicating, or do I need to show up and be called
a whiner in person?

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

Not my words.  And I'm sick of being called a whiner.

> 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".

Good lord, here's some more freakin bait.  It's like you didn't even read
my message.

Mury
GoldenGate Internet Services