guideline for name-based web hosting justification

Mike Horwath drechsau at
Wed Sep 13 11:40:16 EDT 2000

On Tue, Sep 12, 2000 at 08:55:18AM -0600, Alec H. Peterson wrote:
> Mike Horwath wrote:
> > 
> > Thing is, 'tomorrows way of web hosting' really is tomorrow.
> > 
> > Or don't you get it?
> I don't think I do, since I'm not sure what you're getting at.

There was no 'ramp up' period, this policy takes effect *now*.

> > But why not put all dialups behind NAT, I mean, hell, fuck'em, they
> > don't need to play games on the 'net, do Netmeeting, ICQ and such, and
> > this would save me a couple thousand IPs and would save UUNET (and
> > other big boys) /14s and more of IP space.
> Your sarcasm notwithstanding, I think the issues of placing dialup
> (or any end-users for that matter) behind a NAT out-number the
> issues of using name-based virtual hosting for entry-level web
> accounts.

Ah, now it is entry level web accounts.

We already put entry level web accounts online via named virtual
hosts, the thing is, we don't do all that many of those, we do much
larger items.

Of course, the difinition of 'entry-level web accounts' could be
debated and probably will be.

> > Yep, it isn't new and many of us use name based virtual hosting
> > techniques when we can.
> > 
> > Thing is, it doesn't work all the time.
> I agree with you 100% on that count.
> And I think the ARIN policy should be re-worded so that it is more
> flexible.

Ah, some agreement, kick ass!

> See, the IP 'waste' that the membership was specifically concerned
> about when crafting this policy is the mom-and-pop shops that only
> get a few thousand hits per month and don't use SSL for their site.
> There are tens of thousands of those sites out there now (probably
> more) and there is no reason in the world why they shouldn't be on
> name-based virtual hosts.

I agree!

> Then, there are some sites that are so huge that for a variety of
> reasons it is just unfeasible to put them on name-based virtual
> hosts.  I think the policy should be re-crafted to objectively
> define that in some way.

Going to be difficult to be objective, though.

Very difficult.

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.

More information about the ARIN-discuss mailing list