[arin-discuss] /20 initial allocation for single-homed server?

[michael.dillon at bt.com]

> I agree, it has been my understanding that proxies were not an
> acceptable justification.  Especially for that large a block.

Why on earth would ARIN care what application is running on the host
that is configured at a given IP address? The only time I know of
that ARIN cared about such things was when HTTP gained the ability
to distinguish between multiple domain names running websites on
the same server. For some reason, many ISPs did not make use of
these virtual servers, and ARIN policy was changed to force them
into it.

But nowadays, people run all kinds of applications, not just websites,
and it is not so easy to find examples where unique IP addresses
are not needed. If the application is a proxy, and there is one
instance for every unique user, and each instance is identified 
with a unique IP address, then I don't see how "proxy" makes
things any different from "DSL connection to a home", or 
"Virtual Private Server".

After a bit of searching the ARIN site with ARIN's search engine
and then with Google, I believe that your "understanding" is more
of an old wives tale than reality.

Plus, I don't see any benefit to come from attempts to nickel
and dime ARIN applicants at a time when we are fast running out
of IPv4 addresses. You won't gather up enough addresses to slow
the runout, you are just increasing the number of parties who
feel the pain.

--Michael Dillon