ARIN Web Hosting Policy (fwd)

[Andy Walden]

> > > 2) other important related services such as FTP and mail retrieval
> > > cannot be virtualized except on a per-IP basis
> > 
> > There are plenty of technical solutions to do both of these. In
> 
> Who are you or ARIN to dictate those?  Within reason, perhaps.  I am not
> aware of any suitable technical solution to virtualizing either service
> I mentioned.

Actually, the fact is, there are technical solutions, my opinion is, they
should be utilized. I don't get to dictate anything though. There are
pro's and con's to all technical solutions. If a technical solution exists
that does not unreasonably waste IP addresses, then its use should be
encouraged. If your specific solution doesn't support the features,
pressure should be exerted on your vendors to meet your needs. 

Ones investment in a flawed technology does cannot qualify as a reason to
sustain the technology. The same argument can be made for making as
inefficient engines as you feel like, without EPA or conservations and
arguing that your investment in the technology makes it ok. Its not for
the good of the larger group.

There are always exceptions though, SSL is certainly one of them.

For specifics though, I realize that the FTP host header provision is
still sitting in IETF land. It is certainly feasible to setup a chroot
jail for the FTP users on a per server basis. As far as mail goes, Qmail
supports a nice virtual user SQL addon, or if you like Intermail also
keeps things seperate. It also defines on what you define as virtual
hosting I suppose. Is it the banner one sees when connected to the tcp
port? Is it a user management interface? Nonetheless, the note only
mentioned HTTP that I saw. 
 
> > I can't imagine that circumventing rogue filtering services is
> > justification for IP addresses. That situation would be between you and
> > the filtering service.
> 
> In the real world, those are real problems.  Right now it's a manageable
> problem.  It becomes a severe problem under the proposed restriction.

My opinion stands. Its not part of IP policy to work around your social
filtering issues.

> > > 5) hosts that are forced to rely on name-based hosting are at a significant
> > > competitive disadvantage in the marketplace
> > 
> > I would imagine this statement comes as a shock to those of us that have
> > been hosting thousands of sites on name-based vhosts for years without
> > complaint.
> 
> I'm sorry for you.  I stand by my opinion.

Though you haven't provided anything to back it up. 

> > > pair Networks,
> > > Inc has a strong vested interest in its technical approach and business
> > > model, and will take whatever steps necessary to protect both.  We prefer
> > > to work within the system first.
> > 
> > I would be interested in seeing how you intend to circumvent the
> > system. I don't see how you think a statement like this could gain
> > you any sort of credibility for your arguments.
> 
> At no point whatsoever did I state any intent to circumvent the system.
> However, if ARIN changes an existing policy in a way that severely impacts
> our business model and technical approach, there are two reasonable ways to
> address it.  One is by providing feedback and working within the system to
> improve the policy.  Another is to litigate.  I hate people who sue first,
> think later.  Litigation is not the preferred answer, to say the least.  But
> that option has to remain in consideration :(

That would be interesting to see really. I don't know of anyone that has
sued ARIN. I'm sure it has crossed lots of minds. 

> If you are satisfied with your name-based services, why exactly are you
> concerned about the approach others take?  Is it more likely to be purist
> concern for preserving IP space, or that you would like to see your
> competitors severely inconvenienced, to your own competitive advantage?

Purist concern. Remember, I think the name-based stuff is fine, so I never
intended to imply I wanted to inconvienence anyone. 


andy