ARIN Web Hosting Policy (fwd)

[Stacey D. Son]

Andy said:
> 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. 

NAT, which has the potential of saving millions of IP addresses
(instead of thousands), has been around long before Al Gore invented
the Internet so why isn't its use been "encouraged" by ARIN?  IPv6 has
the potential of solving the problem altogether.  Where is the
"encouragement" on its deployment and use by ARIN?

> 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.

However, the EPA does not require Ford to change overnight.  This new
ARIN policy, on the other hand, requires it of web hosters.

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

I see no provisions in ARIN's policy for such.  With the RSA patent
expiring next month most major web hosting companies on the planet
will most likely be offering SSL/TLS for free, IMO.  If ARIN
explicitly made an exception for SSL/TLS then I don't think we
would be having this discusion.

> 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. 

I am confused on how anonymous FTP works in this situation.  How does
the server "read the mind" of the client to know which chroot jail to
put the user in?

> 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.

But do all these applications support bandwidth shaping, for example?
By removing the unique IP address you push bandwidth shaping into user
space.  Support for this exist in routers, level 3 switches and
kernels (all of which is IP based) but I know of little support in
applications.

Regards,

-stacey.