ARIN Web Hosting Policy (fwd)

[sigma at pair.com]

> If your specific solution doesn't support the features,
> pressure should be exerted on your vendors to meet your needs. 

The problem isn't with vendors.  In the real world, there are certain
limitations caused by the technology already deployed for millions of
end-users, quite beyond our control.

> Ones investment in a flawed technology does cannot qualify as a reason to
> sustain the technology.

The technology is not flawed.  It is very effective and practical, for a
wide variety of services.  You perceive it as flawed.

> 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.

There is no way for a FTP server to know which domain is being requested by
the client.  "chroot jails" don't even enter into it.

> As far as mail goes, Qmail
> supports a nice virtual user SQL addon, or if you like Intermail also
> keeps things seperate.

Sure, we use qmail.  Same problem with the POP3 and IMAP services as with
the FTP service.

> 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. 

You can't ignore the fact that most Web hosts provide a number of virtualized
services bundled together.  This isn't just about HTTP.

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

They aren't "my" issues.  Read peacefire.org or any NANOG thread about
ORBS.

> > I'm sorry for you.  I stand by my opinion.
> 
> Though you haven't provided anything to back it up. 

That's your opinion.

> 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. 

Nor do I wish to do so.  I'm not even a person who's quick to say "let's
sue", by any means.  But when you see a poorly thought out policy being
brought out without consideration by the community it severely affects,
protecting your business does cross your mind.

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

How do you distinguish between ftp://ftp.domain1.com/ and
ftp://ftp.domain2.com/ ?

Kevin