Fw: ARIN Web Hosting Policy (fwd)

[Jim Cusick]

Thinking about my own experiences and after talking with Richard
Jimmerson I think the issues many had with the new policy were as
follows:

1. They were surprised. New policies were being made that impact those
who were not well represented.  Yes, more participation is required. 
This was the wake up call.  Did it come to late?  Was that its intent?
2. Criteria for exceptions were unclear.  If SSL, anon FTP, etc. were
offered does this mean it doesn't apply?  When requests were denied
"based on a new policy" panic set it.

I agree that the exceptions should be clearly spelled out but some other
measures will be needed to encourage moveemt towards technological
solutions for address conservation.

-jim



"Stacey D. Son" wrote:
> 
> Shane said:
> > First of all, let me say that I think the new policy is reasonable:
> >
> > "ARIN will no longer accept IP-based hosting as justification for an
> > allocation unless an exception is warranted."
> >
> > So, if you are using the IP's for SSL, or FTP, or whatever, then
>                                            ^^^^
> > clearly an exception is warranted (and you won't mind if ARIN checks
> > this when you come back for more space).  ARIN is for the most part
> > extremely responsive and helpful to its customers.  I don't have any
> > reason to expect things would be different for this requirement.
> 
> I guess the policy is not that significant of issue given that ARIN
> clearly makes exceptions for FTP and such.  Thank you for that
> clarification.  Maybe ARIN would like to list these above mentioned
> exceptions in their posted, written policy to save bandwidth in the
> future.  Just a suggestion...
> 
> I would also suggest that ARIN look at other reasonable IP address
> saving policies such as requiring NAT devices for companies providing
> low end access (dial, ISDN, DSL, cable modems) to customers (i.e. one
> Intenet IP address per access customer).
> 
> Regards,
> 
> -stacey.