danny at tcb.net
Thu Aug 31 22:01:00 EDT 2000
I think the new policy needs a bit of work. In addition
to what's been discussed [primarily on NANOG] already, I
have a general comment on the new policy:
When an ISP submits a request for IP address space, ARIN
will not accept IP-based webhosting as justification for an
allocation, unless an exception is warranted. Along with the
request, organizations must provide appropriate details
demonstrating their virtual webhosting customer base.
Exceptions may be made for ISPs that provide justification
for requiring static addresses. ARIN will determine, on a
case-by-case basis, whether an exception is appropriate.
It would seem that the exception will frequently be the
rule. That being the case, it would seem cleaner to
specify it as such. Else I'd veture that more resources
will be consumed handling exceptions, and that a near
equivalent amount of address space will be allocated in
IMO, simply recommending and providing pointers to things
like name-based virtual hosting, 31-bit masking, Virtual
LAN/MAN IP aggregation, etc.. upon receiving requests that
utilize a great deal of address space in these areas would
be of benefit.
Else everyone will just employ the exception policy and
discard the optimized IP utilization stuff.
Also, I believe perhaps entertaining the idea of an online
member voting mechanism would alleviate a great deal of the
concern -- and perhaps increase discussion on the mailing
More information about the ARIN-PPML