ARIN Web Hosting Policy (fwd)

Stacey D. Son sson at
Tue Aug 29 18:12:09 EDT 2000

Andy said:
> > 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

Yes, this usually involves passing the domain name in authentication
stage of the protocol.  There are various problems with doing this
hack including:

(1) Not all protocols require authentication.  

(2) Not all clients support long usernames (so the username can
    include the domain name to guarantee an unique name space).

(3) Tech support issues.  One of the top tech support questions is
    concerning client software configuration.  This only compounds
    that problem.

> > 3) if one customer site is blacklisted by a service such as ORBS, it
> > affects all sites hosted by the host on that shared IP address
> > 4) if one customer site is blacklisted by a filtering service, it affects
> > all sites hosted by the host on that shared IP address
> I can't imagine that circumventing rogue filtering services is
> justification for IP addresses. That situation would be between you and
> the filtering service.

I have seen a lot of K-12 schools (on limited budgets), for example,
that use ACLs in the routers to block sites that are against the
school policy or target their students.  Blocking one IP address with
name-based hosting blocks more than one site.  (Also, see my comments
about DDoS attacks.)
> > 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 but which web hosting company do you represent?  Most
sucessful hosting companies that I am familar with do IP-based

> > This policy change comes as a shock to those of us relying on the only
> > competitive method of virtual Web hosting available to us.  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.

It does not take much thinking to see ways to circumvent the system
(e.g.  black market for IP address space, companies buying companies
just for their large unused address space, etc.)

I am surprised that ARIN has thrown out a policy without considering
the technical aspects and without talking to those that do a lot of
hosting.  I am also surprised that only hosting seems to be targeted
so far.  For example, I don't see an ARIN policy that requires the use
of more NAT devices which has the potential of saving more IP
addresses given there are far more users than web sites.  Or why does
ARIN encourage more IPv6 deployment in a policy by giving companies
that have taken steps toward it credit?



More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list