No subject

Richard Jimmerson richardj at arin.net
Tue Sep 12 16:42:40 EDT 2000


Hello Scott,

Considering a large percentage of your customers use SSL there must
have been a mistake or misunderstanding during the review of your
request for additional IP address space.

I will be contacting you personally (off-list) to discuss your request
and bring it to a quick resolution.

Best Regards,
Richard Jimmerson
American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)


  -----Original Message-----
  From: owner-arin-discuss at arin.net [mailto:owner-arin-discuss at arin.net]On
Behalf Of Host Master
  Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2000 3:04 PM
  To: arin-discuss at arin.net; ppml at arin.net
  Subject:


  The exception is not true, we recently requested more IP space for web
hosting and were denied because of the new policy. We had to valid reasons.

  1. Search Engines blacklist by IP and account for submissions by IP, one
of our biggest selling points is that we get great positioning in search
engines.

  2. Most of our clients have HTTP 1.0 browsers, and are unable to upgrade
because of company policies for the offices they work with.

  3. A large percentage of our clients use SSL, we work in the real estate /
mortgage field and the customers are VERY paranoid.

  For all intents and purposes we have been cut off from around 40% of our
client base. We have produced documentation to ARIN for both of these
reasons and they still denied it citing "ARIN official policy is to deny IP
base web hosting, no exceptions". We are being forced to request more
address space from our upstream provider so that we can cover the sites that
would like to be SSL.

  This is not acceptable. This forced change has cost us a large (in our
terms, we are not the largest company) amount of business, and forced us to
loose business to competitors that just host using space from upstream
providers. The reason we went to ARIN issued space was for portability
across our providers, in the long run it may hurt us more than the benefit
it will give us.

  ---
  Scott Johnson
  Director Of Software Engineering
  Advanced Access
  (714) 685-5124
  sjohnson at advancedaccess.com

  -----Original Message-----
  From: Jeremy Porter [mailto:jerry at fc.net]
  Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2000 1:35 AM
  To: Mury
  Cc: Alec H. Peterson; Matt Bailey; arin-discuss at arin.net; ppml at arin.net
  Subject: Re: guideline for name-based web hosting justification




  I don't think Alec has called anyone whiners.  The policy has been
  discussed and as presented does not change the business climate for
  for existing users of addresses.  For new assignments I quote:
  http://www.arin.net/announcements/policy_changes.html
          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.

  If you are sure that your use of one IP per Host is justfiable, then
  you should have no problem getting an exception approved.
  Perhaps if you are complaining maybe you don't feel that your
  use has technical merit?

  "Back in the day" when I ran an ISP and Web hosting business for a living,
  we used single IPs for WWW (http 1.1 didn't exist), assigned static
  IPs to all customers, etc.  When new technologies came about
  and policies changed, we followed.  We ended up renumber those static
  customers and some significiant business cost, because it was the
  right thing to do.  It wasn't easy, the customers didn't like it,
  it made accounting and access control harder.

  With that said, theses issues were discussed at the ARIN policy meeting,
  and there weren't huge objections, so the conclusion was reached that
  there were significant objectors.  Luckily there is a meeting in
  just a few weeks, where you are invited to discusse it more, and
  perhaps better wording can be determined that would allow existing
  operations to switch to more efficient technologies in a reasonable
  time frame, while still encouraging better utilization of
  IP addressing.

  I'm sure if several vocal www hosting business pushed for changed wording
  that still encouraged better utilization, that it would be considered.
  From my recollection of the last ARIN meeting there was a significant
  lack of input from WWW hosting companies, as there were only a handful
  present.

  "Whining" (your words) about it on the mailing list might not be
  enough.  Also I'd think you find Alec would be more than willing
  to help address any technical issues you might find, but telling him
  "math is hard" isn't likely to win you much, and personal attacks, will
  likely just be ignored, as he's been doing this long enough to not take
  the "bait".



  In message <Pine.BSI.4.21.0009120008070.23889-100000 at dew.goldengate.net>,
Mury
  writes:
  >
  >Dear Alec,
  >
  >Since you basically called those of us pointing out some real issues
  >"whiners," I took the liberty of finding out a little bit more about
  >you.  It looks like you are probably a fairly bright person, probably a
  >lot smarter than me.  >From looking at your web site though and reading
  >your comments below I question how much you really understand what you
are
  >talking about when you trivialize some of the issues that have been
  >brought up.
  >
  >I also find it interesting that in your presentation to the 11th NANOG
  >meeting that you did with Avi Freedman (Isn't he working for Digital
  >Island now?  Or one of the other distributed content providers) you are
  >supporting a technology that not only assigns an IP address to a web site
  >but assigns multiple IP addresses to a single site.  Perhaps I didn't
  >decipher your presentation correctly, but it sure seems like you are
  >supporting performance/service level issues above and beyond IP
  >conservation.  Ah, I hear it coming, that each distributed node can
handle
  >multiple distributed sites off of a single IP.  Very true.  Do you know
  >what the ratio of managed sites to in-service systems is?  How many
  >locations is Akamai in?  I really don't know what the IP "waste" ratio
is.
  >But the point is you are supporting performance at the expense of IP
  >addresses however large or small that may be.
  >
  >In addition, you even argue against yourself.  You say, "For example,
  >don't do all of the parsing at once at the end of the day; modify the
  >server to keep a running tally of a customer's usage and have it write
  >that alone to a file on the disk every time it changes.  Far more
  >efficient.  That's just off the top of my head, and probably not a really
  >efficient way to do it."
  >
  >What?!  How can it be *far more efficient* and then in the next line it's
  >*not a really efficient*"  Can you see why I'm not very thrilled with
your
  >off the cuff and seemingly inexperienced comments?
  >
  >By making light of some real issues that were brought up it sure seems
  >like your statements are hypocritical.  Now like I said, I'm not the
  >smartest guy out here, so if I've badly misrepresented things I apologize
  >in advance.
  >
  >Bottom line, for every one out there saying it's no big deal to do single
  >IP virtual hosting I would like to see a solution that does not sacrifice
  >reliability, accountability, quality of service, and functionality.  I
  >hate it when people (even smart people) start voicing opinions on things
  >they don't understand.
  >
  >I'm also not stubborn.  I'm not running things the way I do because it's
  >my way, but because they work, they are scalable, they are functionable,
  >and we have zero down time.  I've tried Microsoft IIS.  It doesn't work.
  >Well doh, of course it works, but not for a company that demands uptime
  >and security and a fast and simple database.  I have to reboot co-located
  >IIS machines all the time.  My BSDI/Apache/MySQL/Perl/PHP/Raven boxes
have
  >had zero downtime in the last 3 years.  That is not an invitation to hack
  >or DOS my network.  But thanks for thinking about me.
  >
  >And like I said before, when appropriate we have assigned multiple sites
  >to a single IP.  We actually do it by sending all requests into a CGI
  >script that grabs the HTTP_HOST env variable and creates the customized
  >web site on the fly with MySQL.  So yes, we are trying to conserve IP
  >addresses, we are not greedy, whiny bastards trying to screw the Internet
  >up for everyone else.
  >
  >For those of you running Apache that want to know how to do it the right
  >way, go to:  http://www.apache.org/docs/vhosts/name-based.html
  >
  >Cool!  Now we all know how to do name based hosting... er, wait... what
  >about all those HTTP/1.0 browsers!?  You don't think they exist any
  >more?  Check this out.  In fairness I sampled all my virtual hosts off of
  >one server from a selective time period.  All my logs files are in the
  >www.domain.com format.  Here are my commands and results:
  >
  >webserver3: {17} % grep 'HTTP/1.1' www.*.com | wc -l
  >  400441
  >webserver3: {18} % grep 'HTTP/1.0' www.*.com | wc -l
  >  375412
  >
  >48.4% of the browsers out there that accessed my customers' sites used
  >HTTP/1.0.  For the uninitiated the 1.0 version of the HTTP protocol does
  >NOT support name based hosting.
  >
  >Can I tell all my customers to call you when their online business drops
  >by almost 50%.  By the way, can you use a shared IP for secure server
  >certificates?
  >
  >Some more thoughts...
  >
  >Look at some of the new comers to the tech scene, Keynote, Akamai,
  >Speedera, Digital Island, etc.  These company's success show how
important
  >it is to the world to have fast, reliable, and secure web sites.  Quality
  >of Service (in its broad definition) is paramount.  And if you don't
  >believe that you can make a fortune by shorting the stock in those
  >companies.
  >
  >I don't want to see any more comments that I should be doing things
  >smarter and better.  I want to see explanations of how I can accomplish
  >the things that you say are so easy.  Like I said I'm not stubborn...
show
  >me the way.  If you can't, then please refrain from making popular
  >political statements that don't affect YOUR business and your customers'
  >business.
  >
  >There's my not so bright, whiny, long-winded $10 worth.
  >
  >Mury
  >GoldenGate Internet Services
  >
  >PS.  If you are such an advocate for IP conservation why do you have a
  >whole block?  I can't tell how many IPs you are wasting because your
  >provider has not swipped your block.  But you have multiple web sites
  >running on multiple IPs!  What's your excuse?
  >
  >Name:    gw1.hilander.com
  >Address:  216.241.32.33
  >
  >Name:    virthost.hilander.com
  >Address:  216.241.32.35
  >
  >Name:    ramirez.hilander.com
  >Address:  216.241.32.34
  >
  >Pretty interesting web sites I might add.
  >
  >If you are going to call someone a whiner you better have your own act
  >together.  The hypocrisy is killing me.
  >
  >Like I said, I'm sure you are smarter than me, but stick to what you
know.
  >
  >
  >On Mon, 11 Sep 2000, Alec H. Peterson wrote:
  >
  >> Mury wrote:
  >> >
  >> > Yikes!
  >> >
  >> > Have you ever tried to parse up to 1000 log files per system, with
some of
  >> > them around 500MB in size.  It's not nearly as easy as it sounds.
  >>
  >> It is if you change how you write and parse your logs.
  >>
  >> >
  >> > For some people it's feasable, but for most of us we *need* IP based
  >> > accounting.
  >> >
  >> > By the way, we are setup to do a large number of URL's pointed at a
single
  >> > IP for some hosting applications, but for the majority of our sites,
it is
  >> > not an option.
  >>
  >> Can't say that I have tried it.  However at the same time I can think
of
  >> quite a few ways to make the task far easier and faster.  For example,
don't
  >> do all of the parsing at once at the end of the day; modify the server
to
  > keep a running tally of a customer's usage and have it write that alone
to a
  >> file on the disk every time it changes.  Far more efficient.
  >>
  >> That's just off the top of my head, and probably not a really efficient
way
  >> to do it.  My point is that the Internet is made up of a lot of smart
people
  >> who are more than capable of solving these issues if they feel like it.
  >> Whining about how today's methods of accounting won't work with
tomorrow's
  >> methods of virtual hosting is a lot like complaining about how
yesterday's
  >> chalk writes really poorly on today's white boards.  If you don't want
to be
  >> left behind you have to keep on evolving.
  >>
  >> After all, where would we be today if dial-up providers decided that it
was
  >> too much work to use dynamically allocated IP addresses and kept on
giving
  >> each user their own IP address?
  >>
  >> However, name-based virtual hosts aren't exactly a new thing.  Many
large
  >> web hosters have been using name-based virtual hosts for a while now,
so
  >> would any of those companies mind sharing a little wisdom on how this
can be
  >> done?
  >>
  >> Thanks,
  >>
  >> Alec
  >>
  >> --
  >> Alec H. Peterson - ahp at hilander.com
  >> Staff Scientist
  >> CenterGate Research Group - http://www.centergate.com
  >> "Technology so advanced, even _we_ don't understand it!"
  >>
  >
  >

  --- jerry at fc.net

  512-519-6193 www.wayport.net
  8303 Mopac Expressway Suite A300, Austin Tx.



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20000912/af749f21/attachment.html>


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list