guideline for name-based web hosting justification

[Ted Pavlic]

> Since it looks like it has to be spelled out.  He was making the point
> that you can't compare requiring dialup providers to use dynamic IPs to
> this policy of requiring hosting companies to do named based hosting.  It
> is not comparing apples to apples.  Using dynamic IPs for dialup users had
> very very little downside.  It is a very legitimate, aggreable way to
> conserve IP space.  And most of us readily used dynamic IPs for our dialup
> customers.  Hell, I'm sure for most of us it was technologically possible
> before we even started our businesses.
> Named based hosting is not even close a being a similar situation.

Just a note -- the technology needed to implement a completely name-based
web just does not exist yet.

The dynamic IP policy was implemented AFTER **ALL** of that technology
existed.

In ARIN's recent policy changes, they reference IETF drafts as possible
name-based solutions to web providers... Every IETF draft has this paragraph
in it:

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference mate-
   rial or to cite them other than as ``work in progress.''

It is just *NOT* appropriate to reference any technology mentioned in an
IETF draft.

The fact is the Internet just IS NOT ready for name-based hosting.

Another example of name-based RESISTANT technology which causes problems for
web hosting providers are the Microsoft FrontPage Server Extensions, a
necessity for some webhosting clients.

It is just clear that the proper research wasn't done before the policy
changes. These changes could have been proposed for some form of vote...

These sort of changes cause major factions to form on the Internet... things
become political.... It seems like ARIN has decided to regulate an interest
which is hardly as much of a threat to IP allocations as other interests as
if ARIN has been influenced by deep-pocket ISPs. That just isn't right.

> It's just plain stupid to go around spouting that name based hosting is as
> easy to accomplish (full scale) as it is to give a dialup user a dynamic
> IP or have lots of your users use NAT.

I really see no downside to using NAT. Some might argue that it will cause
problems with Internet gamers and such... but there are plenty of NAT
algorithms which allow for the NATting of various different gaming
protocols, just as there are plenty of NAT algorithms which allow for FTP to
be NATted without any trouble (both passive and port)... All of these
technologies *EXIST* currently, which is the big thing.

And if NAT isn't good enough for a couple of users, then have them get a
one-to-one NAT from their ISP specifically for them.

As someone pointed out in ARIN policy, @Home, one of the biggest cable
providers, has over 2.3 MILLION IP addresses. Verio, one of the biggest web
providers, has only about 500 THOUSAND IP addresses. Even if @Home were to
get rid of HALF of its IP addresses, that'd be a LOT more than Verio could
do if it got rid of all of its IP addresses.

I just don't think that non-webhosters have thought the whole thing through.

All the best --
Ted Pavlic
Systems Engineer
NetWalk Communications
CallTech Communications, LLC
CPT Communications, Inc.
tpavlic at netwalk.com