guideline for name-based web hosting justification

[Hyunseog Ryu]

On 09/14/2000 10:51:04 PM owner-ppml wrote:

>> > My tiny business caters almost exclusively to small businesses; in my
>> > case all those services (with the exception of SSL), are part of the
>> > standard package.  In other words, people don't pay anything at all
>> > extra for them.  They pay $10/month to get it all.  Frequently there
are
>> > services that are part of the package that they don't use, at least
not
>> > initially.
>>
>> I think many providers have very similar packages; many offer FrontPage
>> Server Extension support to their users as well. FPSE requires more than
a
>> bit more extra work to get them to work with name-based hosts.
>>
>> > A great many small ISPs offer essentially the same kind of a package
--
>> ...
>> > own host on the internet.
>>
>> This is true... And large ISPs require a great deal of automation as
well.
>> In order for a large ISP to manage virtual hosts that are combinations
of
>> name-based and IP-based causes a lot of extra stress.

I think this kind of policy need some introductory time for everybody.
Some ISP/ASP need to change their provisioning system to allow this happen.
Customer need some time to accept name-based web hosting without any
prejudice.
And Application developer need some time to develop name-based service
implementation
in their application.
Maybe ARIN consider this option.
1) Announce new policy to public.
2) Apply 2:1 ratio for Web hosting/IP address for 3 or 6 months after six
months from announcement.
3) Apply 4:1 ratio for Web hosting/IP address for 3 or 6 months after
applying 2)
4) During this period, ARIN make clear guideline for exceptional case for
IP Based hosting, and procedure
     for justification query from ISP/ASP.

We need to think about this.
If hosting has some problem with customer because of IP address problem,
maybe some customer will consider low bandwidth dedicated connection for
web hosting from their site - So called
in-house web hosting.
In this case, we need to give at least 8 IP address (/29) to them.
It can bo good for ISP because they can make more money.
But how about IP address waste? Maybe this policy will lead ASP market to
difficult situation.
Especially for low/medium size hosting service provider  in local area.

>>
>>
>> Now if all the technology was already in place, things would be a lot
>> easier.
>>
>> Also note that even the largest ISPs aren't using close to one quarter
of
>> the IPs that the largest cable providers are. I really don't think it
was a
>> good idea to throw this on the ISPs first. It just seems like the big
>> problem has been overlooked.

Maybe we can push IPv6 deployment from Cable provider and application
developer like M$.

>>
>>
>> I have a problem with the policy regulating explicitly "webhosters." To
me,
>> the web is made up of a lot more than just HTTP. I think it would have
been
>> a better idea to regulate HTTP hosters... People who just provide simple
>> HTTP services could make the easy change and not worry much about it.
>> Regulating the entire web causes this great deal of argument about
exactly
>> what is an exception and what is not. It's ridiculous.

If ARIN want this happen really, they are supposed to be more seriously.
They need to give some time for hosting service provider to make the change
in their provisioning system, and give time for application developer to
make name-based hosting happen.
For webhoster, it one IP address is blocked by someone using filtering,
that will be big problem for them from business model.
We can not leave it down for 4 or 5 hours to contact with network engineer
of filtering organization.
you know what?
Actually some country did this kind of filtering by government.
The reason for this will be adult content or government political issue
like communist things.
In this case, government send the list of IP address to all oversea
connection Internet provider.
They have to block those IP address by regulation.
In this case, every web hosting from specific IP address can be blocked.
Don't  consider this can be resolved by phone or letter.
Sometimes local organization decide to block specific IP address because of
content of Web.
For example, K-12 school for adult site and how to make bomb sites. ;>
In this case, other customers from same IP address is not happy with this.
They will leave to other web hosting provider or make their own connection.

>>
>> To me a few things have to happen...
>>
>> *) The cable providers **NEED** to be regulated! @Home's 2.3 million IPs
are
>> ridiculous -- they do not need that many IPs. Even if they were to give
back
>> HALF of those IPs, that'd be TWICE the amount of IPs Verio has TOTAL.

Are they consider IPv6?
Is there any technical problem with IPv6 deployment?
How about IPv6/IPv4 gateway?
ARIN need to push IPv6 deployment with various method.
ARIN really consider IPv6 as solution for IP address?


>>

>>
>> *) xDSL providers need to be looked at. Most of the DSL providers I know
of
>> are providing static IPs to each of their customers by default.
Maybe or maybe not.
xDSL is supposed to be always-on connection.
If this is a kind of dial-up connection type,
maybe DHCP with dynamic IP address will reduce the number of IP address
that
xDSL provider needs.
But if this is always-on connection, there is no difference from the number
of IP address that
is needed by xDSL provider.
It's only issue with security and management.

>>
>> *) ARIN (and IANA) needs to improve their communication. I really think
that
>> only certain interests were represented in this decision... (i.e. cable
>> Internet providers)
I think big problem of this new policy is two.

1) Vague procedure/guideline, clear action

     It's not a secret mission. If ARIN need to push this policy, clear
standard and justification procedure
     has to be followed by policy.
     It looks to me like this.
     ARIN made a policy for hosting provider, and pass all issue with this
policy  to ISP.
     ISP doesn't know how to do this with hosting provider.
     If ARIN think ISP do justification for hosting provider, they need to
let ISP know what is the standard guideline for this.

2) No consideration for real world.

     If we make some IETF RFC  draft, it will take a couple of year to
deliver this to real world.
     And there is some choice from customer, also.
     In this case, ARIN make this happen so quickly, and there is no time
for preparation from hosting provider - customer - ,
     and application developer - vendor -.
     This is not a lab environment.
     There is a lot of different situation. Do we need to belive exception
warranty without any knowledge of guideline?
     What happened if we don't get exception warranty that we assigned IP
address to hosting provider?
     Does it affect to whole IP address allocation request that is for
whole customer?
     Because of this trap - really -, we need to jeopardize the risk for
our business?



thanks.

Hyun