Wording of the Virtual Webhosting Standards Policy

[David R Huberman]

Hello Chris,
 
>  The "technically compelling documentation" language concerns me.  

[snip]

> Therefore, I fear, with the addition of more strict language requiring
> proof of the technical unfeasibility of using named-based hosting when
> a hosting customer needs ip's for his clients using SSL on their
> websites seems to present an unnecessary burden on the upstream
> provider and the ip recipient (the web host).

[snip]

The consensus that I gleaned at the recent ARIN open public policy meeting
clearly agreed that a fairly strict policy is supported by the community.
The burden to conserve address space is undeniably placed on the
ISP. Those providers who require using IP-based hosting will need to
explain themselves in some technically compelling manner.

And that's the point of the language I attempted to craft: any technically
compelling reason must be sufficient for ARIN to accept the address
utilization. ARIN cannot just blithely state that "here are certain
technical exceptions - do you fit one of them?"

The lack of specificity in my policy statement affords ARIN staff the
necessary flexibility in determining the needs and goals of the requesting
provider - a situation in which everyone wins, in my opinion.

Again, my policy proposal:

> In the interests of IPv4 address conservation, ARIN strongly encourages
> the use of name-based virtual hosting utilizing HTTP 1.1-host headers.
> ISPs providing web hosting services who are unable to implement name-based
> virtual hosting must provide technically compelling documentation which
> clearly demonstrates efficient utilization of their previous IPv4
> assignments.

/david

*--------------------------------*
| Global Crossing IP Engineering |
| Manager, Global IP Addressing  |
|   TEL: (908) 720-6182          |
|   FAX: (703) 464-0802          |
*--------------------------------*