Wording of the Virtual Webhosting Standards Policy

[David R Huberman]

Hello Kevin,

> If you use "technically compelling" wording, then you're back to where we
> were early last year, when the policy was vigorously protested.  Downstream
> allocators will regard that as a blanket excuse to deny space to their
> customers, regardless of how ARIN chooses to interpret it for their own
> allocations.

I don't understand what you're saying here.

If a web-hosting organization petitions their upstream for address space
and is denied based on some inchoate interpretation of an ARIN-published
recommendation, that is indicative of a much larger problem. The
organization can either attempt to convince the upstream to assign them
address space or it can do what would seem to be the smarter choice:
change upstreams.

I don't know how anyone else would feel, but if I'm working with an
upstream and they are denying me address space to which I feel I am
justified, I'm changing upstreams as quickly as I can to a more clueful,
customer-friendly provider.

I don't see how irresponsible, customer-unfriendly providers misusing a
proposed ARIN policy recommendation is relevant to the discussion we're
having. If you feel it is, please help me to understand why.
 
> It seemed at the meeting that the intent of requiring any reason at all was
> so that ARIN could gather data for future use - not to restrict allocation.
> This policy was supposed to be scaled back to a recommendation.

Yes, I too believe it is supposed to be a recommendation, not a strict
policy. My policy wording does not seem to reflect that belief. Hrm.
How to reconcile??

/david

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