The Four Virtual Webhosting Proposals so far

[Charles Scott]

David:
  I personally find the ARIN Advisory Council proposal to be the least
objectionable of those already presented. However, and I know I'm going to
take abuse for suggesting this again, but I still believe that it should
be broadened to include all aspects of address conservation.
  I also believe that the ARIN wording can easily be construed to mean
that ONLY "technical considerations" are valid reasons for IP-based
webhosting, which implies that business models which for technical reasons
require IP-based webhosting are not sufficient justification.
  For those reasons, I suggest the following.


When an ISP submits a request for IP address space, ARIN will review all
requests with the requesting organization to confirm they have
investigated the various options available for the conservation address
space, such as name-based webhosting and network address translation
(possibly insert other significant methods here), and have made a good
faith effort to implement those options wherever possible.


  I think it may also be wise to include language that relates to an
obligation of ISP's to advise and counsel their customers requesting
assignments on how to impliment address conservation techniques.

Chuck Scott



On Mon, 9 Apr 2001, David R Huberman wrote:

> 
> ARIN Advisory Council policy proposal, public v.1:
> ==================================================
> When an ISP submits a request for IP address space, ARIN will review all
> IP-based webhosting requests with the requesting organization to confirm
> they have investigated the option of name-based webhosting and that there
> are technical considerations which make IP-based webhosting preferable.
>