Wording of the Virtual Webhosting Standards Policy

[Clay]

This certainly provides the loophole that all the webhosters are looking
for, while stating that its basically okay to waste  address space, they'll
at least have to tell us why.

I prefer the initial policy recommendation that you sent in...It was to the
point and it allowed webhosters the opportunity to say 'hey, we can't do it,
and here is why'...And the most stringent requirement it mandated was to
require a documentation supporting the technical reason for not using
efficient methodologies.  This seems very straight forward, and completely
supportable, because it identifies the policy; do this, get that, done.

I detest the term "strongly encourage" it does nothing to further efficient
you of address space.  If there is no worry about running out of IPv4
address space, then why "strongly encourage" ANY form of efficiency?  If the
routing tables are much more significantly impacted, due to the rapid growth
of routes, then push for a hierarchical IP addressing policy that would be
naturally more liberal in the doling out of IPv4 space...but think of the
routing table efficiency that would be gained!  The conservative trend
regarding IPv4 allocation goes against the routing table growth trend... the
more granular the allocations, the larger the routing tables...unless
allocations are made with routing in mind...

just a thought.

Clay



-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ppml at arin.net [mailto:owner-ppml at arin.net]On Behalf Of Jill
Kulpinski
Sent: Monday, April 09, 2001 2:40 PM
To: 'Lee Howard'
Cc: 'David R Huberman'; ppml at arin.net
Subject: RE: Wording of the Virtual Webhosting Standards Policy


How about:
All organizations applying for IPv4 address space must document efficient
utilization of existing IPv4 assignments.  This includes use of HTTP1.1-host
header (name-based) virtual hosting or other efficient methodologies of
address conservation whenever and wherever possible.  If such name-based
virtual hosting is not possible, documentation explaining the technical
justification for any incompatibilities must be supplied with the
application.


What do you all think of this?
Thanks,
Jill
-----Original Message-----
From: Lee Howard [mailto:lhoward at UU.NET]
Sent: Monday, April 09, 2001 1:11 PM
To: Jill Kulpinski
Cc: 'David R Huberman'; ppml at arin.net
Subject: RE: Wording of the Virtual Webhosting Standards Policy


As a matter of keeping me out of hot water, can this be the "Lee Howard
proposal" rather than the "UUNET proposal"?

I think you're right, so let me try rewording it thus:

 All organizations applying for IPv4 address space must document efficient
 utilization of existing IPv4 assignments.  When addresses are used for
 web hosting, name-based virtual hosting should be provided using HTTP1.1
 host headers whenever possible.  If such name-based virtual hosting is not
 possible, documentation explaining why it is not possible should be
 provided in the application.


I think this is consistent with general opinion on gathering more data
through documentation, but will also let Clay (for instance) be as strict
as he wants, by saying, "Your documentation is insufficient; this
application can support name-based virtual hosting."

Lee


On Mon, 9 Apr 2001, Jill Kulpinski wrote:

> Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 12:30:09 -0700
> From: Jill Kulpinski <Jill.Kulpinski at exodus.net>
> To: 'David R Huberman' <huberman at gblx.net>
> Cc: ppml at arin.net
> Subject: RE: Wording of the Virtual Webhosting Standards Policy
>
> Okay I am a little more clear regarding what is going on here now.  Here
is
> the UUNET proposal:
> Organizations providing web hosting services must document efficient
> utilization of existing IPv4 assignments.  Where possible, name-based
> virtual hosting should be provided using HTTP1.1-host headers.  If such
> name-based virtual hosting is not possible, documentation explaining why
> it is not possible should be provided in the application.
>
> Here are my comments:
> I think that this is a succint, clear, to the point statement, but I am
not
> sure that I like 'organizations providing web hosting services'.
Basically,
> ALL organizations need to show efficient use of any IPv4 subnet space.
How
> about just 'organizations'?
>
> Jill
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David R Huberman [mailto:huberman at gblx.net]
> Sent: Monday, April 09, 2001 12:08 PM
> Cc: ppml at arin.net
> Subject: RE: Wording of the Virtual Webhosting Standards Policy
>
>
>
> On Mon, 9 Apr 2001, Jill Kulpinski wrote:
>
> > This whole writing back and forth thing gets very confusing.  At this
> point,
> > I feel we need to get some clear suggestions by the people concerned
> (those
> > writing in), as to exactly what they want the policy to say.
>
> Since ARIN VII, we have had *three* distinct policy proposals published on
> this list (one from Exodus, one from UUNET, and one from Global Crossing),
> with ancillary commentary from myself on UUNET's policy proposal and from
> Kevin on my policy proposal.
>
> Other than additional commentary from those lurking out there, what else
> do you want? The thread so far seems, in my opinion, quite useful as an
> outgrowth of a year's-worth of discussion to-date.
>
> /david
>