Wording of the Virtual Webhosting Standards Policy

[Mury]

Clay,

Attitudes like this are as much a part of the problem as anything
else.  I'm sick of hearing from you how everyone is trying to cheat the
system, find loopholes etc.

I've known a lot of people in the ISP world and while some of them may be
stupid, jerks, unorganized, etc, I have never met one that is
intentionally trying to waste IP space.

If you treat people like babies, they are going to tend to resent it and
become more difficult to work with.

ARIN must crack down on IP usage/non-usage abuse, but don't piss the
masses off.  As I've said from the beginning:

1) Let the community discuss changes in policy (which is happening much
   better now).
2) Give people time to make adjustments in their operations before a
   new policy is implemented.

As an example in this current discussion, ARIN should word the policy with
a recommend tone in it for awhile.  Or, ARIN could give it much harder
language, but then should post it as a change to be effective in 120
days or so.

Surprises are not a pleasant thing when you are already under pressure to
obtain more IP space of lose a customer.

And this whole thing is kinda bizarre to be making such a big deal of when
there is some ridiculous factor of this space be wasted in legacy
allocations.

Mury

On Mon, 9 Apr 2001, Clay wrote:

> 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
> >
>