Proposal for Rewording Virtual Webhosting Standards

[Clay]

I think you are completely wrong on this (with your 1. and 2. copied below).

A regulatory policy is simply not effective when it only "suggests" or
"strongly encourages" a practice.
This may not be true in all cases but it is very much the truth respective
to IP address conservation.
  You can strongly encourage your son or daughter, when you are out there
trying to teach them how to ride a bicycle...But that only works if they
WANT to learn how to ride that bicycle.  Additionally, that bicycle can go
back and forth down the same chunk of sidewalk.  We do NOT have that luxury
when dealing with IPv4, it is finite.
  The shortage of IP space (and the gross numbers consumed) is not specific
to the webhosting sector alone. Webhosters and other service providers are
currently quite happy burning thru huge chunks of IP address space, since it
suits their needs, but there is a price we may end up paying.
  This argument parallels the current politically hot topic of Social
Security...and we are akin to the politicians...Will we bury our heads in
the sand and push the problem out a few years, until it is beyond our
immediate concern? I hope I am wrong with all this doom and gloom but I
think prudence is called for here, regarding conservation of IPv4 space. We
all know how slow and bogged-down the IPv6 protocol process (both technical
and political) is moving.

The scope of the policy should be expanded, not contracted as you suggest.

There is no point in attempting to conserve IP address space if we do not
have the ability to enforce policies that actually make efforts to CONSERVE
address space.  If a service provider has a LEGITIMATE need for burning thru
large ranges of IP address space, then they should not have a problem with
documenting that need (and providing that documentation to their IP address
space provider).  A policy that enforces efficient use of IP address space
has to allow for protocol limitations that require an actual unique public
IP address PER service (in the case of anonymous-FTP and some security
protocols).  This is a very legitimate point. And, I believe it is not too
much to ask the service provider to document his/her legitimate technical
limitations, in this case.  Having the service provider submit this
documentation is a SMALL price to pay, considering the conservation of IP
address space this will provide.  Additionally, we should NOT base
regulatory policy upon VENDOR SPECIFIC LIMITATIONS...This means that we
shouldn't create a policy structured upon Microsoft's (or anybody else's)
virtualhosting limitations.  Technical limitations should be defined via
STANDARD PROTOCOL LIMITATIONS only.

Any legitimate need for IP address space is provided for with a policy such
as this.

To isolate Webhosting companies with a specific requirement for them to
conserve is not fair.

ALL "Service Providers" should have to adhere to the same policy, and it
should go something like this:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------
Service Providers shall utilize efficient protocols and commonly recognized
technologies to assure conservation of IP address space.

HTTP 1.1 protocol shall be utilized wherever applicable. HTTP 1.1 (Host
headers), and other accepted standard protocols, shall be utilized for
virtual devices/services unless definite technological limitations dictate
otherwise.

Service Provider is defined as: an entity that provides services, either
virtual or physical, that utilize the Internet for connectivity or access.
Service Provider is not limited to ISP services and includes, but is not
limited to:
Webhosting (service provider)
Internet (service provider)
Applications (service provider)
Security (service provider)
managed (service provider)

Efficient use of IP address space is defined as:  One publicly addressable
IP address per each physical device connected to the Internet.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------


Clayton Lambert
Exodus Communications








-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ppml at arin.net [mailto:owner-ppml at arin.net]On Behalf Of Mury
Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2001 1:52 PM
To: Alec H. Peterson
Cc: ppml at arin.net
Subject: Re: Proposal for Rewording Virtual Webhosting Standards



Alec,

That sure looks much more reasonable to me.  As one of the vocal people in
the discussion last fall I thought I should give my thumbs up.

Mury
GoldenGate Internet Services

On Thu, 29 Mar 2001, Alec H. Peterson wrote:

> The ARIN Advisory Council recommends the following action regarding
> webhosting policy:
>
> 1) Remove language from the IP address application instructions for
> requiring name-based virtual webhosting
>
> 2) Retain language from the IP address application instructions which
> indicates that name-based virtual webhosting is a "best practice" and that
> ARIN strongly urges customers to consider this practice.
>
> ------------
> Existing language:
> ARIN INSTRUCTIONS FOR USING NAME-BASED VIRTUAL WEBHOSTING
>
> ARIN subscription holders who provide virtual webhosting services to their
> customers, and organizations that request new address space from ARIN, are
> encouraged to employ a name-based system of webhosting -- a method which
> enables multiple domains to be hosted by a single IP address. In contrast,
> an IP-based system requires a distinct IP number for each domain, which is
> an inefficient use of addresses. Widespread use of the name-based system
> will significantly reduce the number of addresses needed for webhosting
> and will help to conserve the limited supply of available address space.
>
> Name-based hosting also helps to simplify large operational web servers
> where allocation of many IP addresses to a single host has proven to be
> problematic in some cases. Where security is a concern, name-based hosting
> is capable of supporting the transmission of sensitive materials with some
> servers.
>
> POLICY
> When an ISP submits a request for IP address space, ARIN will not accept
> IP-based webhosting as justification for an allocation, unless an
> exception is warranted. Along with the request, organizations must provide
> appropriate details demonstrating their virtual webhosting customer base.
> Exceptions may be made for ISPs that provide justification for requiring
> static addresses. ARIN will determine, on a case-by-case basis, whether an
> exception is appropriate.
>
> ------------
> Recommended Language:
>
> ARIN INSTRUCTIONS FOR USING NAME-BASED VIRTUAL WEBHOSTING
>
> ARIN subscription holders who provide virtual webhosting services to their
> customers, and organizations that request new address space from ARIN, are
> strongly encouraged to employ a name-based system of webhosting -- a
> current best practice method which enables multiple domains to be hosted
> by a single IP address. In contrast, an IP-based system requires a
> distinct IP number for each domain, which, where not required for the
> technical basis of services offered, is an inefficient use of addresses.
> Widespread use of the name-based system will significantly reduce the
> number of addresses needed for webhosting and will help to conserve the
> limited supply of available address space.
>
> POLICY
> 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.
>
> Alec
>
> --
> Alec H. Peterson - ahp at hilander.com
> Staff Scientist
> CenterGate Research Group - http://www.centergate.com
> "Technology so advanced, even _we_ don't understand it!"
>