[arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-2: Waiting List Block Size Restriction

[hostmaster at uneedus.com]

Many hosting and access providers like to give each paying customer their 
own IPv4 address, since it simplifies DMCA compliance.  Otherwise the 
hosting provider needs to get into the middle of keeping logs for every 
customer.  Even though SNI allows more than one https site per IP, it does 
not create a division for DMCA purposes.  Often in actual fact, each 
"Customer" has further divided his/her hosting space to host for multiple 
websites, sometimes belonging to other people than the ones paying the 
bill to the hosting provider. This includes each customer using SNI to 
determine the identity of the many websites that each customer is hosting 
themselves.

/22 in the proposal is a maximum. They would still have to show how they 
intend to use the space in accordance with 4.2.2 if they want more than a 
/24.

I say lets try the /22, and if needed reduce it.  Remember 4.2.1.5 sets 
the minimum at /24, so setting it at /24 is a one size fits all policy.

As for NAT and even web hosting, the 64k port limitation is also an issue 
as pointed out by others.  While hosting many sites on a single IPv4 
address can be done, it may not be considered rational when considering 
compliance with many laws that are required, including the DMCA.  This is 
one of the factors that speak against the use of CGNAT for internet access 
customers, unless the customers are divided by port address ranges or like 
means.  Otherwise the ISP has to get into the logging business, which can 
also turn into a big cost center.

Albert Erdmann
Network Administrator
Paradise On Line Inc.

On Sat, 2 Mar 2019, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:

>
> In message <Pine.LNX.4.64.1903021333190.3734 at localhost.localdomain>,
> hostmaster at uneedus.com wrote:
>
>> Our choices with this Draft Policy:
>>
>> 1) Reject it because it does not completely eliminate the abuse, and allow
>> the current policy (with ALL its abuse) to continue.
>>
>> or
>>
>> 2) Adopt the policy even though not perfect at eliminating ALL the abuse,
>> but does cut back much of it.
>
> Please allow me to note that there is also a third option:
>
>
> 3) Adopt the policy, but select some different default allocation size,
> other than /22.
>
> Personally, I think that a /22 is the Wrong Way To Go and it would be better
> to change that to a single /24.
>
> I mean what do people even need lots of IPv4 for anymore anyway?  A single
> web server with a single IPv4 address can easily support tens of thousands
> of distinct and unique web sites.  A single mail server on a single IPv4
> address can likewise support mail services for tens of thousands of
> recipient and sender domain names.  A single name server on a single IPv4
> address can also provide DNS service for tens of thusands of domain names.
> For anyone needing to support big batches of end-luser clients, there is
> IPv6.
>
>
> Regards,
> rfg
>
> _______________________________________________
> ARIN-PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
>