We disagree with recent restrictions on ip allocation aimed at attacking the "littlehosts"

[AveHost.com Staff]

Once again, a large web host has spoken and strengthens my argument that it
is they this policy benefits and not the smaller hosts!

AveHost.com Staff


-----Original Message-----
From: policy-request at arin.net [mailto:policy-request at arin.net]On Behalf
Of Torsey, Brian
Sent: Wednesday, August 02, 2000 12:12 PM
To: policy at arin.net
Subject: RE: We disagree with recent restrictions on ip allocation aimed
at attacking the "littlehosts"


The issue here is not "what if"

IP v4 space is not going to be around forever.

I don't know of any web server software out there (Apache/IIS/Netscape) that
does not RECOMMEND name based virtual web hosting as the preferred way to
go.

If filtering software and the like are not keeping up with the times and
using full DNS info , and not the IP to do filtering, then it is their
problem to fix their software and policies.

If you don't have the in house tech help to convert to name based virtual
addressing, I can understand your frustration. Documentation is available
all over the place to walk you through how to set it up. Its worth your time
to learn.

I don't think any of us want to hear that they can't get more IP v4
addresses.

Keep using routable IP's for virtual web hosting, and it will happen allot
sooner.

Brian Torsey
IP Engineer
HarvardNet
btorsey at harvard.net


-----Original Message-----
From: Mark McFadden [mailto:mcfadden at 21st-century-texts.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 02, 2000 10:29 AM
To: policy at arin.net
Subject: RE: We disagree with recent restrictions on ip allocation aimed
at attacking the "littlehosts"


Gene:

One of the things that the AveHost folks pointed to was the following
situation:
suppose you host a site that sells something that someone finds
objectionable.
If a rating company then filters using an IP mask rather than using the DNS,
all
the sites using the virtual host headers are affected.  This seems a likely
scenario to me, when you worked at the small ISP did it happen to you?

mark

Mark McFadden
Chief Technology Officer
Commercial Internet eXchange
mcfadden at cix.org  v:  (+1) 608-240-1560  f:  (+1)  608-240-1561
http://www.cix.org

-----Original Message-----
From: policy-request at arin.net [mailto:policy-request at arin.net]On Behalf
Of Gene Jakominich
Sent: Wednesday, August 02, 2000 8:47 AM
To: info at avehost.com
Cc: policy at arin.net
Subject: Re: We disagree with recent restrictions on ip allocation aimed
at attacking the "littlehosts"



I used to work for a small ISP.  Two years ago we switched all our
statically addressed sites to virtual host headers.  The sites experienced
no down time and we reclaimed a bunch of address space which we used for
expansion.  Switching to virtual host headers can be done with NO down time
at all for the site if it is done correctly.  If anything, this will be
more of a burden on the larger ISP's than the small ones.  (they have many
more sites to renumber)  There are only a few reasons why a site needs its
own address.  (SSL...etc.)I feel that it is a necessity to switch to
virtual host headers to conserve address space.

If you would like to know how to properly switch your sites from static to
virtual with no downtime please e-mail me off list.


-gene

-------------------------------
Gene Jakominich
Systems Engineer, ISP Operations
Broadview Networks
http://www.broadviewnet.com
genej at broadviewnet.com
--------------------------------




AveHost.com Staff writes:

>
> We feel the recent policy change regarding ip allocations for web hosting
> activities is unfair to the smaller web hosts of the world which do not
have
> all the technological capitalization to smoothly implement host header
> routing without putting undue burdens on the consumer.  Therefore, we feel
> this policy change is directed at protecting the larger hosts from loosing
> clients as fewer potential clients are going to be willing to experience
> "downtime" as a result of switching hosts if the move will not be a
seamless
> one--it will NOT be seamless if IP-less hosting is forced upon smaller web
> hosts because there will not be enough free IP's for potential clients to
> post the website they are moving to the new host byway of an IP address,
> but, rather, they will have to wait for the domain name to be transferred
> via the NSI registry before they can even publish the website files; and
> then their site will be visible in some places in the world and not others
> over that 24-48 hours that it takes the Internet's DNS system to
propagate.
>
> Hmmm, my dad was a class action plaintiff's attorney and the one thing I
> picked-up from him was when you can spot a great class action suit
> in-the-making!!!!!!!!!
>
> AveHost.com Staff
> AveHost.com, a service of RegSearch International
>