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

[Gene Jakominich]

I am curious as to exactly how the larger web hosts benefits from this? 
 
Please enlighten me.....


-gene


AveHost.com Staff writes:

> 
> 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
> >
> 
> 
> 
>