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

[AveHost.com Staff]

I agree that this discussion is not amounting to anything, but the idea that
we have to treat IPv4 as a commodity rather than as a useful tool is that
not the "proverbial tail wagging the dog"?  Call it naivety on my part, but
why not just expand the numbering system and have 15 numbers, or even 18
numbers rather than 12 and we'll have a lot more time to develop an even
better routing scheme before we run out of IP's.

AveHost.com Staff

-----Original Message-----
From: Len Rose [mailto:len at netsys.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2000 11:25 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"


Dear AveHost.com Staff:

The internet is constantly evolving. In order to remain on
the internet, we all have to evolve.

It's an unfortunate byproduct of that evolution that the
threshold or "bar" gets raised every 6 months or so.

Whether or not that unfairly impacts smaller operations
is more of a technical issue and somewhat less of a
financial issue.

I used to be a rabid "virtual webhosting based on IP is best"
kind of person when I was wearing a systems-oriented hat,
but if you examine same from a networking viewpoint you
should consider it evil to waste so much IP address space
on $9.95 web sites.

(yes, I made a gross stereotype)

If your business model is dependent on ip-based hosting
then you need to raise some more capital and buy someone
who owns a few /16's.

The real question will be how things evolve after IPv4
ceases to be a barrier.

Just my opinion or whatever you see fit to call it! I
strongly debated about even copying this to policy@
but this thread looks like it's turning into a non-useful
ping pong match.

Len

On Thu, Aug 03, 2000 at 11:16:25AM -0400, AveHost.com Staff wrote:

> Once again, because the smaller hosts don't have all the technology needed
> to route the way the larger hosts do, I stated this previously.  It is
quite
> obvious that this is an unfair advantage to the larger hosts.
>
> AveHost.com Staff


[trimmed]