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

[Mike Lieberman]

You are right, it is not a trivial matter and the cost of the
software/hardware to accommodate the change is minimal. There is a
significant personnel resource issue, especially for large vendors, to make
the change go seamlessly, but that's life I guess.

As SSL certificates require separate IP addresses, I assume (probably
incorrectly) that whose sights will be able to use separate IP assignments.
Further as FTP sites also don't at this time use the Host Header, IP
assignments will continue to be made for those sites.

The real impact will be on those vendors who used their IP assignments to
justify larger IP assignments and would no longer qualify for them under the
new plan. Since that impacts on BGP routing, the real result beyond
conserving IP (hard to argue with that) is the inability of smaller companies
to multi-home between vendors should their IP needs shrink to a /27 or /28
(or /30)!

/* Mike Lieberman                            Mike at NetWright.Net */
/*                         President                            */
/*                       Net Wright LLC                         */
/*                   http://www.netwright.net/                  */
/*                 Voice and Fax: 307-857-1053                  */



> -----Original Message-----
> From: policy-request at arin.net
> [mailto:policy-request at arin.net]On Behalf
> Of Rich Fulton
> Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2000 9:57 AM
> To: info at avehost.com
> Cc: Policy at Arin. Net
> Subject: Re: FW: We disagree with recent restrictions on ip allocation
> aimed at attacking the "littlehosts"
>
>
> "expand the numbering system" is hardy a trivial task.  a
> "better routing
> scheme" is not necessarily dependent on ip space.
>
> i still fail to see how a smaller web hosting company is
> treated unfairly
> by ARIN policy.
>
> On Thu, 3 Aug 2000, AveHost.com Staff wrote:
>
> > 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]
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>   /rf
>