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

[AveHost.com Staff]

Without backing up a statement like that I can only assume you cannot.

AveHost.com Staff


-----Original Message-----
From: Sweeting, John [mailto:John.Sweeting at cwusa.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2000 8:53 PM
To: 'info at avehost.com'; Rich Fulton
Cc: Policy at Arin. Net
Subject: RE: FW: We disagree with recent restrictions on ip allocation
aimed at attacking the "littlehosts"


I strongly recommend that you become an active member of ARIN and
participate in the meetings; then you would understand that most of your
assumptions are way off the mark.

-----Original Message-----
From: AveHost.com Staff [mailto:ceo at REGSEARCH.COM]
Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2000 12:47 PM
To: Rich Fulton
Cc: Policy at Arin. Net
Subject: RE: FW: We disagree with recent restrictions on ip allocation
aimed at attacking the "littlehosts"



OK, I apologize if I have perhaps been too vague.  My assumption is that
more IP's are available to upstream providers and many of them are now large
web hosting providers (e.g., C&W, AT&T, Bellatlantic, SW Bell, Sprint, etc).
Those upstream providers have not wanted to use IP's for web hosting for a
long time due to "more important", perhaps justified, uses for them in
Network functions and other services (e.g., network/POP build-outs, and
redundant networks, DSL services, downstream services, etc).  Thus, why
would they not be for the restriction of IP assignment for the smaller,
downstream web hosts where more IP's are available for their Data Center,
POP, DSL service, massive build-outs?

In the end, the consumer is the one that suffers from more exposure to DNS
problems, problems with changing  providers (and the "churn" rate is high
from large providers because they are really, really, at least most of them,
about providing excellent customer service to customers), etc.  How does the
customer suffer in changing providers in the IP-less web hosting scheme?  It
is not as seamless anymore, because the customer lacks a dedicated ip
address to publish their existing content to before DNS propagation
completes for the domain nameserver changes.  I realize there are ways to
"rig" things to make it possible for the customer to publish content from
their existing site but it still depends on host headers which are not fully
compatible with all systems, namely, older browsers, some proxy and firewall
systems, and, how do you deal with providing SSL in the IP-less environment?

One thing the larger hosts would love to do is eliminate (which won't
happen) or slow it down, thus why not make it harder to leave, or at least
more painful?

AveHost.com Staff


-----Original Message-----
From: rich at farnsworth.nullroute.net
[mailto:rich at farnsworth.nullroute.net]On Behalf Of Rich Fulton
Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2000 11:57 AM
To: info at avehost.com
Cc: Policy at Arin. Net
Subject: Re: FW: We disagree with recent restrictions on ip allocation
aimedat 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