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

[Rich Fulton]

On Fri, 4 Aug 2000, AveHost.com Staff wrote:

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

Actually the statement was right on.  I would recommend you stop making
assumptions and start participating in policy discussion while seeking
IP, routing, and general Internet enlightenment.


> -----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
> 
> 





  /rf