Search Engines/IP restrictions/policy changes

[Ted Pavlic]

> I do not see a problem with requiring the documentation of these
exceptions.
> It is a small price to pay for the VERIFICATION of efficient IP address
> utilization.  It is as if the webhosting companies want everything handed
to
> them.  They do not appear to take the need for efficient utilization
> seriously.  This attitude needs to change.  The finite amount of
addressable
> space can be consumed in a short period of time if we would allow hundreds
> of IPs to be consumed for each webhosting server.  We cannot allow this to
> occur.

I don't think the webhosting companies are as evil as you make them seem.

Webhosting companies are faced with various difficulties every day resulting
from users "needing" technolgies (like FrontPage, NT web servers, ASPs,
etc.) that do not necessarily conform to any known standard. It makes it
hard enough to support these services... and then ARIN has the nerve to do
something which breaks 50 to 100% of them? In order to implement such a
policy on a serious web hosting provider, a great deal of work needs to be
done... and still IP-based web hosting is NEEDED for some MAJOR
transactions. The technology just does not CURRENTLY exist to support
modern-day web transactions using a name-based paradigm.

Webhosting companies are so upset about this because it makes no sense to
hit us first -- and it just adds insult to injury to single us out.

In the ARIN policy changes notice that not only were webhosting providers
singled out and required to give away some very valuable IP addresses, but
the largest available block of IP addresses that one provider can allocate
has been INCREASED from a /14 block to a /13 block! The justification for
this is:

"in order to provide the space needed by large ISPs that historically
utilize /14s in less than the 3 months' projection period that is described
in ARIN's guidelines."

The only providers that I can think of who would have such demands would be
the larger cable and DSL providers which are growing faster and faster as
the need for broadband residential Internet increases.

True webhosting providers may be being a **LITTLE** unreasonable in their
complaints, but it is NOT reasonable to be willing to just hand-out IP
addresses to broadband providers like it's trick-or-treat. There are so many
other schemes that these providers can use to meet their IP address needs
that are much MUCH easier to implement than name-based webhosting.

I think when most modern users of the Internet hear the word "Internet" the
first thing that comes to their minds is "the web." Why rip valuable IP
addresses away so harshly from webhosting providers who provide these people
with their Internet in order to give them a real IP address that they will
never need.

IMHO, give small allocations of IP addreses to ISPs for the case of
one-to-one NAT and make them do one-to-many NAT for all of the rest of their
users. That's easy to do and most users won't notice a change. However -- it
will free up a great deal of addresses for not only webhosters but whoever
else would need them.

All the best --
Ted Pavlic
NetWalk Communications
CPT Communications, Inc.
CallTech Communications, LLC