poorly thought out HTTP/1.1 mandate

[Clayton Lambert]

Large ISPs are as much a part of the Internet as webhosting entities.  Your
argument doesn't make sense.  The policy clearly indicates that HTTP1.1
hostheaders be utilized WHERE THEY CAN BE. This mandate is critical and its
necessity can be seen in the example of webhosting; one web hosting device
(one physical box connected to the 'Net) may inefficiently burn hundreds of
IP addresses. What for? most the time, these addresses are 'given' to the
webhosting customer to establish some solidity and a barrier (configuration
complexity) for exit to a competitor.

 The policy also allows for cases where non-HTTP1.1 compatible protocol
utilization is required.  I think this policy change is a huge step in the
right direction.  I also think that your argument that large ISPs utilize
some format of efficient configuration in order to conserve dwindling IP
numbers.


Clayton Lambert
Exodus Communications



-----Original Message-----
From: policy-request at arin.net [mailto:policy-request at arin.net]On Behalf
Of Ted Pavlic
Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2000 6:56 PM
To: policy at arin.net
Subject: poorly thought out HTTP/1.1 mandate


This is my first post on this list; I have only very recently subscribed.
Because of this, I must apologize in advance of any of this has already been
brought up.

Personally, I disagree with the recent policy changes...

http://www.arin.net/announcements/policy_changes.html

made by ARIN. I feel that there has not been enough thought given to changes
of this magnitude, and I think that the amount of argument in reponse to
these changes (at least on the other groups to which I subscribe) backs me
up on that.

These things are causing me the most grief now that I have been forced to
use name-based virtual hosts:

* SSL
* TLS (the server and client-side support (or lack of) of it)
* FTP virtual hosts
* Microsoft FrontPage Server Extensions
* Old browsers which do not support HTTP/1.1

When I read the policy_changes.html, I get the odd feeling that large
broadband ISPs are allocating more and more IPs for residential use and
causing web hosting providers to give up many of their IPs.

Why are web hosting providers being asked to give up their IPs when they are
the ones who make up the Internet to which those residential users connect?
By increasing the amount of real IPs given out to people who USE the
Internet, ARIN is making it more difficult for those who make up the
Internet to function!

Rather than regulating we the web providers, why can't ARIN regulate those
ISPs who are allocating huge amounts of IPs? What's wrong with forcing large
cable and DSL providers to use the 10./8 class-A and use NAT? While this
regulation seems radical, I would argue that it is MUCH less radical than
the new regulations being made by ARIN.

Personally I do not feel that large web hosting providers like the company
which I represent are being well represented in ARIN. I worry that ARIN is
being influenced too much by those who waste IPs rather than organizations
who actually need them.

I apologize if all of these points have already been brought up and
answered, but I just think that ARIN's recent choices have been ridiculous
and ever since I've been reading in other groups that many other people
agree with me, I really felt that I needed to voice this.

All the best --
Ted Pavlic
NetWalk Communications
tpavlic at netwalk.com