Things that need to be addressed

[Alec H. Peterson]

Steve Pierce wrote:
> 
> ARIN introduces the problem because of the restriction of addresses.
> Blocking and filtering is not a problem if each domain has a separate IP
> address. But with ARIN forcing the change to ip-less web hosting, a change I
> fully endorse, ARIN needs to realize the full impact of that change. When
> you go to ip-less domain hosting, the limitation of the filter programs like
> ORBS and Net Nanny cause undue hardship to those abiding by ARIN's policy.
> AS much as we would like to have ORBS and NetNanny change their ways, ORBS
> dares anyone to sue them and NetNanny refuses to disclose their filtering.
> Both argue that their filtering software is a free speech. But with state
> and federal governments no mandating filtering software in schools and
> libraries, ARIN is unfortunately forced to having to deal with this problem.
> ARIN could use the head in the sand approach, but all that will do is force
> carriers to lie about address space needs.

MAPS/ORBS dares people to sue them over listing practices relating to
spamming and relaying.

With name-based hosting, MAPS/ORBS could theoretically be black holing
people who have done NOTHING wrong even by their standards.  They certainly
do not want to be listing addresses that are following all of their own
rules.

ARIN simply cannot base its allocation policies on the actions of other
organizations.  While many people (including myself) will readily
acknowledge the issues raised above, they cannot be used as reasons in and
of themselves for us preventing a policy allocaiton.  As I said before, we
need to list the issues that will be raised, and see what we can do to
address them.  Simply stating that they exist as a reason for not using
name-based hosting is not enough.

Now, it is entirely possible that MAPS/ORBS and NetNanny could tell us to
pound sand, in which case we need to figure out what else we can do about
these issues.  But we need to try.

> 
> The ISP will just lie to create false justification for address range which
> defeats the whole purpose of ARIN mandating the move to IP-less addressing.
> There is nothing to stop an ISP from saying, every domain has their own SSL
> certificate as you know SSL must be tied to a unique IP address. So they
> then justify 20,000 IP addresses. Are we going to force ARIN to determine
> when a SSL cert is real or faked? It creates an untenable situation for
> ARIN.

Stating that ISPs will just break the rules so there is no point in trying
is again not an acceptable attitude to take when developing a policy.  If we
are going to use that logic then it seems silly for ARIN to have any
policies to begin with.  ARIN is not doing this to make enemies, ARIN is
doing this to help make everybodys' lives easier in the long run.  That is
why ARIN is working with the people it will affect.

> 
> The problem comes about in the unfair allocation of addresses. Bigger hosts
> with class A addresses to burn can easily offer IP address to every single
> domain they host with no fear of running out of addresses. So they are not
> impacted by these filter programs. But smaller hosting companies that follow
> ARIN's policy are at a competitive disadvantage.

If these large ISPs who you claim are wasting so much address space really
are doing this, then eventually they will run out.  And when they do it will
be up to them to justify their existing allocations.

> 
> ARIN policies should not create an environment where the smaller guy can't
> compete.  Especially when it is the smaller guy that is following ARIN
> guidelines and is so carefully conserving IP address space. That is the guy
> ARIN should support and encourage, not make it more difficult for them to
> conduct business or force them to lie to stay in business.
> 
> If ARIN is going to require the move to ip-less addressing for web hosts,
> then ARIN also needs to force holders of Class A address space to give back
> Class B and C addresses and those holding Class B should not be permitted to
> hold Class C's. At least one world wide carrier has at least two if not
> three Class A addresses yet they also have hundreds of Class C addresses.
> That should not be permitted.

This has been disucssed before.  Reclaiming legacy allocations is a
completely separate discussion, and has absolutely no bearing on what
happens with this policy.  This is an active issue within ARIN, and you are
more than welcome to put forth solutions on how ARIN can reclaim
under-utilized legacy allocations.

HOWEVER, that is a separate discussion, so please confine comments on this
list to what should be done about the virtual hosting policy.

Alec

-- 
Alec H. Peterson - ahp at hilander.com
Staff Scientist
CenterGate Research Group - http://www.centergate.com
"Technology so advanced, even _we_ don't understand it!"