Things that need to be addressed

[Steve Pierce]

you wrote:
>> ARIN simply cannot base its allocation policies on the actions
>> of other organizations.

But we must. In fact, we are already forced into making new regulations
about IP address blocks because other organizations do not want to give up
their un-needed or under-utilized IP blocks. So ARIN is most definitely
already basing policies on the actions of other organizations.

You might be taking a purely logical approach rather than also considering
human nature. For the policy to be effective we need to do both. When you
create a policy that makes it difficult for someone to make a living, they
will, by human nature, do whatever it takes to get around that policy.

For example. You set the speed limit at 25MPH on a 4-lane divided highway.
Yet for some reason everyone drives 55. Perhaps because there is plenty of
line of sight vision, smooth pavement and little traffic incursions. The
scientific approach would be to say, our policy is to drive 25MPH, so we
need to step up enforcement to make sure that everyone drives 25. But it
fails to look at human nature. If people feel safe on a road, they naturally
drive faster.

Thankfully traffic laws in most states don't work an inflexible policy. The
90 percentile rule is applied. That is, if 90 percent of the drivers are
driving 55, then the speed limit is changed to 55. In fact in California, if
you are clocked at a speed that is at or below the 90th percentile and also
below the stated maximum for that type of road, you cannot be given a
citation. Even if the posted sign says Speed Limit 25 MPH.

So we can make a policy that says virtual hosts cannot request address
space. But then the hosting companies will come up with another reason to
get around that rule or risk going out of business. If we make a rule that
says virtual hosts can't have address space while their legacy competition
is flush with addresses, then despite the well meaning policy of ARIN,
people will do whatever it takes to get additional address space.

I am not saying that just because people will try to circumvent policy, we
should just throw our hands up and do nothing. Far from it. I am saying that
since we can predict that people will go around it, we need to make sure the
policy is reasonable enough so as to minimize the temptation to circumvent
the policy. Remember, I am for ip-less addressing as long as we can solve
the problem with address blocking and filters. But I think it is naive to
think ORBS and Net Nanny are interested in ARIN's problem and are willing to
change they way they work to accommodate ARIN.

I already have experience working with ORBS and Net Nanny to get specific
addresses removed from their block lists. In over two years not once have
they removed an address. Even when a law suit was filed in one case, they
claimed it was their free speech right to list whatever address they wanted
to and they weren't forcing people to use or subscribe to the filters.

Yet here in Michigan, Public Schools and Public Libraries are required by
State Law to install net filters. If ARIN is successful in getting a
commitment from ORBS and Net Nanny to establish reasonable guidelines for
the removal of blocked addresses, then by all means lets move forward with
IP-less address requirements for virtual hosts. But my experience has shown
that these filter companies are not interested in any oversight or
co-operation. So perhaps we need another plan.

Cheers!

 - Steve

Steve Pierce, HDL
Direct: (734) 482-9682
mailto:Steve at HDL.com | http://HDL.com



-----Original Message-----
From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of Alec H.
Peterson
Sent: Monday, November 06, 2000 6:35 PM
To: Steve Pierce
Cc: vwp at arin.net
Subject: Re: Things that need to be addressed


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!"