From ahp at hilander.com  Wed Jan  3 15:53:53 2001
From: ahp at hilander.com (Alec H. Peterson)
Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2001 13:53:53 -0700
Subject: Been quiet in here...
Message-ID: <3A539161.C7632EDD@hilander.com>

Are there any more thoughts on what we should do with the so-called 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!"


From danny at ambernetworks.com  Wed Jan  3 16:10:09 2001
From: danny at ambernetworks.com (Danny McPherson)
Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2001 14:10:09 -0700
Subject: Been quiet in here... 
Message-ID: <200101032110.OAA11477@tcb.net>


> Are there any more thoughts on what we should do with the so-called virtual
> hosting policy?

Depends, has anyone taken the time to summarize what they believe 
were the useful (<-- operative word) thoughts from the previous
discussion?

-danny



From billd at cait.wustl.edu  Wed Jan  3 16:24:19 2001
From: billd at cait.wustl.edu (Bill Darte)
Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2001 15:24:19 -0600 
Subject: Been quiet in here...
Message-ID: <F0A77279DB36D111A6EC00A024DEE7AF3338D3@kronos.wustl.edu>

I have seen no evidence that there is a problem. No scope, no magnitude, no
trends, just a vague notion that it is wasting "lots" of addresses.
Bill Darte
AC

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alec H. Peterson [mailto:ahp at hilander.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 2:54 PM
> To: vwp at arin.net
> Subject: Been quiet in here...
> 
> 
> Are there any more thoughts on what we should do with the 
> so-called 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!"
> 


From decosta at bayconnect.com  Wed Jan  3 16:23:50 2001
From: decosta at bayconnect.com (Joe DeCosta)
Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2001 13:23:50 -0800
Subject: Been quiet in here... 
References: <200101032110.OAA11477@tcb.net>
Message-ID: <000f01c075cb$77883540$cd00000a@megapathdsl.net>

I haven't been here these are the first posts that i've seen come through to
this list.  Could someone possibly update me in private?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Danny McPherson" <danny at ambernetworks.com>
To: "Alec H. Peterson" <ahp at hilander.com>
Cc: <vwp at arin.net>
Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 1:10 PM
Subject: Re: Been quiet in here...


>
> > Are there any more thoughts on what we should do with the so-called
virtual
> > hosting policy?
>
> Depends, has anyone taken the time to summarize what they believe
> were the useful (<-- operative word) thoughts from the previous
> discussion?
>
> -danny
>
>



From nameeriar at gt.ca  Wed Jan  3 17:04:15 2001
From: nameeriar at gt.ca (Nasir Ameeriar)
Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2001 14:04:15 -0800 
Subject: Been quiet in here... 
Message-ID: <0309AE123C31D4119B1C00D0B747B22BC09733@yyzxch01.gt.ca>

What is the status of Vhost?
How do we provision for clients with SSL?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------
Respectfully Yours,


Nasir M. Ameeriar 
B.Sc., MIS, MBA, CCNA, MCSE
Senior TSS 
Group Telecom
1000 Sherbrooke St. West
Montreal, PQ
H3A 3G4
Cellular: 514-978-0092
Office:   514-448-3004
Fax: 514-448-3088
nameeriar at gt.ca <mailto:nameeriar at gt.ca> 
www.gt.ca <http://www.gt.ca> 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------


-----Original Message-----
From: Joe DeCosta [mailto:decosta at bayconnect.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 4:24 PM
To: vwp at arin.net
Subject: Re: Been quiet in here... 


I haven't been here these are the first posts that i've seen come through to
this list.  Could someone possibly update me in private?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Danny McPherson" <danny at ambernetworks.com>
To: "Alec H. Peterson" <ahp at hilander.com>
Cc: <vwp at arin.net>
Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 1:10 PM
Subject: Re: Been quiet in here...


>
> > Are there any more thoughts on what we should do with the so-called
virtual
> > hosting policy?
>
> Depends, has anyone taken the time to summarize what they believe
> were the useful (<-- operative word) thoughts from the previous
> discussion?
>
> -danny
>
>


From decosta at bayconnect.com  Wed Jan  3 17:11:16 2001
From: decosta at bayconnect.com (Joe DeCosta)
Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2001 14:11:16 -0800
Subject: Been quiet in here... 
References: <0309AE123C31D4119B1C00D0B747B22BC09733@yyzxch01.gt.ca>
Message-ID: <003101c075d2$17c2d3c0$cd00000a@megapathdsl.net>

As far as we use, we just use MS IIS in which you can manage the site
certificates for the v-hosted sites just like any other certificate SSL it's
still just a V-Host, and the client side see only the specific site.  I can
attach a screen shot if you have never seen V-Hosting with IIS, its really
quite simple.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Nasir Ameeriar" <nameeriar at gt.ca>
To: "'Joe DeCosta'" <decosta at bayconnect.com>; <vwp at arin.net>
Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 2:04 PM
Subject: RE: Been quiet in here...


> What is the status of Vhost?
> How do we provision for clients with SSL?
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
> ---------
> Respectfully Yours,
>
>
> Nasir M. Ameeriar
> B.Sc., MIS, MBA, CCNA, MCSE
> Senior TSS
> Group Telecom
> 1000 Sherbrooke St. West
> Montreal, PQ
> H3A 3G4
> Cellular: 514-978-0092
> Office:   514-448-3004
> Fax: 514-448-3088
> nameeriar at gt.ca <mailto:nameeriar at gt.ca>
> www.gt.ca <http://www.gt.ca>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
> ---------
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joe DeCosta [mailto:decosta at bayconnect.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 4:24 PM
> To: vwp at arin.net
> Subject: Re: Been quiet in here...
>
>
> I haven't been here these are the first posts that i've seen come through
to
> this list.  Could someone possibly update me in private?
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Danny McPherson" <danny at ambernetworks.com>
> To: "Alec H. Peterson" <ahp at hilander.com>
> Cc: <vwp at arin.net>
> Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 1:10 PM
> Subject: Re: Been quiet in here...
>
>
> >
> > > Are there any more thoughts on what we should do with the so-called
> virtual
> > > hosting policy?
> >
> > Depends, has anyone taken the time to summarize what they believe
> > were the useful (<-- operative word) thoughts from the previous
> > discussion?
> >
> > -danny
> >
> >
>



From lgilbert at rawhideinc.com  Wed Jan  3 17:07:16 2001
From: lgilbert at rawhideinc.com (Leo Gilbert)
Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2001 17:07:16 -0500
Subject: Been quiet in here... 
Message-ID: <9B6F2B6780A5A2409DA1F12DC363F018088386@EXCHANGE02.rawhideinc.com>

We use the same here. IIS is very easy to setup and run V-hosting but if
you try to get your sites ranked on the search engines that use ip based
spidering forget it. These search engines spider will dump your site. 

-----Original Message-----
From: Joe DeCosta [mailto:decosta at bayconnect.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 5:11 PM
To: Nasir Ameeriar; vwp at arin.net
Subject: Re: Been quiet in here... 


As far as we use, we just use MS IIS in which you can manage the site
certificates for the v-hosted sites just like any other certificate SSL
it's
still just a V-Host, and the client side see only the specific site.  I
can
attach a screen shot if you have never seen V-Hosting with IIS, its
really
quite simple.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Nasir Ameeriar" <nameeriar at gt.ca>
To: "'Joe DeCosta'" <decosta at bayconnect.com>; <vwp at arin.net>
Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 2:04 PM
Subject: RE: Been quiet in here...


> What is the status of Vhost?
> How do we provision for clients with SSL?
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
--
> ---------
> Respectfully Yours,
>
>
> Nasir M. Ameeriar
> B.Sc., MIS, MBA, CCNA, MCSE
> Senior TSS
> Group Telecom
> 1000 Sherbrooke St. West
> Montreal, PQ
> H3A 3G4
> Cellular: 514-978-0092
> Office:   514-448-3004
> Fax: 514-448-3088
> nameeriar at gt.ca <mailto:nameeriar at gt.ca>
> www.gt.ca <http://www.gt.ca>
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
--
> ---------
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joe DeCosta [mailto:decosta at bayconnect.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 4:24 PM
> To: vwp at arin.net
> Subject: Re: Been quiet in here...
>
>
> I haven't been here these are the first posts that i've seen come
through
to
> this list.  Could someone possibly update me in private?
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Danny McPherson" <danny at ambernetworks.com>
> To: "Alec H. Peterson" <ahp at hilander.com>
> Cc: <vwp at arin.net>
> Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 1:10 PM
> Subject: Re: Been quiet in here...
>
>
> >
> > > Are there any more thoughts on what we should do with the
so-called
> virtual
> > > hosting policy?
> >
> > Depends, has anyone taken the time to summarize what they believe
> > were the useful (<-- operative word) thoughts from the previous
> > discussion?
> >
> > -danny
> >
> >
>



From corrie at imagedesign.net  Wed Jan  3 17:21:42 2001
From: corrie at imagedesign.net (Corrie Dinnetz)
Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2001 14:21:42 -0800
Subject: Been quiet in here... 
References: <0309AE123C31D4119B1C00D0B747B22BC09733@yyzxch01.gt.ca> <003101c075d2$17c2d3c0$cd00000a@megapathdsl.net>
Message-ID: <001701c075d3$98c265c0$05557e3f@IMAGEDESIGN.NET>

I do V-Host with IIS also, but use a dedicated IP for all sites that have
SSL....  I have not found a way to share an IP when they use SSL...

-Corrie Dinnetz

----- Original Message -----
From: "Joe DeCosta" <decosta at bayconnect.com>
To: "Nasir Ameeriar" <nameeriar at gt.ca>; <vwp at arin.net>
Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 2:11 PM
Subject: Re: Been quiet in here...


> As far as we use, we just use MS IIS in which you can manage the site
> certificates for the v-hosted sites just like any other certificate SSL
it's
> still just a V-Host, and the client side see only the specific site.  I
can
> attach a screen shot if you have never seen V-Hosting with IIS, its really
> quite simple.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Nasir Ameeriar" <nameeriar at gt.ca>
> To: "'Joe DeCosta'" <decosta at bayconnect.com>; <vwp at arin.net>
> Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 2:04 PM
> Subject: RE: Been quiet in here...
>
>
> > What is the status of Vhost?
> > How do we provision for clients with SSL?
> >
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
> > ---------
> > Respectfully Yours,
> >
> >
> > Nasir M. Ameeriar
> > B.Sc., MIS, MBA, CCNA, MCSE
> > Senior TSS
> > Group Telecom
> > 1000 Sherbrooke St. West
> > Montreal, PQ
> > H3A 3G4
> > Cellular: 514-978-0092
> > Office:   514-448-3004
> > Fax: 514-448-3088
> > nameeriar at gt.ca <mailto:nameeriar at gt.ca>
> > www.gt.ca <http://www.gt.ca>
> >
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
> > ---------
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Joe DeCosta [mailto:decosta at bayconnect.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 4:24 PM
> > To: vwp at arin.net
> > Subject: Re: Been quiet in here...
> >
> >
> > I haven't been here these are the first posts that i've seen come
through
> to
> > this list.  Could someone possibly update me in private?
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Danny McPherson" <danny at ambernetworks.com>
> > To: "Alec H. Peterson" <ahp at hilander.com>
> > Cc: <vwp at arin.net>
> > Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 1:10 PM
> > Subject: Re: Been quiet in here...
> >
> >
> > >
> > > > Are there any more thoughts on what we should do with the so-called
> > virtual
> > > > hosting policy?
> > >
> > > Depends, has anyone taken the time to summarize what they believe
> > > were the useful (<-- operative word) thoughts from the previous
> > > discussion?
> > >
> > > -danny
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>



From Clay at exodus.net  Wed Jan  3 17:40:51 2001
From: Clay at exodus.net (Clayton Lambert)
Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2001 14:40:51 -0800
Subject: Been quiet in here...
In-Reply-To: <3A539161.C7632EDD@hilander.com>
Message-ID: <200101032241.OAA22082@exoserv.exodus.net>

We should re-institute the policy with modifications to the text for
clarity.  Service providing should be the catch word instead of web-hosting.

There should be clear reference to technical exceptions to the policy (this
should NOT be in the form of specific exceptions, as technical reasons for
exception to the policy can easily step beyond the ability of a "list",
hence the reason for maintainer discretion), only technical exceptions
should be allowed (as opposed to policy exceptions). The entity assigned the
overall netblock should have discretion for determining the exceptions to
the policy and should maintain the documentation for the exception, and make
the info available to ARIN on in audit-style format (NDA should be manditory
between the Netblock maintainer and ARIN).

Clay
Exodus Communications


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of Alec H.
Peterson
Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 12:54 PM
To: vwp at arin.net
Subject: Been quiet in here...


Are there any more thoughts on what we should do with the so-called 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!"




From decosta at bayconnect.com  Wed Jan  3 17:35:01 2001
From: decosta at bayconnect.com (Joe DeCosta)
Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2001 14:35:01 -0800
Subject: Been quiet in here... 
References: <003601c075d3$4d0fe350$e29b8d3f@aberdeen.marylandtechnology.com>
Message-ID: <004d01c075d5$69f01740$cd00000a@megapathdsl.net>

no problemo. :-)
here ya go.  it's actually just http/1.1 vhosting, easily done in apache
with this simple string of text in your httpd.conf file

NameVirtualHost 111.22.33.44

    <VirtualHost 111.22.33.44>
    ServerName www.domain.tld
    DocumentRoot /www/domain
    </VirtualHost>

    <VirtualHost 111.22.33.44>
    ServerName www.otherdomain.tld
    DocumentRoot /www/otherdomain
    </VirtualHost>

----- Original Message -----
From: "Christopher D. Shelton" <cshelton at atlanticasp.com>
To: "'Joe DeCosta'" <decosta at bayconnect.com>
Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 2:19 PM
Subject: RE: Been quiet in here...


> That would be great, please do!
>
>
> Thanks
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of Joe
> DeCosta
> Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 5:11 PM
> To: Nasir Ameeriar; vwp at arin.net
> Subject: Re: Been quiet in here...
>
>
> As far as we use, we just use MS IIS in which you can manage the site
> certificates for the v-hosted sites just like any other certificate SSL
it's
> still just a V-Host, and the client side see only the specific site.  I
can
> attach a screen shot if you have never seen V-Hosting with IIS, its really
> quite simple.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Nasir Ameeriar" <nameeriar at gt.ca>
> To: "'Joe DeCosta'" <decosta at bayconnect.com>; <vwp at arin.net>
> Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 2:04 PM
> Subject: RE: Been quiet in here...
>
>
> > What is the status of Vhost?
> > How do we provision for clients with SSL?
> >
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
> > ---------
> > Respectfully Yours,
> >
> >
> > Nasir M. Ameeriar
> > B.Sc., MIS, MBA, CCNA, MCSE
> > Senior TSS
> > Group Telecom
> > 1000 Sherbrooke St. West
> > Montreal, PQ
> > H3A 3G4
> > Cellular: 514-978-0092
> > Office:   514-448-3004
> > Fax: 514-448-3088
> > nameeriar at gt.ca <mailto:nameeriar at gt.ca>
> > www.gt.ca <http://www.gt.ca>
> >
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
> > ---------
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Joe DeCosta [mailto:decosta at bayconnect.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 4:24 PM
> > To: vwp at arin.net
> > Subject: Re: Been quiet in here...
> >
> >
> > I haven't been here these are the first posts that i've seen come
through
> to
> > this list.  Could someone possibly update me in private?
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Danny McPherson" <danny at ambernetworks.com>
> > To: "Alec H. Peterson" <ahp at hilander.com>
> > Cc: <vwp at arin.net>
> > Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 1:10 PM
> > Subject: Re: Been quiet in here...
> >
> >
> > >
> > > > Are there any more thoughts on what we should do with the so-called
> > virtual
> > > > hosting policy?
> > >
> > > Depends, has anyone taken the time to summarize what they believe
> > > were the useful (<-- operative word) thoughts from the previous
> > > discussion?
> > >
> > > -danny
> > >
> > >
> >
>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 1.bmp
Type: image/bmp
Size: 615990 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/vwp/attachments/20010103/c488883b/attachment.bmp>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 2.bmp
Type: image/bmp
Size: 617526 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/vwp/attachments/20010103/c488883b/attachment-0001.bmp>

From decosta at bayconnect.com  Wed Jan  3 17:44:07 2001
From: decosta at bayconnect.com (Joe DeCosta)
Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2001 14:44:07 -0800
Subject: Been quiet in here...
References: <200101032241.OAA22082@exoserv.exodus.net>
Message-ID: <006101c075d6$aeed1cc0$cd00000a@megapathdsl.net>

This modification i agree with, my only objection is that why should people
have to justify the usage of their netblock, why not just up the costs to
encourage them to use as few IP's as possible.  It would seem to be more
effective.  Just my thoughts.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Clayton Lambert" <Clay at exodus.net>
To: "'Alec H. Peterson'" <ahp at hilander.com>; <vwp at arin.net>
Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 2:40 PM
Subject: RE: Been quiet in here...


> We should re-institute the policy with modifications to the text for
> clarity.  Service providing should be the catch word instead of
web-hosting.
>
> There should be clear reference to technical exceptions to the policy
(this
> should NOT be in the form of specific exceptions, as technical reasons for
> exception to the policy can easily step beyond the ability of a "list",
> hence the reason for maintainer discretion), only technical exceptions
> should be allowed (as opposed to policy exceptions). The entity assigned
the
> overall netblock should have discretion for determining the exceptions to
> the policy and should maintain the documentation for the exception, and
make
> the info available to ARIN on in audit-style format (NDA should be
manditory
> between the Netblock maintainer and ARIN).
>
> Clay
> Exodus Communications
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of Alec H.
> Peterson
> Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 12:54 PM
> To: vwp at arin.net
> Subject: Been quiet in here...
>
>
> Are there any more thoughts on what we should do with the so-called
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!"
>
>



From Clay at exodus.net  Wed Jan  3 17:47:46 2001
From: Clay at exodus.net (Clayton Lambert)
Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2001 14:47:46 -0800
Subject: Been quiet in here...
In-Reply-To: <F0A77279DB36D111A6EC00A024DEE7AF3338D3@kronos.wustl.edu>
Message-ID: <200101032248.OAA23431@exoserv.exodus.net>

it is more than a vague notion.  It is a fact...

A small percentage of our Customers use the overwhelmingly largest amounts
of address space.

This policy should not scare web-hosters.  I think that webhosters should
make the attempt to be efficient with their use of address space.  We have
hammered our name-based hosting servers and we have not seen an appreciable
drop in performance compared to the same servers running IP based hosting.
If there is a valid reason for a service provider (any service, not just
webhosters) to use IP-based hosting, I think it is not unreasonable to have
them provide documentation to support that requirement.  Accountability
isn't something that is necessarily bad.

-Clayton Lambert
Exodus Communications

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of Bill
Darte
Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 1:24 PM
To: 'Alec H. Peterson'; vwp at arin.net
Subject: RE: Been quiet in here...


I have seen no evidence that there is a problem. No scope, no magnitude, no
trends, just a vague notion that it is wasting "lots" of addresses.
Bill Darte
AC

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alec H. Peterson [mailto:ahp at hilander.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 2:54 PM
> To: vwp at arin.net
> Subject: Been quiet in here...
>
>
> Are there any more thoughts on what we should do with the
> so-called 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!"
>




From Clay at exodus.net  Wed Jan  3 17:48:12 2001
From: Clay at exodus.net (Clayton Lambert)
Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2001 14:48:12 -0800
Subject: Been quiet in here... 
In-Reply-To: <000f01c075cb$77883540$cd00000a@megapathdsl.net>
Message-ID: <200101032248.OAA23525@exoserv.exodus.net>

Ditto...I haven't seen anthing come thru from this list.

-Clay

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of Joe
DeCosta
Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 1:24 PM
To: vwp at arin.net
Subject: Re: Been quiet in here...


I haven't been here these are the first posts that i've seen come through to
this list.  Could someone possibly update me in private?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Danny McPherson" <danny at ambernetworks.com>
To: "Alec H. Peterson" <ahp at hilander.com>
Cc: <vwp at arin.net>
Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 1:10 PM
Subject: Re: Been quiet in here...


>
> > Are there any more thoughts on what we should do with the so-called
virtual
> > hosting policy?
>
> Depends, has anyone taken the time to summarize what they believe
> were the useful (<-- operative word) thoughts from the previous
> discussion?
>
> -danny
>
>




From Clay at exodus.net  Wed Jan  3 17:50:51 2001
From: Clay at exodus.net (Clayton Lambert)
Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2001 14:50:51 -0800
Subject: Been quiet in here... 
In-Reply-To: <9B6F2B6780A5A2409DA1F12DC363F018088386@EXCHANGE02.rawhideinc.com>
Message-ID: <200101032251.OAA23984@exoserv.exodus.net>

Discussion should be opened with the search engines that operate in this
way.

-Clayton Lambert
Exodus Communications

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of Leo
Gilbert
Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 2:07 PM
To: Joe DeCosta; Nasir Ameeriar; vwp at arin.net
Subject: RE: Been quiet in here...


We use the same here. IIS is very easy to setup and run V-hosting but if
you try to get your sites ranked on the search engines that use ip based
spidering forget it. These search engines spider will dump your site.

-----Original Message-----
From: Joe DeCosta [mailto:decosta at bayconnect.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 5:11 PM
To: Nasir Ameeriar; vwp at arin.net
Subject: Re: Been quiet in here...


As far as we use, we just use MS IIS in which you can manage the site
certificates for the v-hosted sites just like any other certificate SSL
it's
still just a V-Host, and the client side see only the specific site.  I
can
attach a screen shot if you have never seen V-Hosting with IIS, its
really
quite simple.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Nasir Ameeriar" <nameeriar at gt.ca>
To: "'Joe DeCosta'" <decosta at bayconnect.com>; <vwp at arin.net>
Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 2:04 PM
Subject: RE: Been quiet in here...


> What is the status of Vhost?
> How do we provision for clients with SSL?
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
--
> ---------
> Respectfully Yours,
>
>
> Nasir M. Ameeriar
> B.Sc., MIS, MBA, CCNA, MCSE
> Senior TSS
> Group Telecom
> 1000 Sherbrooke St. West
> Montreal, PQ
> H3A 3G4
> Cellular: 514-978-0092
> Office:   514-448-3004
> Fax: 514-448-3088
> nameeriar at gt.ca <mailto:nameeriar at gt.ca>
> www.gt.ca <http://www.gt.ca>
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
--
> ---------
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joe DeCosta [mailto:decosta at bayconnect.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 4:24 PM
> To: vwp at arin.net
> Subject: Re: Been quiet in here...
>
>
> I haven't been here these are the first posts that i've seen come
through
to
> this list.  Could someone possibly update me in private?
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Danny McPherson" <danny at ambernetworks.com>
> To: "Alec H. Peterson" <ahp at hilander.com>
> Cc: <vwp at arin.net>
> Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 1:10 PM
> Subject: Re: Been quiet in here...
>
>
> >
> > > Are there any more thoughts on what we should do with the
so-called
> virtual
> > > hosting policy?
> >
> > Depends, has anyone taken the time to summarize what they believe
> > were the useful (<-- operative word) thoughts from the previous
> > discussion?
> >
> > -danny
> >
> >
>




From lgilbert at rawhideinc.com  Wed Jan  3 17:45:34 2001
From: lgilbert at rawhideinc.com (Leo Gilbert)
Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2001 17:45:34 -0500
Subject: Been quiet in here... 
Message-ID: <9B6F2B6780A5A2409DA1F12DC363F018088387@EXCHANGE02.rawhideinc.com>

I totally agree with what you said earlier about policy with
modifications. As far as the search engines go they are very stubborn
about changing their ways.

-----Original Message-----
From: Clayton Lambert [mailto:Clay at exodus.net]
Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 5:51 PM
To: Leo Gilbert; 'Joe DeCosta'; 'Nasir Ameeriar'; vwp at arin.net
Subject: RE: Been quiet in here... 


Discussion should be opened with the search engines that operate in this
way.

-Clayton Lambert
Exodus Communications

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of Leo
Gilbert
Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 2:07 PM
To: Joe DeCosta; Nasir Ameeriar; vwp at arin.net
Subject: RE: Been quiet in here...


We use the same here. IIS is very easy to setup and run V-hosting but if
you try to get your sites ranked on the search engines that use ip based
spidering forget it. These search engines spider will dump your site.

-----Original Message-----
From: Joe DeCosta [mailto:decosta at bayconnect.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 5:11 PM
To: Nasir Ameeriar; vwp at arin.net
Subject: Re: Been quiet in here...


As far as we use, we just use MS IIS in which you can manage the site
certificates for the v-hosted sites just like any other certificate SSL
it's
still just a V-Host, and the client side see only the specific site.  I
can
attach a screen shot if you have never seen V-Hosting with IIS, its
really
quite simple.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Nasir Ameeriar" <nameeriar at gt.ca>
To: "'Joe DeCosta'" <decosta at bayconnect.com>; <vwp at arin.net>
Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 2:04 PM
Subject: RE: Been quiet in here...


> What is the status of Vhost?
> How do we provision for clients with SSL?
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
--
> ---------
> Respectfully Yours,
>
>
> Nasir M. Ameeriar
> B.Sc., MIS, MBA, CCNA, MCSE
> Senior TSS
> Group Telecom
> 1000 Sherbrooke St. West
> Montreal, PQ
> H3A 3G4
> Cellular: 514-978-0092
> Office:   514-448-3004
> Fax: 514-448-3088
> nameeriar at gt.ca <mailto:nameeriar at gt.ca>
> www.gt.ca <http://www.gt.ca>
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
--
> ---------
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joe DeCosta [mailto:decosta at bayconnect.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 4:24 PM
> To: vwp at arin.net
> Subject: Re: Been quiet in here...
>
>
> I haven't been here these are the first posts that i've seen come
through
to
> this list.  Could someone possibly update me in private?
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Danny McPherson" <danny at ambernetworks.com>
> To: "Alec H. Peterson" <ahp at hilander.com>
> Cc: <vwp at arin.net>
> Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 1:10 PM
> Subject: Re: Been quiet in here...
>
>
> >
> > > Are there any more thoughts on what we should do with the
so-called
> virtual
> > > hosting policy?
> >
> > Depends, has anyone taken the time to summarize what they believe
> > were the useful (<-- operative word) thoughts from the previous
> > discussion?
> >
> > -danny
> >
> >
>




From HORMAN at novell.com  Wed Jan  3 18:22:19 2001
From: HORMAN at novell.com (Hilarie Orman)
Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2001 16:22:19 -0700
Subject: Been quiet in here...
Message-ID: <sa5351be.077@prv-mail20.provo.novell.com>

My impression of the discussion is that there are many reasons for using
IP addresses in web hosting, and we have not necessarily found all of
them.  There is disagreement about whether or not reasonable workarounds
exist for some of the problems and there is even disagreement about
whether or not to respect some of the problems.

The only thing on which there is agreement is that one should use
virtual hosting if it doesn't cause problems.

ARIN can recommend virtual hosting to organizations that request
addresses for web hosting, but it should never deny a request
based on virtual hosting criteria.  Doing so would involve ARIN
in burdensome technical discussions with the provider which
would contribute nothing to the orderly use and expansion of
the Internet.

Hilarie Orman

>>> "Clayton Lambert" <Clay at exodus.net> 01/03/01 03:40PM >>>
We should re-institute the policy with modifications to the text for
clarity.  Service providing should be the catch word instead of web-hosting.

There should be clear reference to technical exceptions to the policy (this
should NOT be in the form of specific exceptions, as technical reasons for
exception to the policy can easily step beyond the ability of a "list",
hence the reason for maintainer discretion), only technical exceptions
should be allowed (as opposed to policy exceptions). The entity assigned the
overall netblock should have discretion for determining the exceptions to
the policy and should maintain the documentation for the exception, and make
the info available to ARIN on in audit-style format (NDA should be manditory
between the Netblock maintainer and ARIN).

Clay
Exodus Communications


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of Alec H.
Peterson
Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 12:54 PM
To: vwp at arin.net 
Subject: Been quiet in here...


Are there any more thoughts on what we should do with the so-called 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!"





From decosta at bayconnect.com  Wed Jan  3 18:25:53 2001
From: decosta at bayconnect.com (Joe DeCosta)
Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2001 15:25:53 -0800
Subject: Been quiet in here...
References: <Pine.LNX.4.20.0101031606380.30744-100000@hypermall.com>
Message-ID: <00af01c075dc$84ef3ce0$cd00000a@megapathdsl.net>

now, how about this, raise the pricing, and then donate the profit to some
NPO, or some such thing, i just *HATE* having to update the damned IP usage
spreadsheet and sending it to our uplink who owns the class C we have.  its
a pain in the ass, ever time we move stuff around on our network....... It
costs too much time to do it that way.  If the IP's are on a free market,
then why must we also then justify them?


----- Original Message -----
From: <Jawaid.Bazyar at forethought.net>
To: "Joe DeCosta" <decosta at bayconnect.com>
Cc: "Clayton Lambert" <Clay at exodus.net>; "'Alec H. Peterson'"
<ahp at hilander.com>; <vwp at arin.net>
Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 3:12 PM
Subject: Re: Been quiet in here...


>
> That's because in the lack of a "free market" for IP addresses, the
> pricing was set arbitrarily - to cover the expenses of operating ARIN.
>
> That's not to say that that is bad, or without reasoning. It's just that
> if you're going to disassociate the pricing from the costs necessary to
> administer ARIN, instead of raising the price to discourage waste, you
> should let people buy and sell blocks on an open market. Free markets are
> very sensitive to the scarcity of resources via the price mechanism.
>
> That's not saying I think IPs are particularly scarce. I've made the
> argument before that it seems that CIDR is more about saving face for
> Cisco's underpowered heaps than conserving IP space.
>
> However, the current IP allocation system works fairly well, and in that
> system the best approach is to tell people to stop provisioning web sites
> in a wasteful manner that was only every necessitated by flaws in the
> original technology.
>
> Besides, it's WAY easier to provision IP-less web sites. :)
>
>
>
> On Wed, 3 Jan 2001, Joe DeCosta wrote:
>
> > This modification i agree with, my only objection is that why should
people
> > have to justify the usage of their netblock, why not just up the costs
to
> > encourage them to use as few IP's as possible.  It would seem to be more
> > effective.  Just my thoughts.
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Clayton Lambert" <Clay at exodus.net>
> > To: "'Alec H. Peterson'" <ahp at hilander.com>; <vwp at arin.net>
> > Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 2:40 PM
> > Subject: RE: Been quiet in here...
> >
> >
> > > We should re-institute the policy with modifications to the text for
> > > clarity.  Service providing should be the catch word instead of
> > web-hosting.
> > >
> > > There should be clear reference to technical exceptions to the policy
> > (this
> > > should NOT be in the form of specific exceptions, as technical reasons
for
> > > exception to the policy can easily step beyond the ability of a
"list",
> > > hence the reason for maintainer discretion), only technical exceptions
> > > should be allowed (as opposed to policy exceptions). The entity
assigned
> > the
> > > overall netblock should have discretion for determining the exceptions
to
> > > the policy and should maintain the documentation for the exception,
and
> > make
> > > the info available to ARIN on in audit-style format (NDA should be
> > manditory
> > > between the Netblock maintainer and ARIN).
> > >
> > > Clay
> > > Exodus Communications
> > >
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of Alec
H.
> > > Peterson
> > > Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 12:54 PM
> > > To: vwp at arin.net
> > > Subject: Been quiet in here...
> > >
> > >
> > > Are there any more thoughts on what we should do with the so-called
> > 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!"
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
> --
>  Jawaid Bazyar                 |   Affordable WWW & Internet Solutions
>  foreThought.net               |   for Small Business
>  jawaid.bazyar at foreThought.net |   910 16th Street, #1220  (303) 228-0070
>  --The Future is Now!--        |   Denver, CO 80202        (303) 228-0077
fax
>



From cts at 5sc.net  Wed Jan  3 19:08:02 2001
From: cts at 5sc.net (Charles T. Smith, Jr.)
Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2001 20:08:02 -0400
Subject: Example of IP web issue in the press
Message-ID: <009F5949.5739870F.4@5sc.net>

Note the last part...

--

*****************************************************
Edupage is a service of EDUCAUSE, an international nonprofit
association dedicated to transforming education through
information technologies.
*****************************************************

[text deleted]

NEWS SITES MISTAKENLY BLOCKED BY FILTERS, STUDY SAYS
Internet filter programs are blocking access to many
non-offensive Web sites because of the high incidence of words
and phrases the filters search for, according to a study from
Peacefire.org. For example, the Cybersitter program identifies
an Amnesty.org news article as sexually explicit for containing
the phrase "at least 21." The phrase, however, is used to
describe the number of casualties in an international shooting
incident. Politicians in the United States and elsewhere want
filtering software to become a standard tool of libraries and
schools, but numerous students are complaining that such software
actually hampers their schoolwork. Such complaints prompted
Peacefire to run several filtering programs through a list of
Amnesty International-related sites. The results of the study
show that the software blocks more news sites than sexually
oriented sites, Peacefire claims. Ironically, the Realtime
Blackhole List is blocking the Peacefire Web site because the
program discovered an unrelated site on the same Web hosting
service that could potentially send spam.
(Cnet, 15 December 2000)



From decosta at bayconnect.com  Wed Jan  3 23:01:15 2001
From: decosta at bayconnect.com (Joe DeCosta)
Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2001 20:01:15 -0800
Subject: Example of IP web issue in the press
References: <009F5949.5739870F.4@5sc.net>
Message-ID: <3A53F58B.90059B97@bayconnect.com>

Ooh gawd, can there be any more of comedy in this article talk about
poetic justice :-)


"Charles T. Smith, Jr." wrote:
> 
> Note the last part...
> 
> --
> 
> *****************************************************
> Edupage is a service of EDUCAUSE, an international nonprofit
> association dedicated to transforming education through
> information technologies.
> *****************************************************
> 
> [text deleted]
> 
> NEWS SITES MISTAKENLY BLOCKED BY FILTERS, STUDY SAYS
> Internet filter programs are blocking access to many
> non-offensive Web sites because of the high incidence of words
> and phrases the filters search for, according to a study from
> Peacefire.org. For example, the Cybersitter program identifies
> an Amnesty.org news article as sexually explicit for containing
> the phrase "at least 21." The phrase, however, is used to
> describe the number of casualties in an international shooting
> incident. Politicians in the United States and elsewhere want
> filtering software to become a standard tool of libraries and
> schools, but numerous students are complaining that such software
> actually hampers their schoolwork. Such complaints prompted
> Peacefire to run several filtering programs through a list of
> Amnesty International-related sites. The results of the study
> show that the software blocks more news sites than sexually
> oriented sites, Peacefire claims. Ironically, the Realtime
> Blackhole List is blocking the Peacefire Web site because the
> program discovered an unrelated site on the same Web hosting
> service that could potentially send spam.
> (Cnet, 15 December 2000)


From jeff at alexandriainternet.com  Wed Jan  3 23:48:01 2001
From: jeff at alexandriainternet.com (Jeffrey L Price)
Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2001 23:48:01 -0500
Subject: Example of IP web issue in the press
References: <009F5949.5739870F.4@5sc.net> <3A53F58B.90059B97@bayconnect.com>
Message-ID: <035701c07609$874ede50$a9e2d83f@alexandiainternet.com>

Perhaps the cure is worse than the disease?

-jeff

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Joe DeCosta" <decosta at bayconnect.com>
To: "Charles T. Smith, Jr." <cts at 5sc.net>
Cc: <vwp at arin.net>
Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 11:01 PM
Subject: Re: Example of IP web issue in the press


> Ooh gawd, can there be any more of comedy in this article talk about
> poetic justice :-)
> 
> 
> "Charles T. Smith, Jr." wrote:
> > 
> > Note the last part...
> > 
> > --
> > 
> > *****************************************************
> > Edupage is a service of EDUCAUSE, an international nonprofit
> > association dedicated to transforming education through
> > information technologies.
> > *****************************************************
> > 
> > [text deleted]
> > 
> > NEWS SITES MISTAKENLY BLOCKED BY FILTERS, STUDY SAYS
> > Internet filter programs are blocking access to many
> > non-offensive Web sites because of the high incidence of words
> > and phrases the filters search for, according to a study from
> > Peacefire.org. For example, the Cybersitter program identifies
> > an Amnesty.org news article as sexually explicit for containing
> > the phrase "at least 21." The phrase, however, is used to
> > describe the number of casualties in an international shooting
> > incident. Politicians in the United States and elsewhere want
> > filtering software to become a standard tool of libraries and
> > schools, but numerous students are complaining that such software
> > actually hampers their schoolwork. Such complaints prompted
> > Peacefire to run several filtering programs through a list of
> > Amnesty International-related sites. The results of the study
> > show that the software blocks more news sites than sexually
> > oriented sites, Peacefire claims. Ironically, the Realtime
> > Blackhole List is blocking the Peacefire Web site because the
> > program discovered an unrelated site on the same Web hosting
> > service that could potentially send spam.
> > (Cnet, 15 December 2000)
> 



From Gilbert.Martin at za.didata.com  Thu Jan  4 01:00:06 2001
From: Gilbert.Martin at za.didata.com (Gilbert Martin @ Learning Solutions)
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 08:00:06 +0200 
Subject: Example of IP web issue in the press
Message-ID: <DC7ABD0A8338D311B2010008C79122EE03A523F1@zajnbddsexc1.didata.co.za>

I think its the cursed developers who claim to write efficient systems that
scan only the wrong sites??? :-)

-----Original Message-----
From: Jeffrey L Price [mailto:jeff at alexandriainternet.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 6:48 AM
To: Joe DeCosta; Charles T. Smith, Jr.
Cc: vwp at arin.net
Subject: Re: Example of IP web issue in the press


Perhaps the cure is worse than the disease?

-jeff

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Joe DeCosta" <decosta at bayconnect.com>
To: "Charles T. Smith, Jr." <cts at 5sc.net>
Cc: <vwp at arin.net>
Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 11:01 PM
Subject: Re: Example of IP web issue in the press


> Ooh gawd, can there be any more of comedy in this article talk about
> poetic justice :-)
> 
> 
> "Charles T. Smith, Jr." wrote:
> > 
> > Note the last part...
> > 
> > --
> > 
> > *****************************************************
> > Edupage is a service of EDUCAUSE, an international nonprofit
> > association dedicated to transforming education through
> > information technologies.
> > *****************************************************
> > 
> > [text deleted]
> > 
> > NEWS SITES MISTAKENLY BLOCKED BY FILTERS, STUDY SAYS
> > Internet filter programs are blocking access to many
> > non-offensive Web sites because of the high incidence of words
> > and phrases the filters search for, according to a study from
> > Peacefire.org. For example, the Cybersitter program identifies
> > an Amnesty.org news article as sexually explicit for containing
> > the phrase "at least 21." The phrase, however, is used to
> > describe the number of casualties in an international shooting
> > incident. Politicians in the United States and elsewhere want
> > filtering software to become a standard tool of libraries and
> > schools, but numerous students are complaining that such software
> > actually hampers their schoolwork. Such complaints prompted
> > Peacefire to run several filtering programs through a list of
> > Amnesty International-related sites. The results of the study
> > show that the software blocks more news sites than sexually
> > oriented sites, Peacefire claims. Ironically, the Realtime
> > Blackhole List is blocking the Peacefire Web site because the
> > program discovered an unrelated site on the same Web hosting
> > service that could potentially send spam.
> > (Cnet, 15 December 2000)
> 


**********************************************************************

The information in this e-mail is confidential and is legally privileged.
It is intended solely for the addressee.  If this email is not intended for
you, you cannot copy, distribute, or disclose the included information
to any-one

If you are not the intended recipient please delete the mail. Whilst
all reasonable steps have been taken to ensure the accuracy and
integrity of all data transmitted electronically, no liability is accepted
if the data, for whatever reason, is corrupt or does not reach it's
intended destination.
All business is undertaken, subject to our standard trading conditions
which are available on request.

*******************************************************************


From stephen at hnt.com  Thu Jan  4 09:00:09 2001
From: stephen at hnt.com (Stephen Elliott)
Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2001 09:00:09 -0500
Subject: Idea
Message-ID: <3A5481E9.4008148B@hnt.com>

	Everyone knows that there is an IP shortage under IPv4.  I was not
involved with previous discussions, I have however been running websites
for years and thought I would pitch out an idea for everyone to
discuss.  Under RFC 2050, which is the holy grail for ARIN, 25% of IP's
must be justified at the time of request with documented plans for 50%
utilization within 12 months.  IP based virtual hosting is used for many
reasons, and I do not believe that there is any good way to write a all
inclusive list of reasons that are good enough to overcome the 1 IP per
machine rule.  The best way that I see for fairly allowing people an
companies to get the addresses that they need is to charge for anything
above and beyond that.  I would throw out a number of $10-$15US per year
for small blocks.  This should be charged by ARIN through the
organization that is responsible for each net block.  One modification
of this could be a reverse scale upon which to charge, so that the more
an organization used IP based virtual hosting, the more they had to pay
per IP.
	I realize that there is going to be no easy solution to this, but a
fair and equitable way to distribute IP's to individuals and companies
that need them is imperitive to the stability of the Internet and it's
continued growth.
-Stephen

-- 
Stephen Elliott                 Harrison & Troxell
Systems & Networking Manager    2 Faneuil Hall Marketplace
Systems & Networking Group      Boston, Ma 02109
(617)227-0494 Phone             (617)720-3918 Fax


From billd at cait.wustl.edu  Thu Jan  4 10:00:12 2001
From: billd at cait.wustl.edu (Bill Darte)
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 09:00:12 -0600 
Subject: Been quiet in here...
Message-ID: <F0A77279DB36D111A6EC00A024DEE7AF3338D4@kronos.wustl.edu>

Not to be contentious, but "a small percentage of our customer use the
overwhelmingly largeset amount of address space" IS very vague.
I'm all for conservation, I am willing to support policy that enforces
conservation when need exists, but I am unwilling to support policy that is
based upon these anecdotal, rather than factual references.
Bill Darte

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Clayton Lambert [mailto:Clay at exodus.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 4:48 PM
> To: 'Bill Darte'; 'Alec H. Peterson'; vwp at arin.net
> Subject: RE: Been quiet in here...
> 
> 
> it is more than a vague notion.  It is a fact...
> 
> A small percentage of our Customers use the overwhelmingly 
> largest amounts
> of address space.
> 
> This policy should not scare web-hosters.  I think that 
> webhosters should
> make the attempt to be efficient with their use of address 
> space.  We have
> hammered our name-based hosting servers and we have not seen 
> an appreciable
> drop in performance compared to the same servers running IP 
> based hosting.
> If there is a valid reason for a service provider (any 
> service, not just
> webhosters) to use IP-based hosting, I think it is not 
> unreasonable to have
> them provide documentation to support that requirement.  
> Accountability
> isn't something that is necessarily bad.
> 
> -Clayton Lambert
> Exodus Communications
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of Bill
> Darte
> Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 1:24 PM
> To: 'Alec H. Peterson'; vwp at arin.net
> Subject: RE: Been quiet in here...
> 
> 
> I have seen no evidence that there is a problem. No scope, no 
> magnitude, no
> trends, just a vague notion that it is wasting "lots" of addresses.
> Bill Darte
> AC
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Alec H. Peterson [mailto:ahp at hilander.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 2:54 PM
> > To: vwp at arin.net
> > Subject: Been quiet in here...
> >
> >
> > Are there any more thoughts on what we should do with the
> > so-called 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!"
> >
> 
> 


From SRogers at Affinity.com  Thu Jan  4 09:53:24 2001
From: SRogers at Affinity.com (Scott Rogers)
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 06:53:24 -0800 
Subject: ARIN Justified...
Message-ID: <23AE217BF800D411B12500D0B73CF36E5B9F68@exchange.affinityla.com>

I'm the network engineer for a large dedicated server/colocation facility
and I agree that  IP addresses and their maintenance is a large pain in the
ass.  We have a little over 1/2 a clacc B equivelent and are still growing.

I have been trying to push customers to use "Name Based" virtual hosting,
and keep making the sales guys have customers justify needing more than
32 addresses.  We charge $1 per address per month, so it's an important
revenue stream.

As a "network engineer", it's also important to know that IP addresses
are a "fixed" resource.  When they are gone, that's it.  Yes, I know
that IPV6 will cure our problems.  Well they have been working on it
for over 8 years and we don't seem realistically very close to it.

People will hoard (hey anybody want to buy 48 pre CIDR class C addresse)
networks and address and then try to make a killing in the parket.  I
remember several years ago people offering to sell their class B addresses
that they had from old APRANET days for tens and hundreds of thousands
of dollars.

My point is, that the revenue stream is usless is you can't get more
addresses later.  We have to push back at our customers for REAL 
justifications,  and my providers and ARIN have to push back to me
me for the same.  ARIN, RIPE, et. al. then have to justify to the IANA
(or whatever) for allocations as well.

Market pricing won't give us the conservation we need.

WHat will help is to eliminate the need for REAL IP so people can use
NAME based servers.

Issues;
*	All browsers have to support HTTP/1.1 and name based browsing.
	Mostly done now  AOL and COMPUSERVE were the biggest offenders.

*	SSL Certificates may not always work with NAME based due to
	reverse IP not matching the certificates.

*	The biggest issue (to my customers), the SEARCH ENGINES need to
	support HTTP/1.1 and name based virtual servers.  Most do not.
	We, as a community, need to push the search engines into building
	in support.  If we do this, we will solve a significant
	portion of the problem.  The SSL requirements I feel are probably
	not a siginficant portion of the problem

Just my 2 cents.
-- 
Scott W. Rogers  <SRogers at affinity.com>   +1-410-558-2750   (Fax:
+1410-563-5457)
Network/Systems/Security Engineer -- SkyNetWEB, Ltd.  An Affinity Company
3500 Boston St. #231  --  Baltimore, Maryland 21224



-----Original Message-----
From: Joe DeCosta [mailto:decosta at bayconnect.com]
Sent: Wed

nesday, January 03, 2001 6:26 PM
To: Jawaid.Bazyar at forethought.net
Cc: Clayton Lambert; 'Alec H. Peterson'; vwp at arin.net
Subject: Re: Been quiet in here...


now, how about this, raise the pricing, and then donate the profit to some
NPO, or some such thing, i just *HATE* having to update the damned IP usage
spreadsheet and sending it to our uplink who owns the class C we have.  its
a pain in the ass, ever time we move stuff around on our network....... It
costs too much time to do it that way.  If the IP's are on a free market,
then why must we also then justify them?


----- Original Message -----
From: <Jawaid.Bazyar at forethought.net>
To: "Joe DeCosta" <decosta at bayconnect.com>
Cc: "Clayton Lambert" <Clay at exodus.net>; "'Alec H. Peterson'"
<ahp at hilander.com>; <vwp at arin.net>
Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 3:12 PM
Subject: Re: Been quiet in here...


>
> That's because in the lack of a "free market" for IP addresses, the
> pricing was set arbitrarily - to cover the expenses of operating ARIN.
>
> That's not to say that that is bad, or without reasoning. It's just that
> if you're going to disassociate the pricing from the costs necessary to
> administer ARIN, instead of raising the price to discourage waste, you
> should let people buy and sell blocks on an open market. Free markets are
> very sensitive to the scarcity of resources via the price mechanism.
>
> That's not saying I think IPs are particularly scarce. I've made the
> argument before that it seems that CIDR is more about saving face for
> Cisco's underpowered heaps than conserving IP space.
>
> However, the current IP allocation system works fairly well, and in that
> system the best approach is to tell people to stop provisioning web sites
> in a wasteful manner that was only every necessitated by flaws in the
> original technology.
>
> Besides, it's WAY easier to provision IP-less web sites. :)
>
>
>
> On Wed, 3 Jan 2001, Joe DeCosta wrote:
>
> > This modification i agree with, my only objection is that why should
people
> > have to justify the usage of their netblock, why not just up the costs
to
> > encourage them to use as few IP's as possible.  It would seem to be more
> > effective.  Just my thoughts.
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Clayton Lambert" <Clay at exodus.net>
> > To: "'Alec H. Peterson'" <ahp at hilander.com>; <vwp at arin.net>
> > Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 2:40 PM
> > Subject: RE: Been quiet in here...
> >
> >
> > > We should re-institute the policy with modifications to the text for
> > > clarity.  Service providing should be the catch word instead of
> > web-hosting.
> > >
> > > There should be clear reference to technical exceptions to the policy
> > (this
> > > should NOT be in the form of specific exceptions, as technical reasons
for
> > > exception to the policy can easily step beyond the ability of a
"list",
> > > hence the reason for maintainer discretion), only technical exceptions
> > > should be allowed (as opposed to policy exceptions). The entity
assigned
> > the
> > > overall netblock should have discretion for determining the exceptions
to
> > > the policy and should maintain the documentation for the exception,
and
> > make
> > > the info available to ARIN on in audit-style format (NDA should be
> > manditory
> > > between the Netblock maintainer and ARIN).
> > >
> > > Clay
> > > Exodus Communications
> > >
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of Alec
H.
> > > Peterson
> > > Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 12:54 PM
> > > To: vwp at arin.net
> > > Subject: Been quiet in here...
> > >
> > >
> > > Are there any more thoughts on what we should do with the so-called
> > 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!"
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
> --
>  Jawaid Bazyar                 |   Affordable WWW & Internet Solutions
>  foreThought.net               |   for Small Business
>  jawaid.bazyar at foreThought.net |   910 16th Street, #1220  (303) 228-0070
>  --The Future is Now!--        |   Denver, CO 80202        (303) 228-0077
fax
>


From SRogers at Affinity.com  Thu Jan  4 11:18:30 2001
From: SRogers at Affinity.com (Scott Rogers)
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 08:18:30 -0800 
Subject: ARIN Justified...
Message-ID: <23AE217BF800D411B12500D0B73CF36E5B9F69@exchange.affinityla.com>

Because if you don't, you will use up all the available IP addresses.
 
It's like tree's in a forest.  They are cheap.  But if you cut them ALL
down, then what do you do for wood ?
 
The problem is:
1.    We want lots of web sites.
2.    We need IP addresses.
3.    There are only so many IP addresses to go around.
So,
4.    How can I have lots of Web sites, without using up all the IP
addresses.
 
Big guys (GE, IBM, CISCO, EBAY, etc) can afford $1,000 or $2,000 per IP,
which is what they could cost if we exhaust them (and have only a small pool
left).
Can you afford that much money to start a web site?  
The law of supply and demand will eventually rule.

-----Original Message-----
From: Bill Cartwright [mailto:bill at hergoods.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 10:27 AM
To: Scott Rogers
Subject: Re: ARIN Justified...


Why bother with name based hosting with all the issues against it. If name
based hosting prevents you from getting on a search engine, why do it.
Bill Cartwright
----- Original Message ----- 

From: Scott  <mailto:SRogers at Affinity.com> Rogers 
To: 'Joe  <mailto:decosta at bayconnect.com> DeCosta' ; 'vwp at arin.net'
<mailto:'vwp at arin.net'>  
Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 8:53 AM
Subject: ARIN Justified...

I'm the network engineer for a large dedicated server/colocation facility
and I agree that  IP addresses and their maintenance is a large pain in the
ass.  We have a little over 1/2 a clacc B equivelent and are still growing.

I have been trying to push customers to use "Name Based" virtual hosting,
and keep making the sales guys have customers justify needing more than
32 addresses.  We charge $1 per address per month, so it's an important
revenue stream.

As a "network engineer", it's also important to know that IP addresses
are a "fixed" resource.  When they are gone, that's it.  Yes, I know
that IPV6 will cure our problems.  Well they have been working on it
for over 8 years and we don't seem realistically very close to it.

People will hoard (hey anybody want to buy 48 pre CIDR class C addresse)
networks and address and then try to make a killing in the parket.  I
remember several years ago people offering to sell their class B addresses
that they had from old APRANET days for tens and hundreds of thousands
of dollars.

My point is, that the revenue stream is usless is you can't get more
addresses later.  We have to push back at our customers for REAL 
justifications,  and my providers and ARIN have to push back to me
me for the same.  ARIN, RIPE, et. al. then have to justify to the IANA
(or whatever) for allocations as well.

Market pricing won't give us the conservation we need.

WHat will help is to eliminate the need for REAL IP so people can use
NAME based servers.

Issues;
* All browsers have to support HTTP/1.1 and name based browsing.
Mostly done now  AOL and COMPUSERVE were the biggest offenders.

* SSL Certificates may not always work with NAME based due to
reverse IP not matching the certificates.

* The biggest issue (to my customers), the SEARCH ENGINES need to
support HTTP/1.1 and name based virtual servers.  Most do not.
We, as a community, need to push the search engines into building
in support.  If we do this, we will solve a significant
portion of the problem.  The SSL requirements I feel are probably
not a siginficant portion of the problem

Just my 2 cents.
-- 
Scott W. Rogers  < SRogers at affinity.com <mailto:SRogers at affinity.com> >
+1-410-558-2750   (Fax:
+1410-563-5457)
Network/Systems/Security Engineer -- SkyNetWEB, Ltd.  An Affinity Company
3500 Boston St. #231  --  Baltimore, Maryland 21224



-----Original Message-----
From: Joe DeCosta [mailto:decosta at bayconnect.com]
Sent: Wed

nesday, January 03, 2001 6:26 PM
To: Jawaid.Bazyar at forethought.net <mailto:Jawaid.Bazyar at forethought.net> 
Cc: Clayton Lambert; 'Alec H. Peterson'; vwp at arin.net <mailto:vwp at arin.net> 
Subject: Re: Been quiet in here...


now, how about this, raise the pricing, and then donate the profit to some
NPO, or some such thing, i just *HATE* having to update the damned IP usage
spreadsheet and sending it to our uplink who owns the class C we have.  its
a pain in the ass, ever time we move stuff around on our network....... It
costs too much time to do it that way.  If the IP's are on a free market,
then why must we also then justify them?


----- Original Message -----
From: < Jawaid.Bazyar at forethought.net <mailto:Jawaid.Bazyar at forethought.net>
>
To: "Joe DeCosta" < decosta at bayconnect.com <mailto:decosta at bayconnect.com> >
Cc: "Clayton Lambert" < Clay at exodus.net <mailto:Clay at exodus.net> >; "'Alec
H. Peterson'"
< ahp at hilander.com <mailto:ahp at hilander.com> >; < vwp at arin.net
<mailto:vwp at arin.net> >
Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 3:12 PM
Subject: Re: Been quiet in here...


>
> That's because in the lack of a "free market" for IP addresses, the
> pricing was set arbitrarily - to cover the expenses of operating ARIN.
>
> That's not to say that that is bad, or without reasoning. It's just that
> if you're going to disassociate the pricing from the costs necessary to
> administer ARIN, instead of raising the price to discourage waste, you
> should let people buy and sell blocks on an open market. Free markets are
> very sensitive to the scarcity of resources via the price mechanism.
>
> That's not saying I think IPs are particularly scarce. I've made the
> argument before that it seems that CIDR is more about saving face for
> Cisco's underpowered heaps than conserving IP space.
>
> However, the current IP allocation system works fairly well, and in that
> system the best approach is to tell people to stop provisioning web sites
> in a wasteful manner that was only every necessitated by flaws in the
> original technology.
>
> Besides, it's WAY easier to provision IP-less web sites. :)
>
>
>
> On Wed, 3 Jan 2001, Joe DeCosta wrote:
>
> > This modification i agree with, my only objection is that why should
people
> > have to justify the usage of their netblock, why not just up the costs
to
> > encourage them to use as few IP's as possible.  It would seem to be more
> > effective.  Just my thoughts.
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Clayton Lambert" < Clay at exodus.net <mailto:Clay at exodus.net> >
> > To: "'Alec H. Peterson'" < ahp at hilander.com <mailto:ahp at hilander.com> >;
< vwp at arin.net <mailto:vwp at arin.net> >
> > Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 2:40 PM
> > Subject: RE: Been quiet in here...
> >
> >
> > > We should re-institute the policy with modifications to the text for
> > > clarity.  Service providing should be the catch word instead of
> > web-hosting.
> > >
> > > There should be clear reference to technical exceptions to the policy
> > (this
> > > should NOT be in the form of specific exceptions, as technical reasons
for
> > > exception to the policy can easily step beyond the ability of a
"list",
> > > hence the reason for maintainer discretion), only technical exceptions
> > > should be allowed (as opposed to policy exceptions). The entity
assigned
> > the
> > > overall netblock should have discretion for determining the exceptions
to
> > > the policy and should maintain the documentation for the exception,
and
> > make
> > > the info available to ARIN on in audit-style format (NDA should be
> > manditory
> > > between the Netblock maintainer and ARIN).
> > >
> > > Clay
> > > Exodus Communications
> > >
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: owner-vwp at arin.net <mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net>
[mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of Alec
H.
> > > Peterson
> > > Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 12:54 PM
> > > To: vwp at arin.net <mailto:vwp at arin.net> 
> > > Subject: Been quiet in here...
> > >
> > >
> > > Are there any more thoughts on what we should do with the so-called
> > virtual
> > > hosting policy?
> > >
> > > Alec
> > >
> > > --
> > > Alec H. Peterson - ahp at hilander.com <mailto:ahp at hilander.com> 
> > > Staff Scientist
> > > CenterGate Research Group - http://www.centergate.com
<http://www.centergate.com> 
> > > "Technology so advanced, even _we_ don't understand it!"
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
> --
>  Jawaid Bazyar                 |   Affordable WWW & Internet Solutions
>  foreThought.net               |   for Small Business
>  jawaid.bazyar at foreThought.net <mailto:jawaid.bazyar at foreThought.net>  |
910 16th Street, #1220  (303) 228-0070
>  --The Future is Now!--        |   Denver, CO 80202        (303) 228-0077
fax
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/vwp/attachments/20010104/1bcb4cff/attachment.html>

From mharrigan at winfirst.com  Thu Jan  4 11:23:03 2001
From: mharrigan at winfirst.com (mharrigan at winfirst.com)
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 09:23:03 -0700 
Subject: Idea
Message-ID: <26DF1A71B46FD411A55700508B6FD7F409B5E6@MTELBERT>


$.02 - 
If there were a shortage of rice in China, I'm not sure
that charging more for it would solve the fact that there
isn't enough, regardless of what the RFC for rice is.

-Matt 

Matthew G. Harrigan
Vice President, Internet Services
WinFirst
303-407-1661  
www.winfirst.com
 

-----Original Message-----
From: Stephen Elliott [mailto:stephen at hnt.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 7:00 AM
To: Virtual IP List
Subject: Idea


	Everyone knows that there is an IP shortage under IPv4.  I was not
involved with previous discussions, I have however been running websites
for years and thought I would pitch out an idea for everyone to
discuss.  Under RFC 2050, which is the holy grail for ARIN, 25% of IP's
must be justified at the time of request with documented plans for 50%
utilization within 12 months.  IP based virtual hosting is used for many
reasons, and I do not believe that there is any good way to write a all
inclusive list of reasons that are good enough to overcome the 1 IP per
machine rule.  The best way that I see for fairly allowing people an
companies to get the addresses that they need is to charge for anything
above and beyond that.  I would throw out a number of $10-$15US per year
for small blocks.  This should be charged by ARIN through the
organization that is responsible for each net block.  One modification
of this could be a reverse scale upon which to charge, so that the more
an organization used IP based virtual hosting, the more they had to pay
per IP.
	I realize that there is going to be no easy solution to this, but a
fair and equitable way to distribute IP's to individuals and companies
that need them is imperitive to the stability of the Internet and it's
continued growth.
-Stephen

-- 
Stephen Elliott                 Harrison & Troxell
Systems & Networking Manager    2 Faneuil Hall Marketplace
Systems & Networking Group      Boston, Ma 02109
(617)227-0494 Phone             (617)720-3918 Fax
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/vwp/attachments/20010104/39ffd020/attachment.html>

From jeff at alexandriainternet.com  Thu Jan  4 12:43:00 2001
From: jeff at alexandriainternet.com (Jeffrey L Price)
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 12:43:00 -0500
Subject: ARIN Justified...
References: <23AE217BF800D411B12500D0B73CF36E5B9F69@exchange.affinityla.com>
Message-ID: <042a01c07675$caceb710$a9e2d83f@alexandiainternet.com>

I have seen the term "lots" or "many", what I would like to know is which search engines use IP address instead of URL?  Specifically by name.

-jeff
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Scott Rogers 
  To: 'Bill Cartwright' ; Scott Rogers 
  Cc: Adam Douglass ; 'vwp at arin.net' 
  Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 11:18 AM
  Subject: RE: ARIN Justified...


  Because if you don't, you will use up all the available IP addresses.

  It's like tree's in a forest.  They are cheap.  But if you cut them ALL
  down, then what do you do for wood ?

  The problem is:
  1.    We want lots of web sites.
  2.    We need IP addresses.
  3.    There are only so many IP addresses to go around.
  So,
  4.    How can I have lots of Web sites, without using up all the IP addresses.

  Big guys (GE, IBM, CISCO, EBAY, etc) can afford $1,000 or $2,000 per IP,
  which is what they could cost if we exhaust them (and have only a small pool left).
  Can you afford that much money to start a web site?  
  The law of supply and demand will eventually rule.
    -----Original Message-----
    From: Bill Cartwright [mailto:bill at hergoods.com]
    Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 10:27 AM
    To: Scott Rogers
    Subject: Re: ARIN Justified...


    Why bother with name based hosting with all the issues against it. If name based hosting prevents you from getting on a search engine, why do it.
    Bill Cartwright
    ----- Original Message ----- 
      From: Scott Rogers 
      To: 'Joe DeCosta' ; 'vwp at arin.net' 
      Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 8:53 AM
      Subject: ARIN Justified...


      I'm the network engineer for a large dedicated server/colocation facility
      and I agree that  IP addresses and their maintenance is a large pain in the
      ass.  We have a little over 1/2 a clacc B equivelent and are still growing.

      I have been trying to push customers to use "Name Based" virtual hosting,
      and keep making the sales guys have customers justify needing more than
      32 addresses.  We charge $1 per address per month, so it's an important
      revenue stream.

      As a "network engineer", it's also important to know that IP addresses
      are a "fixed" resource.  When they are gone, that's it.  Yes, I know
      that IPV6 will cure our problems.  Well they have been working on it
      for over 8 years and we don't seem realistically very close to it.

      People will hoard (hey anybody want to buy 48 pre CIDR class C addresse)
      networks and address and then try to make a killing in the parket.  I
      remember several years ago people offering to sell their class B addresses
      that they had from old APRANET days for tens and hundreds of thousands
      of dollars.

      My point is, that the revenue stream is usless is you can't get more
      addresses later.  We have to push back at our customers for REAL 
      justifications,  and my providers and ARIN have to push back to me
      me for the same.  ARIN, RIPE, et. al. then have to justify to the IANA
      (or whatever) for allocations as well.

      Market pricing won't give us the conservation we need.

      WHat will help is to eliminate the need for REAL IP so people can use
      NAME based servers.

      Issues;
      * All browsers have to support HTTP/1.1 and name based browsing.
      Mostly done now  AOL and COMPUSERVE were the biggest offenders.

      * SSL Certificates may not always work with NAME based due to
      reverse IP not matching the certificates.

      * The biggest issue (to my customers), the SEARCH ENGINES need to
      support HTTP/1.1 and name based virtual servers.  Most do not.
      We, as a community, need to push the search engines into building
      in support.  If we do this, we will solve a significant
      portion of the problem.  The SSL requirements I feel are probably
      not a siginficant portion of the problem

      Just my 2 cents.
      -- 
      Scott W. Rogers  <SRogers at affinity.com>   +1-410-558-2750   (Fax:
      +1410-563-5457)
      Network/Systems/Security Engineer -- SkyNetWEB, Ltd.  An Affinity Company
      3500 Boston St. #231  --  Baltimore, Maryland 21224



      -----Original Message-----
      From: Joe DeCosta [mailto:decosta at bayconnect.com]
      Sent: Wed

      nesday, January 03, 2001 6:26 PM
      To: Jawaid.Bazyar at forethought.net
      Cc: Clayton Lambert; 'Alec H. Peterson'; vwp at arin.net
      Subject: Re: Been quiet in here...


      now, how about this, raise the pricing, and then donate the profit to some
      NPO, or some such thing, i just *HATE* having to update the damned IP usage
      spreadsheet and sending it to our uplink who owns the class C we have.  its
      a pain in the ass, ever time we move stuff around on our network....... It
      costs too much time to do it that way.  If the IP's are on a free market,
      then why must we also then justify them?


      ----- Original Message -----
      From: <Jawaid.Bazyar at forethought.net>
      To: "Joe DeCosta" <decosta at bayconnect.com>
      Cc: "Clayton Lambert" <Clay at exodus.net>; "'Alec H. Peterson'"
      <ahp at hilander.com>; <vwp at arin.net>
      Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 3:12 PM
      Subject: Re: Been quiet in here...


      >
      > That's because in the lack of a "free market" for IP addresses, the
      > pricing was set arbitrarily - to cover the expenses of operating ARIN.
      >
      > That's not to say that that is bad, or without reasoning. It's just that
      > if you're going to disassociate the pricing from the costs necessary to
      > administer ARIN, instead of raising the price to discourage waste, you
      > should let people buy and sell blocks on an open market. Free markets are
      > very sensitive to the scarcity of resources via the price mechanism.
      >
      > That's not saying I think IPs are particularly scarce. I've made the
      > argument before that it seems that CIDR is more about saving face for
      > Cisco's underpowered heaps than conserving IP space.
      >
      > However, the current IP allocation system works fairly well, and in that
      > system the best approach is to tell people to stop provisioning web sites
      > in a wasteful manner that was only every necessitated by flaws in the
      > original technology.
      >
      > Besides, it's WAY easier to provision IP-less web sites. :)
      >
      >
      >
      > On Wed, 3 Jan 2001, Joe DeCosta wrote:
      >
      > > This modification i agree with, my only objection is that why should
      people
      > > have to justify the usage of their netblock, why not just up the costs
      to
      > > encourage them to use as few IP's as possible.  It would seem to be more
      > > effective.  Just my thoughts.
      > > ----- Original Message -----
      > > From: "Clayton Lambert" <Clay at exodus.net>
      > > To: "'Alec H. Peterson'" <ahp at hilander.com>; <vwp at arin.net>
      > > Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 2:40 PM
      > > Subject: RE: Been quiet in here...
      > >
      > >
      > > > We should re-institute the policy with modifications to the text for
      > > > clarity.  Service providing should be the catch word instead of
      > > web-hosting.
      > > >
      > > > There should be clear reference to technical exceptions to the policy
      > > (this
      > > > should NOT be in the form of specific exceptions, as technical reasons
      for
      > > > exception to the policy can easily step beyond the ability of a
      "list",
      > > > hence the reason for maintainer discretion), only technical exceptions
      > > > should be allowed (as opposed to policy exceptions). The entity
      assigned
      > > the
      > > > overall netblock should have discretion for determining the exceptions
      to
      > > > the policy and should maintain the documentation for the exception,
      and
      > > make
      > > > the info available to ARIN on in audit-style format (NDA should be
      > > manditory
      > > > between the Netblock maintainer and ARIN).
      > > >
      > > > Clay
      > > > Exodus Communications
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > -----Original Message-----
      > > > From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of Alec
      H.
      > > > Peterson
      > > > Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 12:54 PM
      > > > To: vwp at arin.net
      > > > Subject: Been quiet in here...
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > Are there any more thoughts on what we should do with the so-called
      > > 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!"
      > > >
      > > >
      > >
      > >
      >
      > --
      >  Jawaid Bazyar                 |   Affordable WWW & Internet Solutions
      >  foreThought.net               |   for Small Business
      >  jawaid.bazyar at foreThought.net |   910 16th Street, #1220  (303) 228-0070
      >  --The Future is Now!--        |   Denver, CO 80202        (303) 228-0077
      fax
      >
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/vwp/attachments/20010104/b8eae459/attachment.html>

From ahp at hilander.com  Thu Jan  4 12:32:27 2001
From: ahp at hilander.com (Alec H. Peterson)
Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2001 10:32:27 -0700
Subject: ARIN Justified...
References: <23AE217BF800D411B12500D0B73CF36E5B9F68@exchange.affinityla.com>
Message-ID: <3A54B3AB.B7130F33@hilander.com>

Scott Rogers wrote:
> 
> Issues;
> *       All browsers have to support HTTP/1.1 and name based browsing.
>         Mostly done now  AOL and COMPUSERVE were the biggest offenders.

Strictly speaking, a browser can support name-based browsing without having
full support for HTTP/1.1.

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!"


From Clay at exodus.net  Thu Jan  4 12:44:34 2001
From: Clay at exodus.net (Clayton Lambert)
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 09:44:34 -0800
Subject: Been quiet in here...
In-Reply-To: <F0A77279DB36D111A6EC00A024DEE7AF3338D4@kronos.wustl.edu>
Message-ID: <200101041744.JAA22458@exoserv.exodus.net>

I was generalizing, not being vague.  It is an interesting point that
relates to this discussion.  I don't think the comment warrented an overly
deep analysis.  I am not at liberty to disclose the detailed demographics of
our Customers, but the trend is clear (for me, as the maintainer within my
company) that webhosting companies do indeed consume the lions share of IP
address space while operating a relatively small percentage of the physical
devices that we support.

-Clay

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of Bill
Darte
Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 7:00 AM
To: 'Clayton Lambert'; vwp at arin.net
Subject: RE: Been quiet in here...


Not to be contentious, but "a small percentage of our customer use the
overwhelmingly largeset amount of address space" IS very vague.
I'm all for conservation, I am willing to support policy that enforces
conservation when need exists, but I am unwilling to support policy that is
based upon these anecdotal, rather than factual references.
Bill Darte

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Clayton Lambert [mailto:Clay at exodus.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 4:48 PM
> To: 'Bill Darte'; 'Alec H. Peterson'; vwp at arin.net
> Subject: RE: Been quiet in here...
>
>
> it is more than a vague notion.  It is a fact...
>
> A small percentage of our Customers use the overwhelmingly
> largest amounts
> of address space.
>
> This policy should not scare web-hosters.  I think that
> webhosters should
> make the attempt to be efficient with their use of address
> space.  We have
> hammered our name-based hosting servers and we have not seen
> an appreciable
> drop in performance compared to the same servers running IP
> based hosting.
> If there is a valid reason for a service provider (any
> service, not just
> webhosters) to use IP-based hosting, I think it is not
> unreasonable to have
> them provide documentation to support that requirement.
> Accountability
> isn't something that is necessarily bad.
>
> -Clayton Lambert
> Exodus Communications
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of Bill
> Darte
> Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 1:24 PM
> To: 'Alec H. Peterson'; vwp at arin.net
> Subject: RE: Been quiet in here...
>
>
> I have seen no evidence that there is a problem. No scope, no
> magnitude, no
> trends, just a vague notion that it is wasting "lots" of addresses.
> Bill Darte
> AC
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Alec H. Peterson [mailto:ahp at hilander.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 2:54 PM
> > To: vwp at arin.net
> > Subject: Been quiet in here...
> >
> >
> > Are there any more thoughts on what we should do with the
> > so-called 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!"
> >
>
>




From lgilbert at rawhideinc.com  Thu Jan  4 12:58:45 2001
From: lgilbert at rawhideinc.com (Leo Gilbert)
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 12:58:45 -0500
Subject: ARIN Justified...
Message-ID: <9B6F2B6780A5A2409DA1F12DC363F01802A725@EXCHANGE02.rawhideinc.com>

We need to get the search engines to support HTTP/1.1 and named based
virtual servers. If this happens a big portion of our space problem can
be solved. 

-----Original Message-----
From: Jeffrey L Price [mailto:jeff at alexandriainternet.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 12:43 PM
To: Scott Rogers; 'Bill Cartwright'
Cc: Adam Douglass; vwp at arin.net
Subject: Re: ARIN Justified...


I have seen the term "lots" or "many", what I would like to know is
which search engines use IP address instead of URL?  Specifically by
name.
 
-jeff

----- Original Message ----- 
From: Scott  <mailto:SRogers at Affinity.com> Rogers 
To: 'Bill Cartwright' <mailto:bill at hergoods.com>  ; Scott
<mailto:SRogers at Affinity.com> Rogers 
Cc: Adam  <mailto:ADouglass at Affinity.com> Douglass ; 'vwp at arin.net'
<mailto:'vwp at arin.net'>  
Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 11:18 AM
Subject: RE: ARIN Justified...

Because if you don't, you will use up all the available IP addresses.
 
It's like tree's in a forest.  They are cheap.  But if you cut them ALL
down, then what do you do for wood ?
 
The problem is:
1.    We want lots of web sites.
2.    We need IP addresses.
3.    There are only so many IP addresses to go around.
So,
4.    How can I have lots of Web sites, without using up all the IP
addresses.
 
Big guys (GE, IBM, CISCO, EBAY, etc) can afford $1,000 or $2,000 per IP,
which is what they could cost if we exhaust them (and have only a small
pool left).
Can you afford that much money to start a web site?  
The law of supply and demand will eventually rule.

-----Original Message-----
From: Bill Cartwright [mailto:bill at hergoods.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 10:27 AM
To: Scott Rogers
Subject: Re: ARIN Justified...


Why bother with name based hosting with all the issues against it. If
name based hosting prevents you from getting on a search engine, why do
it.
Bill Cartwright
----- Original Message ----- 

From: Scott  <mailto:SRogers at Affinity.com> Rogers 
To: 'Joe  <mailto:decosta at bayconnect.com> DeCosta' ; 'vwp at arin.net'
<mailto:'vwp at arin.net'>  
Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 8:53 AM
Subject: ARIN Justified...

I'm the network engineer for a large dedicated server/colocation
facility
and I agree that  IP addresses and their maintenance is a large pain in
the
ass.  We have a little over 1/2 a clacc B equivelent and are still
growing.

I have been trying to push customers to use "Name Based" virtual
hosting,
and keep making the sales guys have customers justify needing more than
32 addresses.  We charge $1 per address per month, so it's an important
revenue stream.

As a "network engineer", it's also important to know that IP addresses
are a "fixed" resource.  When they are gone, that's it.  Yes, I know
that IPV6 will cure our problems.  Well they have been working on it
for over 8 years and we don't seem realistically very close to it.

People will hoard (hey anybody want to buy 48 pre CIDR class C addresse)
networks and address and then try to make a killing in the parket.  I
remember several years ago people offering to sell their class B
addresses
that they had from old APRANET days for tens and hundreds of thousands
of dollars.

My point is, that the revenue stream is usless is you can't get more
addresses later.  We have to push back at our customers for REAL 
justifications,  and my providers and ARIN have to push back to me
me for the same.  ARIN, RIPE, et. al. then have to justify to the IANA
(or whatever) for allocations as well.

Market pricing won't give us the conservation we need.

WHat will help is to eliminate the need for REAL IP so people can use
NAME based servers.

Issues;
* All browsers have to support HTTP/1.1 and name based browsing.
Mostly done now  AOL and COMPUSERVE were the biggest offenders.

* SSL Certificates may not always work with NAME based due to
reverse IP not matching the certificates.

* The biggest issue (to my customers), the SEARCH ENGINES need to
support HTTP/1.1 and name based virtual servers.  Most do not.
We, as a community, need to push the search engines into building
in support.  If we do this, we will solve a significant
portion of the problem.  The SSL requirements I feel are probably
not a siginficant portion of the problem

Just my 2 cents.
-- 
Scott W. Rogers  < SRogers at affinity.com <mailto:SRogers at affinity.com> >
+1-410-558-2750   (Fax:
+1410-563-5457)
Network/Systems/Security Engineer -- SkyNetWEB, Ltd.  An Affinity
Company
3500 Boston St. #231  --  Baltimore, Maryland 21224



-----Original Message-----
From: Joe DeCosta [mailto:decosta at bayconnect.com]
Sent: Wed

nesday, January 03, 2001 6:26 PM
To: Jawaid.Bazyar at forethought.net <mailto:Jawaid.Bazyar at forethought.net>

Cc: Clayton Lambert; 'Alec H. Peterson'; vwp at arin.net
<mailto:vwp at arin.net> 
Subject: Re: Been quiet in here...


now, how about this, raise the pricing, and then donate the profit to
some
NPO, or some such thing, i just *HATE* having to update the damned IP
usage
spreadsheet and sending it to our uplink who owns the class C we have.
its
a pain in the ass, ever time we move stuff around on our network.......
It
costs too much time to do it that way.  If the IP's are on a free
market,
then why must we also then justify them?


----- Original Message -----
From: < Jawaid.Bazyar at forethought.net
<mailto:Jawaid.Bazyar at forethought.net> >
To: "Joe DeCosta" < decosta at bayconnect.com
<mailto:decosta at bayconnect.com> >
Cc: "Clayton Lambert" < Clay at exodus.net <mailto:Clay at exodus.net> >;
"'Alec H. Peterson'"
< ahp at hilander.com <mailto:ahp at hilander.com> >; < vwp at arin.net
<mailto:vwp at arin.net> >
Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 3:12 PM
Subject: Re: Been quiet in here...


>
> That's because in the lack of a "free market" for IP addresses, the
> pricing was set arbitrarily - to cover the expenses of operating ARIN.
>
> That's not to say that that is bad, or without reasoning. It's just
that
> if you're going to disassociate the pricing from the costs necessary
to
> administer ARIN, instead of raising the price to discourage waste, you
> should let people buy and sell blocks on an open market. Free markets
are
> very sensitive to the scarcity of resources via the price mechanism.
>
> That's not saying I think IPs are particularly scarce. I've made the
> argument before that it seems that CIDR is more about saving face for
> Cisco's underpowered heaps than conserving IP space.
>
> However, the current IP allocation system works fairly well, and in
that
> system the best approach is to tell people to stop provisioning web
sites
> in a wasteful manner that was only every necessitated by flaws in the
> original technology.
>
> Besides, it's WAY easier to provision IP-less web sites. :)
>
>
>
> On Wed, 3 Jan 2001, Joe DeCosta wrote:
>
> > This modification i agree with, my only objection is that why should
people
> > have to justify the usage of their netblock, why not just up the
costs
to
> > encourage them to use as few IP's as possible.  It would seem to be
more
> > effective.  Just my thoughts.
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Clayton Lambert" < Clay at exodus.net <mailto:Clay at exodus.net> >
> > To: "'Alec H. Peterson'" < ahp at hilander.com
<mailto:ahp at hilander.com> >; < vwp at arin.net <mailto:vwp at arin.net> >
> > Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 2:40 PM
> > Subject: RE: Been quiet in here...
> >
> >
> > > We should re-institute the policy with modifications to the text
for
> > > clarity.  Service providing should be the catch word instead of
> > web-hosting.
> > >
> > > There should be clear reference to technical exceptions to the
policy
> > (this
> > > should NOT be in the form of specific exceptions, as technical
reasons
for
> > > exception to the policy can easily step beyond the ability of a
"list",
> > > hence the reason for maintainer discretion), only technical
exceptions
> > > should be allowed (as opposed to policy exceptions). The entity
assigned
> > the
> > > overall netblock should have discretion for determining the
exceptions
to
> > > the policy and should maintain the documentation for the
exception,
and
> > make
> > > the info available to ARIN on in audit-style format (NDA should be
> > manditory
> > > between the Netblock maintainer and ARIN).
> > >
> > > Clay
> > > Exodus Communications
> > >
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: owner-vwp at arin.net <mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net>
[mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of Alec
H.
> > > Peterson
> > > Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 12:54 PM
> > > To: vwp at arin.net <mailto:vwp at arin.net> 
> > > Subject: Been quiet in here...
> > >
> > >
> > > Are there any more thoughts on what we should do with the
so-called
> > virtual
> > > hosting policy?
> > >
> > > Alec
> > >
> > > --
> > > Alec H. Peterson - ahp at hilander.com <mailto:ahp at hilander.com> 
> > > Staff Scientist
> > > CenterGate Research Group - http://www.centergate.com
<http://www.centergate.com> 
> > > "Technology so advanced, even _we_ don't understand it!"
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
> --
>  Jawaid Bazyar                 |   Affordable WWW & Internet Solutions
>  foreThought.net               |   for Small Business
>  jawaid.bazyar at foreThought.net <mailto:jawaid.bazyar at foreThought.net>
|   910 16th Street, #1220  (303) 228-0070
>  --The Future is Now!--        |   Denver, CO 80202        (303)
228-0077
fax
>



From SRogers at Affinity.com  Thu Jan  4 14:01:07 2001
From: SRogers at Affinity.com (Scott Rogers)
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 11:01:07 -0800 
Subject: ARIN Justified...
Message-ID: <23AE217BF800D411B12500D0B73CF36E5B9F6B@exchange.affinityla.com>

Yahoo, Lycos, GO, ...

-----Original Message-----
From: Jeffrey L Price [mailto:jeff at alexandriainternet.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 12:43 PM
To: Scott Rogers; 'Bill Cartwright'
Cc: Adam Douglass; vwp at arin.net
Subject: Re: ARIN Justified...


I have seen the term "lots" or "many", what I would like to know is which
search engines use IP address instead of URL?  Specifically by name.
 
-jeff

----- Original Message ----- 
From: Scott  <mailto:SRogers at Affinity.com> Rogers 
To: 'Bill Cartwright' <mailto:bill at hergoods.com>  ; Scott
<mailto:SRogers at Affinity.com> Rogers 
Cc: Adam  <mailto:ADouglass at Affinity.com> Douglass ; 'vwp at arin.net'
<mailto:'vwp at arin.net'>  
Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 11:18 AM
Subject: RE: ARIN Justified...

Because if you don't, you will use up all the available IP addresses.
 
It's like tree's in a forest.  They are cheap.  But if you cut them ALL
down, then what do you do for wood ?
 
The problem is:
1.    We want lots of web sites.
2.    We need IP addresses.
3.    There are only so many IP addresses to go around.
So,
4.    How can I have lots of Web sites, without using up all the IP
addresses.
 
Big guys (GE, IBM, CISCO, EBAY, etc) can afford $1,000 or $2,000 per IP,
which is what they could cost if we exhaust them (and have only a small pool
left).
Can you afford that much money to start a web site?  
The law of supply and demand will eventually rule.

-----Original Message-----
From: Bill Cartwright [mailto:bill at hergoods.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 10:27 AM
To: Scott Rogers
Subject: Re: ARIN Justified...


Why bother with name based hosting with all the issues against it. If name
based hosting prevents you from getting on a search engine, why do it.
Bill Cartwright
----- Original Message ----- 

From: Scott  <mailto:SRogers at Affinity.com> Rogers 
To: 'Joe  <mailto:decosta at bayconnect.com> DeCosta' ; 'vwp at arin.net'
<mailto:'vwp at arin.net'>  
Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 8:53 AM
Subject: ARIN Justified...

I'm the network engineer for a large dedicated server/colocation facility
and I agree that  IP addresses and their maintenance is a large pain in the
ass.  We have a little over 1/2 a clacc B equivelent and are still growing.

I have been trying to push customers to use "Name Based" virtual hosting,
and keep making the sales guys have customers justify needing more than
32 addresses.  We charge $1 per address per month, so it's an important
revenue stream.

As a "network engineer", it's also important to know that IP addresses
are a "fixed" resource.  When they are gone, that's it.  Yes, I know
that IPV6 will cure our problems.  Well they have been working on it
for over 8 years and we don't seem realistically very close to it.

People will hoard (hey anybody want to buy 48 pre CIDR class C addresse)
networks and address and then try to make a killing in the parket.  I
remember several years ago people offering to sell their class B addresses
that they had from old APRANET days for tens and hundreds of thousands
of dollars.

My point is, that the revenue stream is usless is you can't get more
addresses later.  We have to push back at our customers for REAL 
justifications,  and my providers and ARIN have to push back to me
me for the same.  ARIN, RIPE, et. al. then have to justify to the IANA
(or whatever) for allocations as well.

Market pricing won't give us the conservation we need.

WHat will help is to eliminate the need for REAL IP so people can use
NAME based servers.

Issues;
* All browsers have to support HTTP/1.1 and name based browsing.
Mostly done now  AOL and COMPUSERVE were the biggest offenders.

* SSL Certificates may not always work with NAME based due to
reverse IP not matching the certificates.

* The biggest issue (to my customers), the SEARCH ENGINES need to
support HTTP/1.1 and name based virtual servers.  Most do not.
We, as a community, need to push the search engines into building
in support.  If we do this, we will solve a significant
portion of the problem.  The SSL requirements I feel are probably
not a siginficant portion of the problem

Just my 2 cents.
-- 
Scott W. Rogers  < SRogers at affinity.com <mailto:SRogers at affinity.com> >
+1-410-558-2750   (Fax:
+1410-563-5457)
Network/Systems/Security Engineer -- SkyNetWEB, Ltd.  An Affinity Company
3500 Boston St. #231  --  Baltimore, Maryland 21224



-----Original Message-----
From: Joe DeCosta [mailto:decosta at bayconnect.com]
Sent: Wed

nesday, January 03, 2001 6:26 PM
To: Jawaid.Bazyar at forethought.net <mailto:Jawaid.Bazyar at forethought.net> 
Cc: Clayton Lambert; 'Alec H. Peterson'; vwp at arin.net <mailto:vwp at arin.net> 
Subject: Re: Been quiet in here...


now, how about this, raise the pricing, and then donate the profit to some
NPO, or some such thing, i just *HATE* having to update the damned IP usage
spreadsheet and sending it to our uplink who owns the class C we have.  its
a pain in the ass, ever time we move stuff around on our network....... It
costs too much time to do it that way.  If the IP's are on a free market,
then why must we also then justify them?


----- Original Message -----
From: < Jawaid.Bazyar at forethought.net <mailto:Jawaid.Bazyar at forethought.net>
>
To: "Joe DeCosta" < decosta at bayconnect.com <mailto:decosta at bayconnect.com> >
Cc: "Clayton Lambert" < Clay at exodus.net <mailto:Clay at exodus.net> >; "'Alec
H. Peterson'"
< ahp at hilander.com <mailto:ahp at hilander.com> >; < vwp at arin.net
<mailto:vwp at arin.net> >
Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 3:12 PM
Subject: Re: Been quiet in here...


>
> That's because in the lack of a "free market" for IP addresses, the
> pricing was set arbitrarily - to cover the expenses of operating ARIN.
>
> That's not to say that that is bad, or without reasoning. It's just that
> if you're going to disassociate the pricing from the costs necessary to
> administer ARIN, instead of raising the price to discourage waste, you
> should let people buy and sell blocks on an open market. Free markets are
> very sensitive to the scarcity of resources via the price mechanism.
>
> That's not saying I think IPs are particularly scarce. I've made the
> argument before that it seems that CIDR is more about saving face for
> Cisco's underpowered heaps than conserving IP space.
>
> However, the current IP allocation system works fairly well, and in that
> system the best approach is to tell people to stop provisioning web sites
> in a wasteful manner that was only every necessitated by flaws in the
> original technology.
>
> Besides, it's WAY easier to provision IP-less web sites. :)
>
>
>
> On Wed, 3 Jan 2001, Joe DeCosta wrote:
>
> > This modification i agree with, my only objection is that why should
people
> > have to justify the usage of their netblock, why not just up the costs
to
> > encourage them to use as few IP's as possible.  It would seem to be more
> > effective.  Just my thoughts.
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Clayton Lambert" < Clay at exodus.net <mailto:Clay at exodus.net> >
> > To: "'Alec H. Peterson'" < ahp at hilander.com <mailto:ahp at hilander.com> >;
< vwp at arin.net <mailto:vwp at arin.net> >
> > Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 2:40 PM
> > Subject: RE: Been quiet in here...
> >
> >
> > > We should re-institute the policy with modifications to the text for
> > > clarity.  Service providing should be the catch word instead of
> > web-hosting.
> > >
> > > There should be clear reference to technical exceptions to the policy
> > (this
> > > should NOT be in the form of specific exceptions, as technical reasons
for
> > > exception to the policy can easily step beyond the ability of a
"list",
> > > hence the reason for maintainer discretion), only technical exceptions
> > > should be allowed (as opposed to policy exceptions). The entity
assigned
> > the
> > > overall netblock should have discretion for determining the exceptions
to
> > > the policy and should maintain the documentation for the exception,
and
> > make
> > > the info available to ARIN on in audit-style format (NDA should be
> > manditory
> > > between the Netblock maintainer and ARIN).
> > >
> > > Clay
> > > Exodus Communications
> > >
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: owner-vwp at arin.net <mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net>
[mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of Alec
H.
> > > Peterson
> > > Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 12:54 PM
> > > To: vwp at arin.net <mailto:vwp at arin.net> 
> > > Subject: Been quiet in here...
> > >
> > >
> > > Are there any more thoughts on what we should do with the so-called
> > virtual
> > > hosting policy?
> > >
> > > Alec
> > >
> > > --
> > > Alec H. Peterson - ahp at hilander.com <mailto:ahp at hilander.com> 
> > > Staff Scientist
> > > CenterGate Research Group - http://www.centergate.com
<http://www.centergate.com> 
> > > "Technology so advanced, even _we_ don't understand it!"
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
> --
>  Jawaid Bazyar                 |   Affordable WWW & Internet Solutions
>  foreThought.net               |   for Small Business
>  jawaid.bazyar at foreThought.net <mailto:jawaid.bazyar at foreThought.net>  |
910 16th Street, #1220  (303) 228-0070
>  --The Future is Now!--        |   Denver, CO 80202        (303) 228-0077
fax
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/vwp/attachments/20010104/8c9e2cf4/attachment.html>

From billd at cait.wustl.edu  Thu Jan  4 14:40:54 2001
From: billd at cait.wustl.edu (Bill Darte)
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 13:40:54 -0600 
Subject: Need for numbers related to Hosting
Message-ID: <F0A77279DB36D111A6EC00A024DEE7AF3338D6@kronos.wustl.edu>

The point was not to nit pick your verbage, but to express my concern for
recommending policy to the BoT based upon analysis devoid of fact which
fairly represents the problem and the urgency of remedy.  We can look at the
overall depletion of the v4 address space and speculate on its demise and
consequences.  I have seen absolutely no numbers associated with this
problem that suggests a magnitude and trend.
Bill Darte

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Clayton Lambert [mailto:Clay at exodus.net]
> Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 11:45 AM
> To: 'Bill Darte'; vwp at arin.net
> Subject: RE: Been quiet in here...
> 
> 
> I was generalizing, not being vague.  It is an interesting point that
> relates to this discussion.  I don't think the comment 
> warrented an overly
> deep analysis.  I am not at liberty to disclose the detailed 
> demographics of
> our Customers, but the trend is clear (for me, as the 
> maintainer within my
> company) that webhosting companies do indeed consume the 
> lions share of IP
> address space while operating a relatively small percentage 
> of the physical
> devices that we support.
> 
> -Clay
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of Bill
> Darte
> Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 7:00 AM
> To: 'Clayton Lambert'; vwp at arin.net
> Subject: RE: Been quiet in here...
> 
> 
> Not to be contentious, but "a small percentage of our customer use the
> overwhelmingly largeset amount of address space" IS very vague.
> I'm all for conservation, I am willing to support policy that enforces
> conservation when need exists, but I am unwilling to support 
> policy that is
> based upon these anecdotal, rather than factual references.
> Bill Darte
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Clayton Lambert [mailto:Clay at exodus.net]
> > Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 4:48 PM
> > To: 'Bill Darte'; 'Alec H. Peterson'; vwp at arin.net
> > Subject: RE: Been quiet in here...
> >
> >
> > it is more than a vague notion.  It is a fact...
> >
> > A small percentage of our Customers use the overwhelmingly
> > largest amounts
> > of address space.
> >
> > This policy should not scare web-hosters.  I think that
> > webhosters should
> > make the attempt to be efficient with their use of address
> > space.  We have
> > hammered our name-based hosting servers and we have not seen
> > an appreciable
> > drop in performance compared to the same servers running IP
> > based hosting.
> > If there is a valid reason for a service provider (any
> > service, not just
> > webhosters) to use IP-based hosting, I think it is not
> > unreasonable to have
> > them provide documentation to support that requirement.
> > Accountability
> > isn't something that is necessarily bad.
> >
> > -Clayton Lambert
> > Exodus Communications
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On 
> Behalf Of Bill
> > Darte
> > Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 1:24 PM
> > To: 'Alec H. Peterson'; vwp at arin.net
> > Subject: RE: Been quiet in here...
> >
> >
> > I have seen no evidence that there is a problem. No scope, no
> > magnitude, no
> > trends, just a vague notion that it is wasting "lots" of addresses.
> > Bill Darte
> > AC
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Alec H. Peterson [mailto:ahp at hilander.com]
> > > Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 2:54 PM
> > > To: vwp at arin.net
> > > Subject: Been quiet in here...
> > >
> > >
> > > Are there any more thoughts on what we should do with the
> > > so-called 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!"
> > >
> >
> >
> 
> 


From Clay at exodus.net  Thu Jan  4 14:51:16 2001
From: Clay at exodus.net (Clayton Lambert)
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 11:51:16 -0800
Subject: Need for numbers related to Hosting
In-Reply-To: <F0A77279DB36D111A6EC00A024DEE7AF3338D6@kronos.wustl.edu>
Message-ID: <200101041951.LAA17010@exoserv.exodus.net>

Lack of published data does not preclude a real problem or potential
problem.

To require documented technical explanations from service providers is
primarily an issue of accountability and good practice.  If a service
provider has a need for address space, it should not have a problem with
providing a documented need for that request.  That brings up the issue of
what a 'need' is...The way I see it, a need for IP addresses is founded in
the technical requirement of the particular solution that is being
constructed.  This seems like common sense to me.  If a service provider
'needs' address space, then they should justify that need by virtue of a
physical amount of devices and a technically supported explanation of any
additional IP needs beyond the physical requirement.  Why is this so hard?
Service providers that don't want this policy seem to think that they should
be granted as many IP addresses as they wish to have, without regard or
concern for the actual need they have, nor do they apparently desire to have
any level of accountability levied towards them.

This is not that difficult...If the need is there, they should be given the
IP space.



-Clay

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of Bill
Darte
Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 11:41 AM
To: vwp at arin.net
Subject: Need for numbers related to Hosting


The point was not to nit pick your verbage, but to express my concern for
recommending policy to the BoT based upon analysis devoid of fact which
fairly represents the problem and the urgency of remedy.  We can look at the
overall depletion of the v4 address space and speculate on its demise and
consequences.  I have seen absolutely no numbers associated with this
problem that suggests a magnitude and trend.
Bill Darte

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Clayton Lambert [mailto:Clay at exodus.net]
> Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 11:45 AM
> To: 'Bill Darte'; vwp at arin.net
> Subject: RE: Been quiet in here...
>
>
> I was generalizing, not being vague.  It is an interesting point that
> relates to this discussion.  I don't think the comment
> warrented an overly
> deep analysis.  I am not at liberty to disclose the detailed
> demographics of
> our Customers, but the trend is clear (for me, as the
> maintainer within my
> company) that webhosting companies do indeed consume the
> lions share of IP
> address space while operating a relatively small percentage
> of the physical
> devices that we support.
>
> -Clay
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of Bill
> Darte
> Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 7:00 AM
> To: 'Clayton Lambert'; vwp at arin.net
> Subject: RE: Been quiet in here...
>
>
> Not to be contentious, but "a small percentage of our customer use the
> overwhelmingly largeset amount of address space" IS very vague.
> I'm all for conservation, I am willing to support policy that enforces
> conservation when need exists, but I am unwilling to support
> policy that is
> based upon these anecdotal, rather than factual references.
> Bill Darte
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Clayton Lambert [mailto:Clay at exodus.net]
> > Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 4:48 PM
> > To: 'Bill Darte'; 'Alec H. Peterson'; vwp at arin.net
> > Subject: RE: Been quiet in here...
> >
> >
> > it is more than a vague notion.  It is a fact...
> >
> > A small percentage of our Customers use the overwhelmingly
> > largest amounts
> > of address space.
> >
> > This policy should not scare web-hosters.  I think that
> > webhosters should
> > make the attempt to be efficient with their use of address
> > space.  We have
> > hammered our name-based hosting servers and we have not seen
> > an appreciable
> > drop in performance compared to the same servers running IP
> > based hosting.
> > If there is a valid reason for a service provider (any
> > service, not just
> > webhosters) to use IP-based hosting, I think it is not
> > unreasonable to have
> > them provide documentation to support that requirement.
> > Accountability
> > isn't something that is necessarily bad.
> >
> > -Clayton Lambert
> > Exodus Communications
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On
> Behalf Of Bill
> > Darte
> > Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 1:24 PM
> > To: 'Alec H. Peterson'; vwp at arin.net
> > Subject: RE: Been quiet in here...
> >
> >
> > I have seen no evidence that there is a problem. No scope, no
> > magnitude, no
> > trends, just a vague notion that it is wasting "lots" of addresses.
> > Bill Darte
> > AC
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Alec H. Peterson [mailto:ahp at hilander.com]
> > > Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 2:54 PM
> > > To: vwp at arin.net
> > > Subject: Been quiet in here...
> > >
> > >
> > > Are there any more thoughts on what we should do with the
> > > so-called 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!"
> > >
> >
> >
>
>




From lgilbert at rawhideinc.com  Thu Jan  4 15:02:33 2001
From: lgilbert at rawhideinc.com (Leo Gilbert)
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 15:02:33 -0500
Subject: Need for numbers related to Hosting
Message-ID: <9B6F2B6780A5A2409DA1F12DC363F01802A726@EXCHANGE02.rawhideinc.com>

Very true, As long as the need is justified they should be given the ip
address space. This still does not solve the space issue.

-----Original Message-----
From: Clayton Lambert [mailto:Clay at exodus.net]
Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 2:51 PM
To: 'Bill Darte'; vwp at arin.net
Subject: RE: Need for numbers related to Hosting


Lack of published data does not preclude a real problem or potential
problem.

To require documented technical explanations from service providers is
primarily an issue of accountability and good practice.  If a service
provider has a need for address space, it should not have a problem with
providing a documented need for that request.  That brings up the issue
of
what a 'need' is...The way I see it, a need for IP addresses is founded
in
the technical requirement of the particular solution that is being
constructed.  This seems like common sense to me.  If a service provider
'needs' address space, then they should justify that need by virtue of a
physical amount of devices and a technically supported explanation of
any
additional IP needs beyond the physical requirement.  Why is this so
hard?
Service providers that don't want this policy seem to think that they
should
be granted as many IP addresses as they wish to have, without regard or
concern for the actual need they have, nor do they apparently desire to
have
any level of accountability levied towards them.

This is not that difficult...If the need is there, they should be given
the
IP space.



-Clay

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of Bill
Darte
Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 11:41 AM
To: vwp at arin.net
Subject: Need for numbers related to Hosting


The point was not to nit pick your verbage, but to express my concern
for
recommending policy to the BoT based upon analysis devoid of fact which
fairly represents the problem and the urgency of remedy.  We can look at
the
overall depletion of the v4 address space and speculate on its demise
and
consequences.  I have seen absolutely no numbers associated with this
problem that suggests a magnitude and trend.
Bill Darte

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Clayton Lambert [mailto:Clay at exodus.net]
> Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 11:45 AM
> To: 'Bill Darte'; vwp at arin.net
> Subject: RE: Been quiet in here...
>
>
> I was generalizing, not being vague.  It is an interesting point that
> relates to this discussion.  I don't think the comment
> warrented an overly
> deep analysis.  I am not at liberty to disclose the detailed
> demographics of
> our Customers, but the trend is clear (for me, as the
> maintainer within my
> company) that webhosting companies do indeed consume the
> lions share of IP
> address space while operating a relatively small percentage
> of the physical
> devices that we support.
>
> -Clay
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of Bill
> Darte
> Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 7:00 AM
> To: 'Clayton Lambert'; vwp at arin.net
> Subject: RE: Been quiet in here...
>
>
> Not to be contentious, but "a small percentage of our customer use the
> overwhelmingly largeset amount of address space" IS very vague.
> I'm all for conservation, I am willing to support policy that enforces
> conservation when need exists, but I am unwilling to support
> policy that is
> based upon these anecdotal, rather than factual references.
> Bill Darte
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Clayton Lambert [mailto:Clay at exodus.net]
> > Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 4:48 PM
> > To: 'Bill Darte'; 'Alec H. Peterson'; vwp at arin.net
> > Subject: RE: Been quiet in here...
> >
> >
> > it is more than a vague notion.  It is a fact...
> >
> > A small percentage of our Customers use the overwhelmingly
> > largest amounts
> > of address space.
> >
> > This policy should not scare web-hosters.  I think that
> > webhosters should
> > make the attempt to be efficient with their use of address
> > space.  We have
> > hammered our name-based hosting servers and we have not seen
> > an appreciable
> > drop in performance compared to the same servers running IP
> > based hosting.
> > If there is a valid reason for a service provider (any
> > service, not just
> > webhosters) to use IP-based hosting, I think it is not
> > unreasonable to have
> > them provide documentation to support that requirement.
> > Accountability
> > isn't something that is necessarily bad.
> >
> > -Clayton Lambert
> > Exodus Communications
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On
> Behalf Of Bill
> > Darte
> > Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 1:24 PM
> > To: 'Alec H. Peterson'; vwp at arin.net
> > Subject: RE: Been quiet in here...
> >
> >
> > I have seen no evidence that there is a problem. No scope, no
> > magnitude, no
> > trends, just a vague notion that it is wasting "lots" of addresses.
> > Bill Darte
> > AC
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Alec H. Peterson [mailto:ahp at hilander.com]
> > > Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 2:54 PM
> > > To: vwp at arin.net
> > > Subject: Been quiet in here...
> > >
> > >
> > > Are there any more thoughts on what we should do with the
> > > so-called 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!"
> > >
> >
> >
>
>




From stephen at hnt.com  Thu Jan  4 15:20:16 2001
From: stephen at hnt.com (Stephen Elliott)
Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2001 15:20:16 -0500
Subject: ARIN Justified...
Message-ID: <3A54DB00.C6C7850E@hnt.com>

	The big guys that you refer to are generally not in the web hosting
business and therefore are outside of the scope of this conversation. 
The real concern is the big guys like Exodus and UUNet.  Since IPv6 is
not a viable option for general consumption yet, we need to concentrate
on conserving the existing IPv4 space.  As far as search engines go, if
enough sites start using HTTP1.1 software virtual servers, they will be
forced to upgrade their spiders to support it.  I would suggest that one
of the main issues at hand is billing.  Billing for web hosting
companies that is.  Most companies bundle bandwidth with their hosting
packages, and current billing packages utilize destination IP address
information to gather this information.  If there is not a way to get
this information without drastic changes to both billing software and in
some cases hardware, there will be very strong opposition to any changes
in the way IP addresses are given out.
-Stephen
 
--
Stephen Elliott                 Harrison & Troxell
Systems & Networking Manager    2 Faneuil Hall Marketplace
Systems & Networking Group      Boston, Ma 02109
(617)227-0494 Phone             (617)720-3918 Fax


From jmacknik at inflow.com  Thu Jan  4 15:17:58 2001
From: jmacknik at inflow.com (Jim Macknik)
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 13:17:58 -0700 
Subject: Need for numbers related to Hosting
Message-ID: <D71AE516100FD411BC5A00508B62C411025B0181@polo.admin.den.inflow.com>

I agree; but what are the standards for "justified" space? It seems to me
that this is the issue discussed here over the past couple of months. It
seems there is some disagreement about what is justified, and what is not.
What recourse is available for those hit by the "CyberMommy" issue (where
applications filter out entire providers due to offending content available
on just one virtual host)? What utilizations of SSL are justified uses of
one-to-one IP use? How are audits performed, who performs them, and what are
the consequences of a failed audit?

=- Mack -=

_________________________________________________

James M. Macknik
Manager, Systems Engineering
8025A N. IH-35
Austin, TX  78753
512/531.5430 (Office)
512/789.5806 (Cell)
jmacknik at inflow.com
www.inflow.com




-----Original Message-----
From: Leo Gilbert [mailto:lgilbert at rawhideinc.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 2:03 PM
To: Clayton Lambert; Bill Darte; vwp at arin.net
Subject: RE: Need for numbers related to Hosting


Very true, As long as the need is justified they should be given the ip
address space. This still does not solve the space issue.

-----Original Message-----
From: Clayton Lambert [mailto:Clay at exodus.net]
Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 2:51 PM
To: 'Bill Darte'; vwp at arin.net
Subject: RE: Need for numbers related to Hosting


Lack of published data does not preclude a real problem or potential
problem.

To require documented technical explanations from service providers is
primarily an issue of accountability and good practice.  If a service
provider has a need for address space, it should not have a problem with
providing a documented need for that request.  That brings up the issue
of
what a 'need' is...The way I see it, a need for IP addresses is founded
in
the technical requirement of the particular solution that is being
constructed.  This seems like common sense to me.  If a service provider
'needs' address space, then they should justify that need by virtue of a
physical amount of devices and a technically supported explanation of
any
additional IP needs beyond the physical requirement.  Why is this so
hard?
Service providers that don't want this policy seem to think that they
should
be granted as many IP addresses as they wish to have, without regard or
concern for the actual need they have, nor do they apparently desire to
have
any level of accountability levied towards them.

This is not that difficult...If the need is there, they should be given
the
IP space.



-Clay

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of Bill
Darte
Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 11:41 AM
To: vwp at arin.net
Subject: Need for numbers related to Hosting


The point was not to nit pick your verbage, but to express my concern
for
recommending policy to the BoT based upon analysis devoid of fact which
fairly represents the problem and the urgency of remedy.  We can look at
the
overall depletion of the v4 address space and speculate on its demise
and
consequences.  I have seen absolutely no numbers associated with this
problem that suggests a magnitude and trend.
Bill Darte

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Clayton Lambert [mailto:Clay at exodus.net]
> Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 11:45 AM
> To: 'Bill Darte'; vwp at arin.net
> Subject: RE: Been quiet in here...
>
>
> I was generalizing, not being vague.  It is an interesting point that
> relates to this discussion.  I don't think the comment
> warrented an overly
> deep analysis.  I am not at liberty to disclose the detailed
> demographics of
> our Customers, but the trend is clear (for me, as the
> maintainer within my
> company) that webhosting companies do indeed consume the
> lions share of IP
> address space while operating a relatively small percentage
> of the physical
> devices that we support.
>
> -Clay
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of Bill
> Darte
> Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 7:00 AM
> To: 'Clayton Lambert'; vwp at arin.net
> Subject: RE: Been quiet in here...
>
>
> Not to be contentious, but "a small percentage of our customer use the
> overwhelmingly largeset amount of address space" IS very vague.
> I'm all for conservation, I am willing to support policy that enforces
> conservation when need exists, but I am unwilling to support
> policy that is
> based upon these anecdotal, rather than factual references.
> Bill Darte
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Clayton Lambert [mailto:Clay at exodus.net]
> > Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 4:48 PM
> > To: 'Bill Darte'; 'Alec H. Peterson'; vwp at arin.net
> > Subject: RE: Been quiet in here...
> >
> >
> > it is more than a vague notion.  It is a fact...
> >
> > A small percentage of our Customers use the overwhelmingly
> > largest amounts
> > of address space.
> >
> > This policy should not scare web-hosters.  I think that
> > webhosters should
> > make the attempt to be efficient with their use of address
> > space.  We have
> > hammered our name-based hosting servers and we have not seen
> > an appreciable
> > drop in performance compared to the same servers running IP
> > based hosting.
> > If there is a valid reason for a service provider (any
> > service, not just
> > webhosters) to use IP-based hosting, I think it is not
> > unreasonable to have
> > them provide documentation to support that requirement.
> > Accountability
> > isn't something that is necessarily bad.
> >
> > -Clayton Lambert
> > Exodus Communications
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On
> Behalf Of Bill
> > Darte
> > Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 1:24 PM
> > To: 'Alec H. Peterson'; vwp at arin.net
> > Subject: RE: Been quiet in here...
> >
> >
> > I have seen no evidence that there is a problem. No scope, no
> > magnitude, no
> > trends, just a vague notion that it is wasting "lots" of addresses.
> > Bill Darte
> > AC
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Alec H. Peterson [mailto:ahp at hilander.com]
> > > Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 2:54 PM
> > > To: vwp at arin.net
> > > Subject: Been quiet in here...
> > >
> > >
> > > Are there any more thoughts on what we should do with the
> > > so-called 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!"
> > >
> >
> >
>
>



From SRogers at Affinity.com  Thu Jan  4 15:31:24 2001
From: SRogers at Affinity.com (Scott Rogers)
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 12:31:24 -0800 
Subject: Need for numbers related to Hosting
Message-ID: <23AE217BF800D411B12500D0B73CF36E5B9F6F@exchange.affinityla.com>

I have a customer comming in that is transferring 3,000
web site, so I have a need for 3,000 IP addresses right!

The customer is not using SSL, is not using IP based accounting,
and does not depend upon search engines for anywhere from 30%
to 60% of the sites...

So, do I really need 3,000 IP addresses?
* Sales says yes, they want $3,000 per month in revenue ($1 per IP per
month_
* Customer says yes, it's too hard to configure name based hosting.
* The network dude (me) says:
	- Learn how, and educate the customer on name based hosting.
	- educate the sales team
	- the technocrat (me) wins they get what they need, not what they
want.

-----Original Message-----
From: Leo Gilbert [mailto:lgilbert at rawhideinc.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 3:03 PM
To: Clayton Lambert; Bill Darte; vwp at arin.net
Subject: RE: Need for numbers related to Hosting


Very true, As long as the need is justified they should be given the ip
address space. This still does not solve the space issue.

-----Original Message-----
From: Clayton Lambert [mailto:Clay at exodus.net]
Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 2:51 PM
To: 'Bill Darte'; vwp at arin.net
Subject: RE: Need for numbers related to Hosting


Lack of published data does not preclude a real problem or potential
problem.

To require documented technical explanations from service providers is
primarily an issue of accountability and good practice.  If a service
provider has a need for address space, it should not have a problem with
providing a documented need for that request.  That brings up the issue
of
what a 'need' is...The way I see it, a need for IP addresses is founded
in
the technical requirement of the particular solution that is being
constructed.  This seems like common sense to me.  If a service provider
'needs' address space, then they should justify that need by virtue of a
physical amount of devices and a technically supported explanation of
any
additional IP needs beyond the physical requirement.  Why is this so
hard?
Service providers that don't want this policy seem to think that they
should
be granted as many IP addresses as they wish to have, without regard or
concern for the actual need they have, nor do they apparently desire to
have
any level of accountability levied towards them.

This is not that difficult...If the need is there, they should be given
the
IP space.



-Clay

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of Bill
Darte
Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 11:41 AM
To: vwp at arin.net
Subject: Need for numbers related to Hosting


The point was not to nit pick your verbage, but to express my concern
for
recommending policy to the BoT based upon analysis devoid of fact which
fairly represents the problem and the urgency of remedy.  We can look at
the
overall depletion of the v4 address space and speculate on its demise
and
consequences.  I have seen absolutely no numbers associated with this
problem that suggests a magnitude and trend.
Bill Darte

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Clayton Lambert [mailto:Clay at exodus.net]
> Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 11:45 AM
> To: 'Bill Darte'; vwp at arin.net
> Subject: RE: Been quiet in here...
>
>
> I was generalizing, not being vague.  It is an interesting point that
> relates to this discussion.  I don't think the comment
> warrented an overly
> deep analysis.  I am not at liberty to disclose the detailed
> demographics of
> our Customers, but the trend is clear (for me, as the
> maintainer within my
> company) that webhosting companies do indeed consume the
> lions share of IP
> address space while operating a relatively small percentage
> of the physical
> devices that we support.
>
> -Clay
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of Bill
> Darte
> Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 7:00 AM
> To: 'Clayton Lambert'; vwp at arin.net
> Subject: RE: Been quiet in here...
>
>
> Not to be contentious, but "a small percentage of our customer use the
> overwhelmingly largeset amount of address space" IS very vague.
> I'm all for conservation, I am willing to support policy that enforces
> conservation when need exists, but I am unwilling to support
> policy that is
> based upon these anecdotal, rather than factual references.
> Bill Darte
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Clayton Lambert [mailto:Clay at exodus.net]
> > Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 4:48 PM
> > To: 'Bill Darte'; 'Alec H. Peterson'; vwp at arin.net
> > Subject: RE: Been quiet in here...
> >
> >
> > it is more than a vague notion.  It is a fact...
> >
> > A small percentage of our Customers use the overwhelmingly
> > largest amounts
> > of address space.
> >
> > This policy should not scare web-hosters.  I think that
> > webhosters should
> > make the attempt to be efficient with their use of address
> > space.  We have
> > hammered our name-based hosting servers and we have not seen
> > an appreciable
> > drop in performance compared to the same servers running IP
> > based hosting.
> > If there is a valid reason for a service provider (any
> > service, not just
> > webhosters) to use IP-based hosting, I think it is not
> > unreasonable to have
> > them provide documentation to support that requirement.
> > Accountability
> > isn't something that is necessarily bad.
> >
> > -Clayton Lambert
> > Exodus Communications
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On
> Behalf Of Bill
> > Darte
> > Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 1:24 PM
> > To: 'Alec H. Peterson'; vwp at arin.net
> > Subject: RE: Been quiet in here...
> >
> >
> > I have seen no evidence that there is a problem. No scope, no
> > magnitude, no
> > trends, just a vague notion that it is wasting "lots" of addresses.
> > Bill Darte
> > AC
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Alec H. Peterson [mailto:ahp at hilander.com]
> > > Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 2:54 PM
> > > To: vwp at arin.net
> > > Subject: Been quiet in here...
> > >
> > >
> > > Are there any more thoughts on what we should do with the
> > > so-called 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!"
> > >
> >
> >
>
>



From Clay at exodus.net  Thu Jan  4 15:39:39 2001
From: Clay at exodus.net (Clayton Lambert)
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 12:39:39 -0800
Subject: ARIN Justified...
In-Reply-To: <3A54DB00.C6C7850E@hnt.com>
Message-ID: <200101042040.MAA26892@exoserv.exodus.net>

Do you have ANY idea of what you are saying?  Sorry for appearing brash,
but...I run the IP maintenance organization at Exodus, and I would easily
stack our allocation policy up against anybody's.

You have no idea what you are talking about in regard to larger companies.
Exodus consumes a very modest amount of address space given our size and
presence on the Internet.  There are much smaller competitors of ours that
consume larger amounts of IP space.

Exodus is already pioneering the efficiency of use ideology that I would
like to see ARIN adopt (a strong HTTP1.1 stance on ARIN's part is a good
start).  We currently require extensive supporting documentation for IP
requests from all our Customers.  A Customer has to show a documented need
for their usage request and we file all these requests and refer to past
requests and detail as additional requests for address space occur.  This
method gives us a very clear and honest indication of IP address usage
growth. This allows us to support our Customers' IP addressing needs in a
very accurate and efficient way.  The end result is less consumption of IPv4
space across the board.

Clayton Lambert
Exodus Communications


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of Stephen
Elliott
Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 12:20 PM
To: Virtual IP List
Subject: RE: ARIN Justified...


	The big guys that you refer to are generally not in the web hosting
business and therefore are outside of the scope of this conversation.
The real concern is the big guys like Exodus and UUNet.  Since IPv6 is
not a viable option for general consumption yet, we need to concentrate
on conserving the existing IPv4 space.  As far as search engines go, if
enough sites start using HTTP1.1 software virtual servers, they will be
forced to upgrade their spiders to support it.  I would suggest that one
of the main issues at hand is billing.  Billing for web hosting
companies that is.  Most companies bundle bandwidth with their hosting
packages, and current billing packages utilize destination IP address
information to gather this information.  If there is not a way to get
this information without drastic changes to both billing software and in
some cases hardware, there will be very strong opposition to any changes
in the way IP addresses are given out.
-Stephen

--
Stephen Elliott                 Harrison & Troxell
Systems & Networking Manager    2 Faneuil Hall Marketplace
Systems & Networking Group      Boston, Ma 02109
(617)227-0494 Phone             (617)720-3918 Fax




From marks at paconline.net  Thu Jan  4 15:54:21 2001
From: marks at paconline.net (Mark Strother)
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 12:54:21 -0800
Subject: ARIN Justified...
In-Reply-To: <3A54DB00.C6C7850E@hnt.com>
Message-ID: <FAEIKCDGMHMGBDCDINHPEEJLDKAA.marks@paconline.net>

Stephen is right. For us the biggest issue is billing. We collect billing
data using NetFlow and export the data to our accounting and billing
software based on IP address.

It would take a lot of work/money to migrate from this system.

Mark Strother
President, Pacific Online
Phone: (604) 638-6010
Fax: (604) 638-6020
Toll Free: 1-877-503-9870

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of Stephen
> Elliott
> Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 12:20 PM
> To: Virtual IP List
> Subject: RE: ARIN Justified...
>
>
> 	The big guys that you refer to are generally not in the web hosting
> business and therefore are outside of the scope of this conversation.
> The real concern is the big guys like Exodus and UUNet.  Since IPv6 is
> not a viable option for general consumption yet, we need to concentrate
> on conserving the existing IPv4 space.  As far as search engines go, if
> enough sites start using HTTP1.1 software virtual servers, they will be
> forced to upgrade their spiders to support it.  I would suggest that one
> of the main issues at hand is billing.  Billing for web hosting
> companies that is.  Most companies bundle bandwidth with their hosting
> packages, and current billing packages utilize destination IP address
> information to gather this information.  If there is not a way to get
> this information without drastic changes to both billing software and in
> some cases hardware, there will be very strong opposition to any changes
> in the way IP addresses are given out.
> -Stephen
>
> --
> Stephen Elliott                 Harrison & Troxell
> Systems & Networking Manager    2 Faneuil Hall Marketplace
> Systems & Networking Group      Boston, Ma 02109
> (617)227-0494 Phone             (617)720-3918 Fax
>



From trh at thehathawaygroup.com  Thu Jan  4 16:08:40 2001
From: trh at thehathawaygroup.com (trh at thehathawaygroup.com)
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 16:08:40 -0500
Subject: ARIN Justified...
In-Reply-To: <11F6D2CB5478D411899400104B2FD78C043768@FILESERVER>
Message-ID: <11F6D2CB5478D411899400104B2FD78C172C@FILESERVER>

What will this do to web usage reporting software? Is software like
Webtrends going to be able to deal with IP-less web sites?

TRH

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of Mark
Strother
Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 3:54 PM
To: Virtual IP List
Subject: RE: ARIN Justified...


Stephen is right. For us the biggest issue is billing. We collect billing
data using NetFlow and export the data to our accounting and billing
software based on IP address.

It would take a lot of work/money to migrate from this system.

Mark Strother
President, Pacific Online
Phone: (604) 638-6010
Fax: (604) 638-6020
Toll Free: 1-877-503-9870

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of Stephen
> Elliott
> Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 12:20 PM
> To: Virtual IP List
> Subject: RE: ARIN Justified...
>
>
> 	The big guys that you refer to are generally not in the web hosting
> business and therefore are outside of the scope of this conversation.
> The real concern is the big guys like Exodus and UUNet.  Since IPv6 is
> not a viable option for general consumption yet, we need to concentrate
> on conserving the existing IPv4 space.  As far as search engines go, if
> enough sites start using HTTP1.1 software virtual servers, they will be
> forced to upgrade their spiders to support it.  I would suggest that one
> of the main issues at hand is billing.  Billing for web hosting
> companies that is.  Most companies bundle bandwidth with their hosting
> packages, and current billing packages utilize destination IP address
> information to gather this information.  If there is not a way to get
> this information without drastic changes to both billing software and in
> some cases hardware, there will be very strong opposition to any changes
> in the way IP addresses are given out.
> -Stephen
>
> --
> Stephen Elliott                 Harrison & Troxell
> Systems & Networking Manager    2 Faneuil Hall Marketplace
> Systems & Networking Group      Boston, Ma 02109
> (617)227-0494 Phone             (617)720-3918 Fax
>



From billd at cait.wustl.edu  Thu Jan  4 16:12:19 2001
From: billd at cait.wustl.edu (Bill Darte)
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 15:12:19 -0600 
Subject: Need for numbers related to Hosting
Message-ID: <F0A77279DB36D111A6EC00A024DEE7AF3338D9@kronos.wustl.edu>

Scott Rogers said:
> 
> I have a customer comming in that is transferring 3,000
> web site, so I have a need for 3,000 IP addresses right!
> 
> The customer is not using SSL, is not using IP based accounting,
> and does not depend upon search engines for anywhere from 30%
> to 60% of the sites...
> 
> So, do I really need 3,000 IP addresses?
> * Sales says yes, they want $3,000 per month in revenue ($1 per IP per
> month_
> * Customer says yes, it's too hard to configure name based hosting.
> * The network dude (me) says:
> 	- Learn how, and educate the customer on name based hosting.
> 	- educate the sales team
> 	- the technocrat (me) wins they get what they need, not 
> what they
> want.
> 
> 
That's great,now if I new that this demand arose 3 times per year for your
company and that the same was true for 4700 other ISPs and that that the
this demand was 50% greater this year than last, we would have some gauge of
the problem.  On the other hand if this was likely to be a problem that 300
ISPs faced 3 times and the adoption of HTTP 1.1 intersected in 18 months to
eliminate the requirement then, another gauge of the problem would be had
and the impacts would likely determine a differenct AC policy
recommendation.
Bill Darte


From bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com  Thu Jan  4 15:54:44 2001
From: bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com (bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com)
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 20:54:44 +0000 (UCT)
Subject: ARIN Justified...
In-Reply-To: <FAEIKCDGMHMGBDCDINHPEEJLDKAA.marks@paconline.net> from "Mark Strother" at Jan 04, 2001 12:54:21 PM
Message-ID: <200101042054.UAA05892@vacation.karoshi.com>

> 
> Stephen is right. For us the biggest issue is billing. We collect billing
> data using NetFlow and export the data to our accounting and billing
> software based on IP address.
> 
> It would take a lot of work/money to migrate from this system.
> 
> Mark Strother
> President, Pacific Online
> Phone: (604) 638-6010
> Fax: (604) 638-6020
> Toll Free: 1-877-503-9870

	So... you are depending on a vendor supplied system?
	When (not if) NetFlow changes and/or you migrate to 
	a vendor that does not support NetFlow, you expect
	your systems to continue to work?

--bill


From noc at potomacnet.com  Thu Jan  4 16:12:09 2001
From: noc at potomacnet.com (Potomac NOC)
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 16:12:09 -0500
Subject: Need for numbers related to Hosting
In-Reply-To: <F0A77279DB36D111A6EC00A024DEE7AF3338D9@kronos.wustl.edu>
Message-ID: <INECJKGEOBEKGDGIHKOMAEOFCCAA.noc@potomacnet.com>


the keyword is transfer.  for those of us transferring IP addresses, keep in
mind that the new allocation for the new provider frees up that many from
the old provider.  assuming, that is, that the old provider takes action to
free them up.

-bob

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of Bill
Darte
Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 4:12 PM
To: 'Scott Rogers'; vwp at arin.net
Subject: RE: Need for numbers related to Hosting


Scott Rogers said:
>
> I have a customer comming in that is transferring 3,000
> web site, so I have a need for 3,000 IP addresses right!
>
> The customer is not using SSL, is not using IP based accounting,
> and does not depend upon search engines for anywhere from 30%
> to 60% of the sites...
>
> So, do I really need 3,000 IP addresses?
> * Sales says yes, they want $3,000 per month in revenue ($1 per IP per
> month_
> * Customer says yes, it's too hard to configure name based hosting.
> * The network dude (me) says:
> 	- Learn how, and educate the customer on name based hosting.
> 	- educate the sales team
> 	- the technocrat (me) wins they get what they need, not
> what they
> want.
>
>
That's great,now if I new that this demand arose 3 times per year for your
company and that the same was true for 4700 other ISPs and that that the
this demand was 50% greater this year than last, we would have some gauge of
the problem.  On the other hand if this was likely to be a problem that 300
ISPs faced 3 times and the adoption of HTTP 1.1 intersected in 18 months to
eliminate the requirement then, another gauge of the problem would be had
and the impacts would likely determine a differenct AC policy
recommendation.
Bill Darte



From jeff at alexandriainternet.com  Thu Jan  4 16:12:24 2001
From: jeff at alexandriainternet.com (Jeffrey L Price)
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 16:12:24 -0500
Subject: ARIN Justified...
References: <11F6D2CB5478D411899400104B2FD78C172C@FILESERVER>
Message-ID: <04a001c07693$095947d0$a9e2d83f@alexandiainternet.com>

webtrends doesn't use the IPs.
-jeff
----- Original Message -----
From: <trh at thehathawaygroup.com>
To: "'Virtual IP List'" <vwp at arin.net>
Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 4:08 PM
Subject: RE: ARIN Justified...


> What will this do to web usage reporting software? Is software like
> Webtrends going to be able to deal with IP-less web sites?
>
> TRH
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of Mark
> Strother
> Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 3:54 PM
> To: Virtual IP List
> Subject: RE: ARIN Justified...
>
>
> Stephen is right. For us the biggest issue is billing. We collect billing
> data using NetFlow and export the data to our accounting and billing
> software based on IP address.
>
> It would take a lot of work/money to migrate from this system.
>
> Mark Strother
> President, Pacific Online
> Phone: (604) 638-6010
> Fax: (604) 638-6020
> Toll Free: 1-877-503-9870
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of Stephen
> > Elliott
> > Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 12:20 PM
> > To: Virtual IP List
> > Subject: RE: ARIN Justified...
> >
> >
> > The big guys that you refer to are generally not in the web hosting
> > business and therefore are outside of the scope of this conversation.
> > The real concern is the big guys like Exodus and UUNet.  Since IPv6 is
> > not a viable option for general consumption yet, we need to concentrate
> > on conserving the existing IPv4 space.  As far as search engines go, if
> > enough sites start using HTTP1.1 software virtual servers, they will be
> > forced to upgrade their spiders to support it.  I would suggest that one
> > of the main issues at hand is billing.  Billing for web hosting
> > companies that is.  Most companies bundle bandwidth with their hosting
> > packages, and current billing packages utilize destination IP address
> > information to gather this information.  If there is not a way to get
> > this information without drastic changes to both billing software and in
> > some cases hardware, there will be very strong opposition to any changes
> > in the way IP addresses are given out.
> > -Stephen
> >
> > --
> > Stephen Elliott                 Harrison & Troxell
> > Systems & Networking Manager    2 Faneuil Hall Marketplace
> > Systems & Networking Group      Boston, Ma 02109
> > (617)227-0494 Phone             (617)720-3918 Fax
> >
>



From simon at optinet.com  Thu Jan  4 16:23:07 2001
From: simon at optinet.com (Simon)
Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2001 16:23:07 -0500
Subject: ARIN Justified...
In-Reply-To: <FAEIKCDGMHMGBDCDINHPEEJLDKAA.marks@paconline.net>
Message-ID: <200101042119.QAA11992@rs1.arin.net>

For virtual hosting, you can parse access log files. For us, billing isn't the issue, but attacks, search engines, anonymous 
FTP, SSL, and few other things are. Our biggest concern is DoS. One can *easily* cause DoS for sites sharing the same 
IP and there is no fast/easy way of blocking the attack. It happened once, and it surely didn't look pretty. You can find 
my post in the archive regarding the attack.

-Simon

On Thu, 4 Jan 2001 12:54:21 -0800, Mark Strother wrote:

>Stephen is right. For us the biggest issue is billing. We collect billing
>data using NetFlow and export the data to our accounting and billing
>software based on IP address.
>
>It would take a lot of work/money to migrate from this system.
>
>Mark Strother
>President, Pacific Online
>Phone: (604) 638-6010
>Fax: (604) 638-6020
>Toll Free: 1-877-503-9870
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of Stephen
>> Elliott
>> Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 12:20 PM
>> To: Virtual IP List
>> Subject: RE: ARIN Justified...
>>
>>
>> 	The big guys that you refer to are generally not in the web hosting
>> business and therefore are outside of the scope of this conversation.
>> The real concern is the big guys like Exodus and UUNet.  Since IPv6 is
>> not a viable option for general consumption yet, we need to concentrate
>> on conserving the existing IPv4 space.  As far as search engines go, if
>> enough sites start using HTTP1.1 software virtual servers, they will be
>> forced to upgrade their spiders to support it.  I would suggest that one
>> of the main issues at hand is billing.  Billing for web hosting
>> companies that is.  Most companies bundle bandwidth with their hosting
>> packages, and current billing packages utilize destination IP address
>> information to gather this information.  If there is not a way to get
>> this information without drastic changes to both billing software and in
>> some cases hardware, there will be very strong opposition to any changes
>> in the way IP addresses are given out.
>> -Stephen
>>
>> --
>> Stephen Elliott                 Harrison & Troxell
>> Systems & Networking Manager    2 Faneuil Hall Marketplace
>> Systems & Networking Group      Boston, Ma 02109
>> (617)227-0494 Phone             (617)720-3918 Fax
>>
>
>





From jeff at alexandriainternet.com  Thu Jan  4 16:26:07 2001
From: jeff at alexandriainternet.com (Jeffrey L Price)
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 16:26:07 -0500
Subject: ARIN Justified...
References: <23AE217BF800D411B12500D0B73CF36E5B9F6B@exchange.affinityla.com>
Message-ID: <04c201c07694$f3f040e0$a9e2d83f@alexandiainternet.com>

I know of a couple of name based virtual servers right off the top of my head that are on yahoo.  I will have to check the others.  So that seems not completely correct.

-jeff
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Scott Rogers 
  To: 'Jeffrey L Price' ; Scott Rogers ; 'Bill Cartwright' 
  Cc: vwp at arin.net 
  Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 2:01 PM
  Subject: RE: ARIN Justified...


  Yahoo, Lycos, GO, ...
    -----Original Message-----
    From: Jeffrey L Price [mailto:jeff at alexandriainternet.com]
    Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 12:43 PM
    To: Scott Rogers; 'Bill Cartwright'
    Cc: Adam Douglass; vwp at arin.net
    Subject: Re: ARIN Justified...


    I have seen the term "lots" or "many", what I would like to know is which search engines use IP address instead of URL?  Specifically by name.

    -jeff
      ----- Original Message ----- 
      From: Scott Rogers 
      To: 'Bill Cartwright' ; Scott Rogers 
      Cc: Adam Douglass ; 'vwp at arin.net' 
      Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 11:18 AM
      Subject: RE: ARIN Justified...


      Because if you don't, you will use up all the available IP addresses.

      It's like tree's in a forest.  They are cheap.  But if you cut them ALL
      down, then what do you do for wood ?

      The problem is:
      1.    We want lots of web sites.
      2.    We need IP addresses.
      3.    There are only so many IP addresses to go around.
      So,
      4.    How can I have lots of Web sites, without using up all the IP addresses.

      Big guys (GE, IBM, CISCO, EBAY, etc) can afford $1,000 or $2,000 per IP,
      which is what they could cost if we exhaust them (and have only a small pool left).
      Can you afford that much money to start a web site?  
      The law of supply and demand will eventually rule.
        -----Original Message-----
        From: Bill Cartwright [mailto:bill at hergoods.com]
        Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 10:27 AM
        To: Scott Rogers
        Subject: Re: ARIN Justified...


        Why bother with name based hosting with all the issues against it. If name based hosting prevents you from getting on a search engine, why do it.
        Bill Cartwright
        ----- Original Message ----- 
          From: Scott Rogers 
          To: 'Joe DeCosta' ; 'vwp at arin.net' 
          Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 8:53 AM
          Subject: ARIN Justified...


          I'm the network engineer for a large dedicated server/colocation facility
          and I agree that  IP addresses and their maintenance is a large pain in the
          ass.  We have a little over 1/2 a clacc B equivelent and are still growing.

          I have been trying to push customers to use "Name Based" virtual hosting,
          and keep making the sales guys have customers justify needing more than
          32 addresses.  We charge $1 per address per month, so it's an important
          revenue stream.

          As a "network engineer", it's also important to know that IP addresses
          are a "fixed" resource.  When they are gone, that's it.  Yes, I know
          that IPV6 will cure our problems.  Well they have been working on it
          for over 8 years and we don't seem realistically very close to it.

          People will hoard (hey anybody want to buy 48 pre CIDR class C addresse)
          networks and address and then try to make a killing in the parket.  I
          remember several years ago people offering to sell their class B addresses
          that they had from old APRANET days for tens and hundreds of thousands
          of dollars.

          My point is, that the revenue stream is usless is you can't get more
          addresses later.  We have to push back at our customers for REAL 
          justifications,  and my providers and ARIN have to push back to me
          me for the same.  ARIN, RIPE, et. al. then have to justify to the IANA
          (or whatever) for allocations as well.

          Market pricing won't give us the conservation we need.

          WHat will help is to eliminate the need for REAL IP so people can use
          NAME based servers.

          Issues;
          * All browsers have to support HTTP/1.1 and name based browsing.
          Mostly done now  AOL and COMPUSERVE were the biggest offenders.

          * SSL Certificates may not always work with NAME based due to
          reverse IP not matching the certificates.

          * The biggest issue (to my customers), the SEARCH ENGINES need to
          support HTTP/1.1 and name based virtual servers.  Most do not.
          We, as a community, need to push the search engines into building
          in support.  If we do this, we will solve a significant
          portion of the problem.  The SSL requirements I feel are probably
          not a siginficant portion of the problem

          Just my 2 cents.
          -- 
          Scott W. Rogers  <SRogers at affinity.com>   +1-410-558-2750   (Fax:
          +1410-563-5457)
          Network/Systems/Security Engineer -- SkyNetWEB, Ltd.  An Affinity Company
          3500 Boston St. #231  --  Baltimore, Maryland 21224



          -----Original Message-----
          From: Joe DeCosta [mailto:decosta at bayconnect.com]
          Sent: Wed

          nesday, January 03, 2001 6:26 PM
          To: Jawaid.Bazyar at forethought.net
          Cc: Clayton Lambert; 'Alec H. Peterson'; vwp at arin.net
          Subject: Re: Been quiet in here...


          now, how about this, raise the pricing, and then donate the profit to some
          NPO, or some such thing, i just *HATE* having to update the damned IP usage
          spreadsheet and sending it to our uplink who owns the class C we have.  its
          a pain in the ass, ever time we move stuff around on our network....... It
          costs too much time to do it that way.  If the IP's are on a free market,
          then why must we also then justify them?


          ----- Original Message -----
          From: <Jawaid.Bazyar at forethought.net>
          To: "Joe DeCosta" <decosta at bayconnect.com>
          Cc: "Clayton Lambert" <Clay at exodus.net>; "'Alec H. Peterson'"
          <ahp at hilander.com>; <vwp at arin.net>
          Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 3:12 PM
          Subject: Re: Been quiet in here...


          >
          > That's because in the lack of a "free market" for IP addresses, the
          > pricing was set arbitrarily - to cover the expenses of operating ARIN.
          >
          > That's not to say that that is bad, or without reasoning. It's just that
          > if you're going to disassociate the pricing from the costs necessary to
          > administer ARIN, instead of raising the price to discourage waste, you
          > should let people buy and sell blocks on an open market. Free markets are
          > very sensitive to the scarcity of resources via the price mechanism.
          >
          > That's not saying I think IPs are particularly scarce. I've made the
          > argument before that it seems that CIDR is more about saving face for
          > Cisco's underpowered heaps than conserving IP space.
          >
          > However, the current IP allocation system works fairly well, and in that
          > system the best approach is to tell people to stop provisioning web sites
          > in a wasteful manner that was only every necessitated by flaws in the
          > original technology.
          >
          > Besides, it's WAY easier to provision IP-less web sites. :)
          >
          >
          >
          > On Wed, 3 Jan 2001, Joe DeCosta wrote:
          >
          > > This modification i agree with, my only objection is that why should
          people
          > > have to justify the usage of their netblock, why not just up the costs
          to
          > > encourage them to use as few IP's as possible.  It would seem to be more
          > > effective.  Just my thoughts.
          > > ----- Original Message -----
          > > From: "Clayton Lambert" <Clay at exodus.net>
          > > To: "'Alec H. Peterson'" <ahp at hilander.com>; <vwp at arin.net>
          > > Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 2:40 PM
          > > Subject: RE: Been quiet in here...
          > >
          > >
          > > > We should re-institute the policy with modifications to the text for
          > > > clarity.  Service providing should be the catch word instead of
          > > web-hosting.
          > > >
          > > > There should be clear reference to technical exceptions to the policy
          > > (this
          > > > should NOT be in the form of specific exceptions, as technical reasons
          for
          > > > exception to the policy can easily step beyond the ability of a
          "list",
          > > > hence the reason for maintainer discretion), only technical exceptions
          > > > should be allowed (as opposed to policy exceptions). The entity
          assigned
          > > the
          > > > overall netblock should have discretion for determining the exceptions
          to
          > > > the policy and should maintain the documentation for the exception,
          and
          > > make
          > > > the info available to ARIN on in audit-style format (NDA should be
          > > manditory
          > > > between the Netblock maintainer and ARIN).
          > > >
          > > > Clay
          > > > Exodus Communications
          > > >
          > > >
          > > > -----Original Message-----
          > > > From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of Alec
          H.
          > > > Peterson
          > > > Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 12:54 PM
          > > > To: vwp at arin.net
          > > > Subject: Been quiet in here...
          > > >
          > > >
          > > > Are there any more thoughts on what we should do with the so-called
          > > 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!"
          > > >
          > > >
          > >
          > >
          >
          > --
          >  Jawaid Bazyar                 |   Affordable WWW & Internet Solutions
          >  foreThought.net               |   for Small Business
          >  jawaid.bazyar at foreThought.net |   910 16th Street, #1220  (303) 228-0070
          >  --The Future is Now!--        |   Denver, CO 80202        (303) 228-0077
          fax
          >
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/vwp/attachments/20010104/658c4788/attachment.html>

From Clay at exodus.net  Thu Jan  4 16:29:21 2001
From: Clay at exodus.net (Clayton Lambert)
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 13:29:21 -0800
Subject: ARIN Justified...
In-Reply-To: <200101042054.UAA05892@vacation.karoshi.com>
Message-ID: <200101042129.NAA03753@exoserv.exodus.net>

This hits the heart of this particular aspect of the issue:

ARIN IP policy should not be restricted due to vendor specific limitations.
protocol limitations are a different story, but just because a short-sited
vendor takes an easy path to market, for his product or service, ARIN should
not conform a policy around his product limitation.

-clay

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of
bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com
Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 12:55 PM
To: Mark Strother
Cc: Virtual IP List
Subject: Re: ARIN Justified...


>
> Stephen is right. For us the biggest issue is billing. We collect billing
> data using NetFlow and export the data to our accounting and billing
> software based on IP address.
>
> It would take a lot of work/money to migrate from this system.
>
> Mark Strother
> President, Pacific Online
> Phone: (604) 638-6010
> Fax: (604) 638-6020
> Toll Free: 1-877-503-9870

	So... you are depending on a vendor supplied system?
	When (not if) NetFlow changes and/or you migrate to
	a vendor that does not support NetFlow, you expect
	your systems to continue to work?

--bill




From lgilbert at rawhideinc.com  Thu Jan  4 16:20:15 2001
From: lgilbert at rawhideinc.com (Leo Gilbert)
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 16:20:15 -0500
Subject: ARIN Justified...
Message-ID: <9B6F2B6780A5A2409DA1F12DC363F01808838D@EXCHANGE02.rawhideinc.com>

Excite and Infoseek I believe are ip based spiders

-----Original Message-----
From: Jeffrey L Price [mailto:jeff at alexandriainternet.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 4:26 PM
To: Scott Rogers; 'Bill Cartwright'
Cc: vwp at arin.net
Subject: Re: ARIN Justified...


I know of a couple of name based virtual servers right off the top of my
head that are on yahoo.  I will have to check the others.  So that seems
not completely correct.
 
-jeff

----- Original Message ----- 
From: Scott  <mailto:SRogers at Affinity.com> Rogers 
To: 'Jeffrey L Price' <mailto:jeff at alexandriainternet.com>  ; Scott
<mailto:SRogers at Affinity.com> Rogers ; 'Bill Cartwright'
<mailto:bill at hergoods.com>  
Cc: vwp at arin.net <mailto:vwp at arin.net>  
Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 2:01 PM
Subject: RE: ARIN Justified...

Yahoo, Lycos, GO, ...

-----Original Message-----
From: Jeffrey L Price [mailto:jeff at alexandriainternet.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 12:43 PM
To: Scott Rogers; 'Bill Cartwright'
Cc: Adam Douglass; vwp at arin.net <mailto:vwp at arin.net> 
Subject: Re: ARIN Justified...


I have seen the term "lots" or "many", what I would like to know is
which search engines use IP address instead of URL?  Specifically by
name.
 
-jeff

----- Original Message ----- 
From: Scott  <mailto:SRogers at Affinity.com> Rogers 
To: 'Bill  <mailto:bill at hergoods.com> Cartwright' ; Scott Rogers
<mailto:SRogers at Affinity.com>  
Cc: Adam  <mailto:ADouglass at Affinity.com> Douglass ; 'vwp at arin.net'
<mailto:'vwp at arin.net'>  
Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 11:18 AM
Subject: RE: ARIN Justified...

Because if you don't, you will use up all the available IP addresses.
 
It's like tree's in a forest.  They are cheap.  But if you cut them ALL
down, then what do you do for wood ?
 
The problem is:
1.    We want lots of web sites.
2.    We need IP addresses.
3.    There are only so many IP addresses to go around.
So,
4.    How can I have lots of Web sites, without using up all the IP
addresses.
 
Big guys (GE, IBM, CISCO, EBAY, etc) can afford $1,000 or $2,000 per IP,
which is what they could cost if we exhaust them (and have only a small
pool left).
Can you afford that much money to start a web site?  
The law of supply and demand will eventually rule.

-----Original Message-----
From: Bill Cartwright [mailto:bill at hergoods.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 10:27 AM
To: Scott Rogers
Subject: Re: ARIN Justified...


Why bother with name based hosting with all the issues against it. If
name based hosting prevents you from getting on a search engine, why do
it.
Bill Cartwright
----- Original Message ----- 

From: Scott Rogers <mailto:SRogers at Affinity.com>  
To: 'Joe DeCosta' <mailto:decosta at bayconnect.com>  ; 'vwp at arin.net'
<mailto:'vwp at arin.net'>  
Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 8:53 AM
Subject: ARIN Justified...

I'm the network engineer for a large dedicated server/colocation
facility
and I agree that  IP addresses and their maintenance is a large pain in
the
ass.  We have a little over 1/2 a clacc B equivelent and are still
growing.

I have been trying to push customers to use "Name Based" virtual
hosting,
and keep making the sales guys have customers justify needing more than
32 addresses.  We charge $1 per address per month, so it's an important
revenue stream.

As a "network engineer", it's also important to know that IP addresses
are a "fixed" resource.  When they are gone, that's it.  Yes, I know
that IPV6 will cure our problems.  Well they have been working on it
for over 8 years and we don't seem realistically very close to it.

People will hoard (hey anybody want to buy 48 pre CIDR class C addresse)
networks and address and then try to make a killing in the parket.  I
remember several years ago people offering to sell their class B
addresses
that they had from old APRANET days for tens and hundreds of thousands
of dollars.

My point is, that the revenue stream is usless is you can't get more
addresses later.  We have to push back at our customers for REAL 
justifications,  and my providers and ARIN have to push back to me
me for the same.  ARIN, RIPE, et. al. then have to justify to the IANA
(or whatever) for allocations as well.

Market pricing won't give us the conservation we need.

WHat will help is to eliminate the need for REAL IP so people can use
NAME based servers.

Issues;
* All browsers have to support HTTP/1.1 and name based browsing.
Mostly done now  AOL and COMPUSERVE were the biggest offenders.

* SSL Certificates may not always work with NAME based due to
reverse IP not matching the certificates.

* The biggest issue (to my customers), the SEARCH ENGINES need to
support HTTP/1.1 and name based virtual servers.  Most do not.
We, as a community, need to push the search engines into building
in support.  If we do this, we will solve a significant
portion of the problem.  The SSL requirements I feel are probably
not a siginficant portion of the problem

Just my 2 cents.
-- 
Scott W. Rogers  < SRogers at affinity.com <mailto:SRogers at affinity.com> >
+1-410-558-2750   (Fax:
+1410-563-5457)
Network/Systems/Security Engineer -- SkyNetWEB, Ltd.  An Affinity
Company
3500 Boston St. #231  --  Baltimore, Maryland 21224



-----Original Message-----
From: Joe DeCosta [mailto:decosta at bayconnect.com]
Sent: Wed

nesday, January 03, 2001 6:26 PM
To: Jawaid.Bazyar at forethought.net <mailto:Jawaid.Bazyar at forethought.net>

Cc: Clayton Lambert; 'Alec H. Peterson'; vwp at arin.net
<mailto:vwp at arin.net> 
Subject: Re: Been quiet in here...


now, how about this, raise the pricing, and then donate the profit to
some
NPO, or some such thing, i just *HATE* having to update the damned IP
usage
spreadsheet and sending it to our uplink who owns the class C we have.
its
a pain in the ass, ever time we move stuff around on our network.......
It
costs too much time to do it that way.  If the IP's are on a free
market,
then why must we also then justify them?


----- Original Message -----
From: < Jawaid.Bazyar at forethought.net
<mailto:Jawaid.Bazyar at forethought.net> >
To: "Joe DeCosta" < decosta at bayconnect.com
<mailto:decosta at bayconnect.com> >
Cc: "Clayton Lambert" < Clay at exodus.net <mailto:Clay at exodus.net> >;
"'Alec H. Peterson'"
< ahp at hilander.com <mailto:ahp at hilander.com> >; < vwp at arin.net
<mailto:vwp at arin.net> >
Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 3:12 PM
Subject: Re: Been quiet in here...


>
> That's because in the lack of a "free market" for IP addresses, the
> pricing was set arbitrarily - to cover the expenses of operating ARIN.
>
> That's not to say that that is bad, or without reasoning. It's just
that
> if you're going to disassociate the pricing from the costs necessary
to
> administer ARIN, instead of raising the price to discourage waste, you
> should let people buy and sell blocks on an open market. Free markets
are
> very sensitive to the scarcity of resources via the price mechanism.
>
> That's not saying I think IPs are particularly scarce. I've made the
> argument before that it seems that CIDR is more about saving face for
> Cisco's underpowered heaps than conserving IP space.
>
> However, the current IP allocation system works fairly well, and in
that
> system the best approach is to tell people to stop provisioning web
sites
> in a wasteful manner that was only every necessitated by flaws in the
> original technology.
>
> Besides, it's WAY easier to provision IP-less web sites. :)
>
>
>
> On Wed, 3 Jan 2001, Joe DeCosta wrote:
>
> > This modification i agree with, my only objection is that why should
people
> > have to justify the usage of their netblock, why not just up the
costs
to
> > encourage them to use as few IP's as possible.  It would seem to be
more
> > effective.  Just my thoughts.
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Clayton Lambert" < Clay at exodus.net <mailto:Clay at exodus.net> >
> > To: "'Alec H. Peterson'" < ahp at hilander.com
<mailto:ahp at hilander.com> >; < vwp at arin.net <mailto:vwp at arin.net> >
> > Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 2:40 PM
> > Subject: RE: Been quiet in here...
> >
> >
> > > We should re-institute the policy with modifications to the text
for
> > > clarity.  Service providing should be the catch word instead of
> > web-hosting.
> > >
> > > There should be clear reference to technical exceptions to the
policy
> > (this
> > > should NOT be in the form of specific exceptions, as technical
reasons
for
> > > exception to the policy can easily step beyond the ability of a
"list",
> > > hence the reason for maintainer discretion), only technical
exceptions
> > > should be allowed (as opposed to policy exceptions). The entity
assigned
> > the
> > > overall netblock should have discretion for determining the
exceptions
to
> > > the policy and should maintain the documentation for the
exception,
and
> > make
> > > the info available to ARIN on in audit-style format (NDA should be
> > manditory
> > > between the Netblock maintainer and ARIN).
> > >
> > > Clay
> > > Exodus Communications
> > >
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: owner-vwp at arin.net <mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net>
[mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of Alec
H.
> > > Peterson
> > > Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 12:54 PM
> > > To: vwp at arin.net <mailto:vwp at arin.net> 
> > > Subject: Been quiet in here...
> > >
> > >
> > > Are there any more thoughts on what we should do with the
so-called
> > virtual
> > > hosting policy?
> > >
> > > Alec
> > >
> > > --
> > > Alec H. Peterson - ahp at hilander.com <mailto:ahp at hilander.com> 
> > > Staff Scientist
> > > CenterGate Research Group - http://www.centergate.com
<http://www.centergate.com> 
> > > "Technology so advanced, even _we_ don't understand it!"
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
> --
>  Jawaid Bazyar                 |   Affordable WWW & Internet Solutions
>  foreThought.net               |   for Small Business
>  jawaid.bazyar at foreThought.net <mailto:jawaid.bazyar at foreThought.net>
|   910 16th Street, #1220  (303) 228-0070
>  --The Future is Now!--        |   Denver, CO 80202        (303)
228-0077
fax
>



From mbutler at mcgi.com  Thu Jan  4 16:28:42 2001
From: mbutler at mcgi.com (Michael Butler)
Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2001 13:28:42 -0800
Subject: ARIN Justified...
In-Reply-To: <04a001c07693$095947d0$a9e2d83f@alexandiainternet.com>
References: <11F6D2CB5478D411899400104B2FD78C172C@FILESERVER>
Message-ID: <5.0.2.1.0.20010104132428.00a82140@mail.wperfect.com>

Is there any reason I should be in on these conversations, interesting as 
they are?
MJB

At 16:12 1/4/01 -0500, Jeffrey L Price wrote:

>----- Original Message -----
>From: <trh at thehathawaygroup.com>
>To: "'Virtual IP List'" <vwp at arin.net>
>Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 4:08 PM
>Subject: RE: ARIN Justified...
>
> >
> > TRH
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of Mark
> > Strother
> > Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 3:54 PM
> > To: Virtual IP List
> > Subject: RE: ARIN Justified...
> >
> >
> > Mark Strother
> > President, Pacific Online
> > Phone: (604) 638-6010
> > Fax: (604) 638-6020
> > Toll Free: 1-877-503-9870
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of Stephen
> > > Elliott
> > > Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 12:20 PM
> > > To: Virtual IP List
> > > Subject: RE: ARIN Justified...
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Stephen Elliott                 Harrison & Troxell
> > > Systems & Networking Manager    2 Faneuil Hall Marketplace
> > > Systems & Networking Group      Boston, Ma 02109
> > > (617)227-0494 Phone             (617)720-3918 Fax
> > >
> >



From stephen at hnt.com  Thu Jan  4 16:46:45 2001
From: stephen at hnt.com (Stephen Elliott)
Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2001 16:46:45 -0500
Subject: ARIN Justified...
References: <200101042040.MAA26892@exoserv.exodus.net>
Message-ID: <3A54EF45.FFB3A668@hnt.com>

:-)  The reason I mentioned Exodus is because we are a customer of
Exodus, and in my opinion, the policy is too restrictive.  And the
statement was directed at the fact that Exodus hosts many companies that
are in the business of hosting websites, not Exodus as a company.  As I
have stated in earlier postings, simply clamping down and restricting
virtual web hosting is not the answer.  Any list of justifications, no
matter how much thought went into it, will not cover every possible
reason for needing the IP's.  Documentation is a great thing, just the
fact that someone has to sit down and write out a list of machines that
need IP's will deter most people from requesting extra IP's.
-Stephen

Clayton Lambert wrote:
> 
> Do you have ANY idea of what you are saying?  Sorry for appearing brash,
> but...I run the IP maintenance organization at Exodus, and I would easily
> stack our allocation policy up against anybody's.
> 
> You have no idea what you are talking about in regard to larger companies.
> Exodus consumes a very modest amount of address space given our size and
> presence on the Internet.  There are much smaller competitors of ours that
> consume larger amounts of IP space.
> 
> Exodus is already pioneering the efficiency of use ideology that I would
> like to see ARIN adopt (a strong HTTP1.1 stance on ARIN's part is a good
> start).  We currently require extensive supporting documentation for IP
> requests from all our Customers.  A Customer has to show a documented need
> for their usage request and we file all these requests and refer to past
> requests and detail as additional requests for address space occur.  This
> method gives us a very clear and honest indication of IP address usage
> growth. This allows us to support our Customers' IP addressing needs in a
> very accurate and efficient way.  The end result is less consumption of IPv4
> space across the board.
> 
> Clayton Lambert
> Exodus Communications
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of Stephen
> Elliott
> Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 12:20 PM
> To: Virtual IP List
> Subject: RE: ARIN Justified...
> 
>         The big guys that you refer to are generally not in the web hosting
> business and therefore are outside of the scope of this conversation.
> The real concern is the big guys like Exodus and UUNet.  Since IPv6 is
> not a viable option for general consumption yet, we need to concentrate
> on conserving the existing IPv4 space.  As far as search engines go, if
> enough sites start using HTTP1.1 software virtual servers, they will be
> forced to upgrade their spiders to support it.  I would suggest that one
> of the main issues at hand is billing.  Billing for web hosting
> companies that is.  Most companies bundle bandwidth with their hosting
> packages, and current billing packages utilize destination IP address
> information to gather this information.  If there is not a way to get
> this information without drastic changes to both billing software and in
> some cases hardware, there will be very strong opposition to any changes
> in the way IP addresses are given out.
> -Stephen
> 
> --
> Stephen Elliott                 Harrison & Troxell
> Systems & Networking Manager    2 Faneuil Hall Marketplace
> Systems & Networking Group      Boston, Ma 02109
> (617)227-0494 Phone             (617)720-3918 Fax

-- 
Stephen Elliott                 Harrison & Troxell
Systems & Networking Manager    2 Faneuil Hall Marketplace
Systems & Networking Group      Boston, Ma 02109
(617)227-0494 Phone             (617)720-3918 Fax


From stephen at hnt.com  Thu Jan  4 16:49:14 2001
From: stephen at hnt.com (Stephen Elliott)
Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2001 16:49:14 -0500
Subject: ARIN Justified...
References: <200101042054.UAA05892@vacation.karoshi.com>
Message-ID: <3A54EFDA.2C68472D@hnt.com>

Pulling IP utilization is a protocol layer function, going in and
pulling out the url is a application layer function.  Most billing
applications would have to be completely rewritten and replaced.  In
addition the processing power required and the latency would increase
dramatically if this were required.  I do not suggest that these
obstacles are insurmountable, just that they exist and should not be
overlooked.
-Stephen

bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
> 
> >
> > Stephen is right. For us the biggest issue is billing. We collect billing
> > data using NetFlow and export the data to our accounting and billing
> > software based on IP address.
> >
> > It would take a lot of work/money to migrate from this system.
> >
> > Mark Strother
> > President, Pacific Online
> > Phone: (604) 638-6010
> > Fax: (604) 638-6020
> > Toll Free: 1-877-503-9870
> 
>         So... you are depending on a vendor supplied system?
>         When (not if) NetFlow changes and/or you migrate to
>         a vendor that does not support NetFlow, you expect
>         your systems to continue to work?
> 
> --bill

-- 
Stephen Elliott                 Harrison & Troxell
Systems & Networking Manager    2 Faneuil Hall Marketplace
Systems & Networking Group      Boston, Ma 02109
(617)227-0494 Phone             (617)720-3918 Fax


From Clay at exodus.net  Thu Jan  4 16:52:08 2001
From: Clay at exodus.net (Clayton Lambert)
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 13:52:08 -0800
Subject: ARIN Justified...
In-Reply-To: <3A54EF45.FFB3A668@hnt.com>
Message-ID: <200101042152.NAA08486@exoserv.exodus.net>

Agreed.

I don't think there should be a "list" of exceptions.  There should be
maintainer discretion and escalation to ARIN if the service provider (end
user) feels he is getting the shaft from the ISP.

If you have a need for addresses, document the need and provide any
supporting technical justification.  Exodus has a tough policy, but it is
not restrictive in that we will provide you with the address space that you
need, it is just that we require the need to be documented beyond an email
that says "I need a /22 for a network of 75 webservers."  Don't laugh, I get
stuff like that all the time.
We have contacted and made recommendations to many large scale vendors in
the past (and we continue to make efforts in this regard) in support of
HTTP1.1 support, as well as trying to push them to support efficient IP
usage.

So while it may be difficult to get a large and shakely justified block of
address space, it is not difficult (beyond the documentation requirement) to
acquire address space that is justified.


-Clay




-----Original Message-----
From: Stephen Elliott [mailto:stephen at hnt.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 1:47 PM
To: Clayton Lambert; Virtual IP List
Subject: Re: ARIN Justified...


:-)  The reason I mentioned Exodus is because we are a customer of
Exodus, and in my opinion, the policy is too restrictive.  And the
statement was directed at the fact that Exodus hosts many companies that
are in the business of hosting websites, not Exodus as a company.  As I
have stated in earlier postings, simply clamping down and restricting
virtual web hosting is not the answer.  Any list of justifications, no
matter how much thought went into it, will not cover every possible
reason for needing the IP's.  Documentation is a great thing, just the
fact that someone has to sit down and write out a list of machines that
need IP's will deter most people from requesting extra IP's.
-Stephen

Clayton Lambert wrote:
>
> Do you have ANY idea of what you are saying?  Sorry for appearing brash,
> but...I run the IP maintenance organization at Exodus, and I would easily
> stack our allocation policy up against anybody's.
>
> You have no idea what you are talking about in regard to larger companies.
> Exodus consumes a very modest amount of address space given our size and
> presence on the Internet.  There are much smaller competitors of ours that
> consume larger amounts of IP space.
>
> Exodus is already pioneering the efficiency of use ideology that I would
> like to see ARIN adopt (a strong HTTP1.1 stance on ARIN's part is a good
> start).  We currently require extensive supporting documentation for IP
> requests from all our Customers.  A Customer has to show a documented need
> for their usage request and we file all these requests and refer to past
> requests and detail as additional requests for address space occur.  This
> method gives us a very clear and honest indication of IP address usage
> growth. This allows us to support our Customers' IP addressing needs in a
> very accurate and efficient way.  The end result is less consumption of
IPv4
> space across the board.
>
> Clayton Lambert
> Exodus Communications
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of Stephen
> Elliott
> Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 12:20 PM
> To: Virtual IP List
> Subject: RE: ARIN Justified...
>
>         The big guys that you refer to are generally not in the web
hosting
> business and therefore are outside of the scope of this conversation.
> The real concern is the big guys like Exodus and UUNet.  Since IPv6 is
> not a viable option for general consumption yet, we need to concentrate
> on conserving the existing IPv4 space.  As far as search engines go, if
> enough sites start using HTTP1.1 software virtual servers, they will be
> forced to upgrade their spiders to support it.  I would suggest that one
> of the main issues at hand is billing.  Billing for web hosting
> companies that is.  Most companies bundle bandwidth with their hosting
> packages, and current billing packages utilize destination IP address
> information to gather this information.  If there is not a way to get
> this information without drastic changes to both billing software and in
> some cases hardware, there will be very strong opposition to any changes
> in the way IP addresses are given out.
> -Stephen
>
> --
> Stephen Elliott                 Harrison & Troxell
> Systems & Networking Manager    2 Faneuil Hall Marketplace
> Systems & Networking Group      Boston, Ma 02109
> (617)227-0494 Phone             (617)720-3918 Fax

--
Stephen Elliott                 Harrison & Troxell
Systems & Networking Manager    2 Faneuil Hall Marketplace
Systems & Networking Group      Boston, Ma 02109
(617)227-0494 Phone             (617)720-3918 Fax




From Clay at exodus.net  Thu Jan  4 16:57:28 2001
From: Clay at exodus.net (Clayton Lambert)
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 13:57:28 -0800
Subject: ARIN Justified...
In-Reply-To: <3A54EFDA.2C68472D@hnt.com>
Message-ID: <200101042157.NAA09740@exoserv.exodus.net>

agreed.

All aspects should be looked at.

In the modified version of the policy that I am pushing for, the software
that you use for billing could be considered a technical reason for
justification...And if you requested IP space for this reason to me, and I
denied the request, you should have the right to have the request escalated
to ARIN for a decision...This would also protect the ISP from difficulties
with further IP allocation requests from ARIN (if auditing by ARIN included
the disputed assignment in their review).

-Clay

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of Stephen
Elliott
Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 1:49 PM
To: bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com; Virtual IP List
Subject: Re: ARIN Justified...


Pulling IP utilization is a protocol layer function, going in and
pulling out the url is a application layer function.  Most billing
applications would have to be completely rewritten and replaced.  In
addition the processing power required and the latency would increase
dramatically if this were required.  I do not suggest that these
obstacles are insurmountable, just that they exist and should not be
overlooked.
-Stephen

bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
>
> >
> > Stephen is right. For us the biggest issue is billing. We collect
billing
> > data using NetFlow and export the data to our accounting and billing
> > software based on IP address.
> >
> > It would take a lot of work/money to migrate from this system.
> >
> > Mark Strother
> > President, Pacific Online
> > Phone: (604) 638-6010
> > Fax: (604) 638-6020
> > Toll Free: 1-877-503-9870
>
>         So... you are depending on a vendor supplied system?
>         When (not if) NetFlow changes and/or you migrate to
>         a vendor that does not support NetFlow, you expect
>         your systems to continue to work?
>
> --bill

--
Stephen Elliott                 Harrison & Troxell
Systems & Networking Manager    2 Faneuil Hall Marketplace
Systems & Networking Group      Boston, Ma 02109
(617)227-0494 Phone             (617)720-3918 Fax




From bmjames at swbell.net  Thu Jan  4 18:36:32 2001
From: bmjames at swbell.net (Bruce James)
Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2001 17:36:32 -0600
Subject: Fw: [icann-announce] ANNOUNCEMENT:  ASO General Assembly for 2001 and
 Call for ICANN Board Nominations
Message-ID: <001a01c076a7$2bcf5d40$847fd840@a>


----- Original Message -----
From: <icann-announce at icann.org>
To: "ICANN Announcement List" <icann-announce at icann.org>
Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 11:48 AM
Subject: [icann-announce] ANNOUNCEMENT: ASO General Assembly for 2001 and
Call for ICANN Board Nominations


January 3, 2001 - The Address Council of the Address Supporting
Organisation is pleased to announce the second ASO General Assembly
meeting, to be held on Wednesday, 4 April 2001, in San Francisco, US.
This meeting will be hosted by ARIN alongside ARIN's Public Policy and
Members Meeting, and will be open to all parties with an interest in ASO
policy matters. A detailed meeting agenda will be published in due
course on the ASO web site, at <http://www.aso.icann.org/>.

In compliance with the ASO MoU
<http://www.aso.icann.org/docs/aso-mou.html>, the Address Council and
ICANN hereby call for nominations to the ICANN Board, of candidates to
fill vacant ASO seats on the ICANN board as they become vacant. The
first such seat scheduled to become vacant is currently occupied by Mr.
Ken Fockler, who will stand down on 1 October 2001. However, candidates
nominated at this time may also be chosen to fill other seats which may
become vacant before or after this time. Note that appointments to the
ICANN board must satisfy the geographic diversity constraints specified
in section 3c of the ASO MoU.

Any individual may be nominated within this process, with the exception
of any official of a national government or a multinational entity
established by treaty or other agreement between national governments
(ICANN Bylaws Art. V., Sec 5). Self-nominations are permitted.

Nominations should be sent by email to <secretariat at aso.icann.org> and
should state the following details :

   A. Nominee details

      1. Full name
      2. Organisational affiliation
      3. Email address
      4. Physical address
      5. Country of residence
      6. Telephone contact
      7. Biography

   B. Details of nominating individual

      1. Full name
      2. Organisational affiliation
      3. Email address
      4. Country of residence

Nominations must be submitted in English and must be received by the ASO
Secretariat before 0900 GMT 5 March 2001 (30 days prior to the General
Assembly meeting).  After nomination all nominees will be contacted via
email to confirm their willingness to serve as an ICANN Director. If the
nominee is not contactable via email then the nomination will not be
confirmed, and nominee must explicitly confirm the nomination for the
nomination to be considered confirmed.

All confirmed nominations will be listed on the ASO web site (see
http://www.aso.icann.org/) as soon as they are confirmed. Those wishing
to express support for any individuals who have been nominated should
use the "ICANN Board - Support of Nomination" Form which will be made
available on the ASO web site.

The list of nominated individuals and the supporting comments will be
passed to the Address Council after all nominees are confirmed, and
prior to the General Assembly meeting on 4 April 2001.

More information regarding the GA and nominations process will be posted
to the ASO web site <http://www.aso.icann.org/> in due course.

                          # # #





From Douglas.Cohn at Virtualscape.com  Fri Jan  5 03:59:57 2001
From: Douglas.Cohn at Virtualscape.com (Douglas Cohn)
Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2001 03:59:57 -0500
Subject: ARIN Justified...
Message-ID: <DA58D604766F1B499D2D0BDDD5E17DF1043885@exvsny1.nymail.virtualscape.com>

I must get my two cents in here as well.

I feel Clayton has the right track.

I manage IP allocation as well for dedicated and colocated clients.  Our
policy used to state each server was issued 16 IPs.  We provision with 1
IP only.  If a client asks for the rest I also require the need for the
IPs.  
Too often they want them for testing or only because they saw that they
get 16 IPs with a server.  They must supply the domain names and reasons
why they cannot use IPless hosting.  While I will not force IPless
hosting on clients I push it and train it's use for free.

We now state that you get a single IP with each dedicated server and
additional IPs are billed on a monthly basis.  This helps a lot to
defray usage.  While it is a revenue stream that is not it's purpose
whatsoever.

In Shared hosting though the issues are clearly Search engines and SSL
as far as I know.  

Most people understand why we watch our address space and appreciate it.

Douglas Cohn
Manager NY Engineering
Hostcentric, Inc.



-----Original Message-----
From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of Stephen
Elliott
Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 4:47 PM
To: Clayton Lambert; Virtual IP List
Subject: Re: ARIN Justified...


:-)  The reason I mentioned Exodus is because we are a customer of
Exodus, and in my opinion, the policy is too restrictive.  And the
statement was directed at the fact that Exodus hosts many companies that
are in the business of hosting websites, not Exodus as a company.  As I
have stated in earlier postings, simply clamping down and restricting
virtual web hosting is not the answer.  Any list of justifications, no
matter how much thought went into it, will not cover every possible
reason for needing the IP's.  Documentation is a great thing, just the
fact that someone has to sit down and write out a list of machines that
need IP's will deter most people from requesting extra IP's.
-Stephen

Clayton Lambert wrote:
> 
> Do you have ANY idea of what you are saying?  Sorry for appearing
brash,
> but...I run the IP maintenance organization at Exodus, and I would
easily
> stack our allocation policy up against anybody's.
> 
> You have no idea what you are talking about in regard to larger
companies.
> Exodus consumes a very modest amount of address space given our size
and
> presence on the Internet.  There are much smaller competitors of ours
that
> consume larger amounts of IP space.
> 
> Exodus is already pioneering the efficiency of use ideology that I
would
> like to see ARIN adopt (a strong HTTP1.1 stance on ARIN's part is a
good
> start).  We currently require extensive supporting documentation for
IP
> requests from all our Customers.  A Customer has to show a documented
need
> for their usage request and we file all these requests and refer to
past
> requests and detail as additional requests for address space occur.
This
> method gives us a very clear and honest indication of IP address usage
> growth. This allows us to support our Customers' IP addressing needs
in a
> very accurate and efficient way.  The end result is less consumption
of IPv4
> space across the board.
> 
> Clayton Lambert
> Exodus Communications
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of
Stephen
> Elliott
> Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 12:20 PM
> To: Virtual IP List
> Subject: RE: ARIN Justified...
> 
>         The big guys that you refer to are generally not in the web
hosting
> business and therefore are outside of the scope of this conversation.
> The real concern is the big guys like Exodus and UUNet.  Since IPv6 is
> not a viable option for general consumption yet, we need to
concentrate
> on conserving the existing IPv4 space.  As far as search engines go,
if
> enough sites start using HTTP1.1 software virtual servers, they will
be
> forced to upgrade their spiders to support it.  I would suggest that
one
> of the main issues at hand is billing.  Billing for web hosting
> companies that is.  Most companies bundle bandwidth with their hosting
> packages, and current billing packages utilize destination IP address
> information to gather this information.  If there is not a way to get
> this information without drastic changes to both billing software and
in
> some cases hardware, there will be very strong opposition to any
changes
> in the way IP addresses are given out.
> -Stephen
> 
> --
> Stephen Elliott                 Harrison & Troxell
> Systems & Networking Manager    2 Faneuil Hall Marketplace
> Systems & Networking Group      Boston, Ma 02109
> (617)227-0494 Phone             (617)720-3918 Fax

-- 
Stephen Elliott                 Harrison & Troxell
Systems & Networking Manager    2 Faneuil Hall Marketplace
Systems & Networking Group      Boston, Ma 02109
(617)227-0494 Phone             (617)720-3918 Fax


From Gilbert.Martin at za.didata.com  Fri Jan  5 07:00:27 2001
From: Gilbert.Martin at za.didata.com (Gilbert Martin @ Learning Solutions)
Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2001 14:00:27 +0200 
Subject: Need for numbers related to Hosting
Message-ID: <DC7ABD0A8338D311B2010008C79122EE03A52401@zajnbddsexc1.didata.co.za>

I think thiere is a simple solution to the whole issue, instead of everyone
having to reassign addresses why don't you justify the means and give each
consecutive user a static address, thus in not using the address space
within one week it can be reissued and the user can request a newer address
when he eventually starts to use a form of netweork again?
JUST AN IDEA?


-----Original Message-----
From: Potomac NOC [mailto:noc at potomacnet.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 11:12 PM
To: vwp at arin.net
Subject: RE: Need for numbers related to Hosting



the keyword is transfer.  for those of us transferring IP addresses, keep in
mind that the new allocation for the new provider frees up that many from
the old provider.  assuming, that is, that the old provider takes action to
free them up.

-bob

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of Bill
Darte
Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 4:12 PM
To: 'Scott Rogers'; vwp at arin.net
Subject: RE: Need for numbers related to Hosting


Scott Rogers said:
>
> I have a customer comming in that is transferring 3,000
> web site, so I have a need for 3,000 IP addresses right!
>
> The customer is not using SSL, is not using IP based accounting,
> and does not depend upon search engines for anywhere from 30%
> to 60% of the sites...
>
> So, do I really need 3,000 IP addresses?
> * Sales says yes, they want $3,000 per month in revenue ($1 per IP per
> month_
> * Customer says yes, it's too hard to configure name based hosting.
> * The network dude (me) says:
> 	- Learn how, and educate the customer on name based hosting.
> 	- educate the sales team
> 	- the technocrat (me) wins they get what they need, not
> what they
> want.
>
>
That's great,now if I new that this demand arose 3 times per year for your
company and that the same was true for 4700 other ISPs and that that the
this demand was 50% greater this year than last, we would have some gauge of
the problem.  On the other hand if this was likely to be a problem that 300
ISPs faced 3 times and the adoption of HTTP 1.1 intersected in 18 months to
eliminate the requirement then, another gauge of the problem would be had
and the impacts would likely determine a differenct AC policy
recommendation.
Bill Darte


**********************************************************************

The information in this e-mail is confidential and is legally privileged.
It is intended solely for the addressee.  If this email is not intended for
you, you cannot copy, distribute, or disclose the included information
to any-one

If you are not the intended recipient please delete the mail. Whilst
all reasonable steps have been taken to ensure the accuracy and
integrity of all data transmitted electronically, no liability is accepted
if the data, for whatever reason, is corrupt or does not reach it's
intended destination.
All business is undertaken, subject to our standard trading conditions
which are available on request.

*******************************************************************


From Douglas.Cohn at Virtualscape.com  Fri Jan  5 09:59:14 2001
From: Douglas.Cohn at Virtualscape.com (Douglas Cohn)
Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2001 09:59:14 -0500
Subject: FW: ARIN Justified...
Message-ID: <DA58D604766F1B499D2D0BDDD5E17DF104388A@exvsny1.nymail.virtualscape.com>

I forwarded your email to the list for you

-----Original Message-----
From: Allen Ahoffman [mailto:ahoffman at announce.com]
Sent: Friday, July 10, 2893 6:44 PM
To: Douglas Cohn
Subject: Re: ARIN Justified...


OK let me interject a question into this discussion:

Why are we requiring a /19 or in some cases /20 of space before being
allowed to get our own allocation?
I realize management is an issue, but a $2500/year it encourages small
users to build up to that point.

We get users who don't want us to have iI space from other vendors, so
we
get pressure for more iP usage and pressure for less.

For example, in converting from one provider to another I have had
difficult time getting replacment iP space in less than 8 months now,
but
was making efforts to not purchase the /19.  I thik we might bge by
without it but the minimum size creates pressure to fill IP(s).
I do agree that users seem to want IP(s) without reason, seems like IPV6
might look more appealing every day?


[Charset
iso-8859-1 unsupported,
filtering to ASCII...] > I must get my two cents in here as well.
> 
> I feel Clayton has the right track.
> 
> I manage IP allocation as well for dedicated and colocated clients.
Our
> policy used to state each server was issued 16 IPs.  We provision with
1
> IP only.  If a client asks for the rest I also require the need for
the
> IPs.  
> Too often they want them for testing or only because they saw that
they
> get 16 IPs with a server.  They must supply the domain names and
reasons
> why they cannot use IPless hosting.  While I will not force IPless
> hosting on clients I push it and train it's use for free.
> 
> We now state that you get a single IP with each dedicated server and
> additional IPs are billed on a monthly basis.  This helps a lot to
> defray usage.  While it is a revenue stream that is not it's purpose
> whatsoever.
> 
> In Shared hosting though the issues are clearly Search engines and SSL
> as far as I know.  
> 
> Most people understand why we watch our address space and appreciate
it.
> 
> Douglas Cohn
> Manager NY Engineering
> Hostcentric, Inc.
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of
Stephen
> Elliott
> Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 4:47 PM
> To: Clayton Lambert; Virtual IP List
> Subject: Re: ARIN Justified...
> 
> 
> :-)  The reason I mentioned Exodus is because we are a customer of
> Exodus, and in my opinion, the policy is too restrictive.  And the
> statement was directed at the fact that Exodus hosts many companies
that
> are in the business of hosting websites, not Exodus as a company.  As
I
> have stated in earlier postings, simply clamping down and restricting
> virtual web hosting is not the answer.  Any list of justifications, no
> matter how much thought went into it, will not cover every possible
> reason for needing the IP's.  Documentation is a great thing, just the
> fact that someone has to sit down and write out a list of machines
that
> need IP's will deter most people from requesting extra IP's.
> -Stephen
> 
> Clayton Lambert wrote:
> > 
> > Do you have ANY idea of what you are saying?  Sorry for appearing
> brash,
> > but...I run the IP maintenance organization at Exodus, and I would
> easily
> > stack our allocation policy up against anybody's.
> > 
> > You have no idea what you are talking about in regard to larger
> companies.
> > Exodus consumes a very modest amount of address space given our size
> and
> > presence on the Internet.  There are much smaller competitors of
ours
> that
> > consume larger amounts of IP space.
> > 
> > Exodus is already pioneering the efficiency of use ideology that I
> would
> > like to see ARIN adopt (a strong HTTP1.1 stance on ARIN's part is a
> good
> > start).  We currently require extensive supporting documentation for
> IP
> > requests from all our Customers.  A Customer has to show a
documented
> need
> > for their usage request and we file all these requests and refer to
> past
> > requests and detail as additional requests for address space occur.
> This
> > method gives us a very clear and honest indication of IP address
usage
> > growth. This allows us to support our Customers' IP addressing needs
> in a
> > very accurate and efficient way.  The end result is less consumption
> of IPv4
> > space across the board.
> > 
> > Clayton Lambert
> > Exodus Communications
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of
> Stephen
> > Elliott
> > Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 12:20 PM
> > To: Virtual IP List
> > Subject: RE: ARIN Justified...
> > 
> >         The big guys that you refer to are generally not in the web
> hosting
> > business and therefore are outside of the scope of this
conversation.
> > The real concern is the big guys like Exodus and UUNet.  Since IPv6
is
> > not a viable option for general consumption yet, we need to
> concentrate
> > on conserving the existing IPv4 space.  As far as search engines go,
> if
> > enough sites start using HTTP1.1 software virtual servers, they will
> be
> > forced to upgrade their spiders to support it.  I would suggest that
> one
> > of the main issues at hand is billing.  Billing for web hosting
> > companies that is.  Most companies bundle bandwidth with their
hosting
> > packages, and current billing packages utilize destination IP
address
> > information to gather this information.  If there is not a way to
get
> > this information without drastic changes to both billing software
and
> in
> > some cases hardware, there will be very strong opposition to any
> changes
> > in the way IP addresses are given out.
> > -Stephen
> > 
> > --
> > Stephen Elliott                 Harrison & Troxell
> > Systems & Networking Manager    2 Faneuil Hall Marketplace
> > Systems & Networking Group      Boston, Ma 02109
> > (617)227-0494 Phone             (617)720-3918 Fax
> 
> -- 
> Stephen Elliott                 Harrison & Troxell
> Systems & Networking Manager    2 Faneuil Hall Marketplace
> Systems & Networking Group      Boston, Ma 02109
> (617)227-0494 Phone             (617)720-3918 Fax
> 



From simon at optinet.com  Fri Jan  5 22:57:44 2001
From: simon at optinet.com (Simon)
Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2001 22:57:44 -0500
Subject: ARIN Justified...
In-Reply-To: <DA58D604766F1B499D2D0BDDD5E17DF104388A@exvsny1.nymail.virtualscape.com>
Message-ID: <200101060353.WAA09073@rs1.arin.net>

Now, this is how IPs are wasted. Why in the world they can't use one IP per client, I've no idea. It's interesting too, they 
assign each new domain a unique IP unless you refuse. Very strange. I doubt it's a typo, too. I mean, if you can use 
named-based hosting and imply so, then why give unique IPs by default. I think companies like this should be penalized 
somehow.

"Why pay up to $50 per month for additional domains added to your hosting account? With 
Blue Gravity Hosting, all domains are combined under one account, and one usage based 
billing plan. Host an unlimited number of domains under a single account, for one low monthly 
price. Pay a one-time setup fee of $5.00 per domain (each domain is assigned a unique IP 
address unless otherwise requested)!"


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/vwp/attachments/20010105/9452aebd/attachment.html>

From bve at quadrix.com  Sat Jan  6 17:17:25 2001
From: bve at quadrix.com (Bill Van Emburg)
Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2001 17:17:25 -0500
Subject: ARIN Justified...
References: <200101042152.NAA08486@exoserv.exodus.net>
Message-ID: <3A579975.6384C896@quadrix.com>

The way I read it, Mr. Elliott was not saying that there should be no
list of exceptions -- merely that such a list could never be complete,
so there must be language allowing for other exceptions.  I also believe
it reasonable that there be specifically *disallowed* exceptions.

One of the major complaints about the old policy from many quarters was
that it did not enumerate any of the valid reasons for IP-based
hosting.  With such vagueness, I personally dealt with significant
problems getting appropriate IP space from Exodus for customers of
mine.  The standard reply was, "per ARIN policy, you MUST use name-based
hosting to host multiple web sites on one machine."  (Note that this was
even before the policy was put in force.)  Personnel were also quoted as
saying, "You are allowed one IP address per machine."  I do not know
whether this was specific personnel being too enthusiastic in
enforcement, or the nature of the policy, but a clearly stated ARIN
policy could significantly reduce the suffering that an end-user
organization goes through in trying to acquire appropriate space to deal
with their specific issues.  It is this personal experience that causes
me to be against giving too free of a reign to upstream providers. 
"Maintainer discretion" leads to excessive difficulty for end users, in
some cases.  It should only be applied to additional, non-enumerated
exceptions.


My list of valid exceptions is as follows:

1) SSL sites

2) Those who use IP-based billing software, load balancers and/or
similar tools to measure, control and route bandwidth.

3) Hosters of multi-service sites, where separate customers are, to some
degree, isolated from each other, and where some of the protocols
supported do not have a reasonable analog to HTTP 1.1.  My company
provides such a service.  FTP, POP, Telnet, et. al., and custom services
do not have an HTTP 1.1 analog.  Standard proxies that, to some degree,
mimic this feature do not map directly to our infrastructure, since each
customer is totally isolated from every other customer (processes,
users, chroot jail, etc.).

4) Users of application servers that do not allow for name-based hosting
of multiple web sites.

5) If customer has significant conversion issues to comply with this
policy, allocations can be made, with a commitment to execute a
conversion plan.  Given the large amount of software across an
organization that could potentially be affected, conversion intervals
may have to be measured in years.

6) Other technical or business issues that can reasonably be justified,
either for temporary or permanent justification.

(It's possible that I've left out something, as I do not have all of my
notes in front of me)


Having written these exceptions, I want to make it clear that I still
have several major issues with reinstating this policy, with any
exception list.  They are as follows:

a) Search engines: To ignore search engine issues is unreasonable. 
Perhaps this can be addressed by a well-publisized announcement to the
world that in one year's time, name-based hosting will be a
requirement.  With a specific education campaign directed at search
engine companies and web hosters, this should be adequate to force non
compliant search engines to change.

b) Filtering and blocking software: Again, these issues can't be
ignored.  Unfortunately, the practice recommended for search engines may
not work here, as this software is often written to thwart sites (and
spammers) that are actively trying to bypass filters.  Enacting this
policy may make the task of filtering technically infeasible, which
would represent a significant problem, especially in light of laws
requiring libraries and schools to put filtering software in place.

c) Increased impact of DOS attacks: The issues here can be intractable. 
At the very least, there should be some acceptable ratio of domains to
machines, so that web hosters can compartmentalize the damage caused by
a DOS attack.

*******
d) LACK OF CLEAR EVIDENCE AS TO THE SCOPE OF THE PROBLEM WARRANTING THIS
POLICY:  No one has quantified the size of web hosters' contribution to
the depletion of IPv4 address space.  It is very troubling to me that we
are casting about for easy places to enact policies that will cost
businesses millions of dollars in conversion costs, without doing a
simple analysis of what the new policy might save.  I do not believe the
answer to this question is obvious.

I still firmly believe that there are other places to look that will
recover significantly greater IP space, while imposing lesser costs upon
Internet businesses and using only technology that is fully tested and
functional today.  One valid response from this committee would be to
say that we do not believe now is the right time to enact a stronger web
hosting policy, and that we believe other policies should instead be
investigated, such as a policy to reduce ISP IP usage by forcing the use
of private IPs and NAT.  It is absolutely within the scope of this
committee to make such a statement.  

Shouldn't we go for the biggest consumers of IPv4 space first??
-- 

				     -- Bill Van Emburg
				     	Quadrix Solutions, Inc.
Phone: 732-235-2335, x206		(mailto:bve at quadrix.com)
Fax:   732-235-2336			(http://quadrix.com)
		The eBusiness Solutions Company
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Clayton Lambert wrote:
> 
> Agreed.
> 
> I don't think there should be a "list" of exceptions.  There should be
> maintainer discretion and escalation to ARIN if the service provider (end
> user) feels he is getting the shaft from the ISP.
> 
> If you have a need for addresses, document the need and provide any
> supporting technical justification.  Exodus has a tough policy, but it is
> not restrictive in that we will provide you with the address space that you
> need, it is just that we require the need to be documented beyond an email
> that says "I need a /22 for a network of 75 webservers."  Don't laugh, I get
> stuff like that all the time.
> We have contacted and made recommendations to many large scale vendors in
> the past (and we continue to make efforts in this regard) in support of
> HTTP1.1 support, as well as trying to push them to support efficient IP
> usage.
> 
> So while it may be difficult to get a large and shakely justified block of
> address space, it is not difficult (beyond the documentation requirement) to
> acquire address space that is justified.
> 
> -Clay
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stephen Elliott [mailto:stephen at hnt.com]
> Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 1:47 PM
> To: Clayton Lambert; Virtual IP List
> Subject: Re: ARIN Justified...
> 
> :-)  The reason I mentioned Exodus is because we are a customer of
> Exodus, and in my opinion, the policy is too restrictive.  And the
> statement was directed at the fact that Exodus hosts many companies that
> are in the business of hosting websites, not Exodus as a company.  As I
> have stated in earlier postings, simply clamping down and restricting
> virtual web hosting is not the answer.  Any list of justifications, no
> matter how much thought went into it, will not cover every possible
> reason for needing the IP's.  Documentation is a great thing, just the
> fact that someone has to sit down and write out a list of machines that
> need IP's will deter most people from requesting extra IP's.
> -Stephen
>


From bve at quadrix.com  Sat Jan  6 17:23:18 2001
From: bve at quadrix.com (Bill Van Emburg)
Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2001 17:23:18 -0500
Subject: ARIN Justified...
References: <200101042157.NAA09740@exoserv.exodus.net>
Message-ID: <3A579AD6.5D998889@quadrix.com>

Clayton Lambert wrote:
> 
> agreed.
> 
> All aspects should be looked at.
> 
> In the modified version of the policy that I am pushing for, the software
> that you use for billing could be considered a technical reason for
> justification...And if you requested IP space for this reason to me, and I
> denied the request, you should have the right to have the request escalated
> to ARIN for a decision...This would also protect the ISP from difficulties
> with further IP allocation requests from ARIN (if auditing by ARIN included
> the disputed assignment in their review).
> 

I am VERY glad to hear you say this, and I would agree.  I was confused,
as you have often stated things such as:
----------------------------------
Subject: RE: ARIN Justified...
   Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 13:29:21 -0800
   From: "Clayton Lambert" <Clay at exodus.net>
     To: <bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com>,
	 "'Mark Strother'" <marks at paconline.net>
    CC:  "'Virtual IP List'" <vwp at arin.net>

This hits the heart of this particular aspect of the issue:

ARIN IP policy should not be restricted due to vendor specific
limitations.
protocol limitations are a different story, but just because a
short-sited
vendor takes an easy path to market, for his product or service, ARIN
should
not conform a policy around his product limitation.

-clay
-------------------------------
Your reference to "vendor specific limitations" not being allowable
exceptions had me thinking of circumstances such as Mr. Elliott's.

As you stated at the top of the first message, his situation would
warrant an exception.
-- 

				     -- Bill Van Emburg
				     	Quadrix Solutions, Inc.
Phone: 732-235-2335, x206		(mailto:bve at quadrix.com)
Fax:   732-235-2336			(http://quadrix.com)
		The eBusiness Solutions Company


> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of Stephen
> Elliott
> Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 1:49 PM
> To: bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com; Virtual IP List
> Subject: Re: ARIN Justified...
> 
> Pulling IP utilization is a protocol layer function, going in and
> pulling out the url is a application layer function.  Most billing
> applications would have to be completely rewritten and replaced.  In
> addition the processing power required and the latency would increase
> dramatically if this were required.  I do not suggest that these
> obstacles are insurmountable, just that they exist and should not be
> overlooked.
> -Stephen
> 
> bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Stephen is right. For us the biggest issue is billing. We collect
> billing
> > > data using NetFlow and export the data to our accounting and billing
> > > software based on IP address.
> > >
> > > It would take a lot of work/money to migrate from this system.
> > >
> > > Mark Strother
> > > President, Pacific Online
> > > Phone: (604) 638-6010
> > > Fax: (604) 638-6020
> > > Toll Free: 1-877-503-9870
> >
> >         So... you are depending on a vendor supplied system?
> >         When (not if) NetFlow changes and/or you migrate to
> >         a vendor that does not support NetFlow, you expect
> >         your systems to continue to work?
> >
> > --bill
> 
> --
> Stephen Elliott                 Harrison & Troxell
> Systems & Networking Manager    2 Faneuil Hall Marketplace
> Systems & Networking Group      Boston, Ma 02109
> (617)227-0494 Phone             (617)720-3918 Fax


From bve at quadrix.com  Sat Jan  6 17:26:31 2001
From: bve at quadrix.com (Bill Van Emburg)
Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2001 17:26:31 -0500
Subject: ARIN Justified...
References: <200101042119.QAA11992@rs1.arin.net>
Message-ID: <3A579B97.D1FBD821@quadrix.com>

Simon wrote:
> 
> For virtual hosting, you can parse access log files. For us, billing isn't the issue, but attacks, search engines, anonymous
> FTP, SSL, and few other things are. Our biggest concern is DoS. One can *easily* cause DoS for sites sharing the same
> IP and there is no fast/easy way of blocking the attack. It happened once, and it surely didn't look pretty. You can find
> my post in the archive regarding the attack.
> 
> -Simon
> 

Parsing access log files will not, unfortunately, solve the billing
issue, as this method does not scale.  It also leaves out any traffic
that is not HTTP traffic, making "bandwidth reports" substantially
inaccurate.
-- 

				     -- Bill Van Emburg
				     	Quadrix Solutions, Inc.
Phone: 732-235-2335, x206		(mailto:bve at quadrix.com)
Fax:   732-235-2336			(http://quadrix.com)
		The eBusiness Solutions Company


From bve at quadrix.com  Sat Jan  6 17:50:46 2001
From: bve at quadrix.com (Bill Van Emburg)
Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2001 17:50:46 -0500
Subject: Need for numbers related to Hosting
References: <F0A77279DB36D111A6EC00A024DEE7AF3338D6@kronos.wustl.edu>
Message-ID: <3A57A146.90C45F3A@quadrix.com>

I, too, am very troubled by the lack of evidence that this policy will
actually improve the situation at all.  While I do not challenge Mr.
Lambert's statement that "webhosting companies do indeed consume the 
lions share of IP address space while operating a relatively small
percentage of the physical devices that we support," I would put forth
that Exodus is not the Internet, and should not be considered indicative
of the Internet as a whole.  What's more, this fact does not indicate
anything about whether this is a bad thing for IP conservation, or
whether this change in policy will have a significant, positive impact. 
After all, aren't the majority of Exodus' customer web hosters? 
Wouldn't one expect web hosters to consume large numbers of IP
addresses, relative to the number of physical machines.  That fact is
not, by definition, a problem!  (Of course, it is also not, by
definition, NOT a problem....  ;-)

Further, any assessment of the likely impact of this policy on IP
conservation would have to include an assessment of rate of depletion,
grouped by type of use.  The most important question right now is, "who
is currently being assigned IPv4 addresses at the greatest rate?"  That
will tell us where to start enacting tougher policies.

Note that I am NOT against the current ARIN recommendation to use
name-based hosting wherever feasible.  I believe that all organizations
should follow this policy, simply as a matter of avoiding waste.
-- 

				     -- Bill Van Emburg
				     	Quadrix Solutions, Inc.
Phone: 732-235-2335, x206		(mailto:bve at quadrix.com)
Fax:   732-235-2336			(http://quadrix.com)
		The eBusiness Solutions Company


Bill Darte wrote:
> 
> The point was not to nit pick your verbage, but to express my concern for
> recommending policy to the BoT based upon analysis devoid of fact which
> fairly represents the problem and the urgency of remedy.  We can look at the
> overall depletion of the v4 address space and speculate on its demise and
> consequences.  I have seen absolutely no numbers associated with this
> problem that suggests a magnitude and trend.
> Bill Darte
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Clayton Lambert [mailto:Clay at exodus.net]
> > Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 11:45 AM
> > To: 'Bill Darte'; vwp at arin.net
> > Subject: RE: Been quiet in here...
> >
> >
> > I was generalizing, not being vague.  It is an interesting point that
> > relates to this discussion.  I don't think the comment
> > warrented an overly
> > deep analysis.  I am not at liberty to disclose the detailed
> > demographics of
> > our Customers, but the trend is clear (for me, as the
> > maintainer within my
> > company) that webhosting companies do indeed consume the
> > lions share of IP
> > address space while operating a relatively small percentage
> > of the physical
> > devices that we support.
> >
> > -Clay
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of Bill
> > Darte
> > Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 7:00 AM
> > To: 'Clayton Lambert'; vwp at arin.net
> > Subject: RE: Been quiet in here...
> >
> >
> > Not to be contentious, but "a small percentage of our customer use the
> > overwhelmingly largeset amount of address space" IS very vague.
> > I'm all for conservation, I am willing to support policy that enforces
> > conservation when need exists, but I am unwilling to support
> > policy that is
> > based upon these anecdotal, rather than factual references.
> > Bill Darte
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Clayton Lambert [mailto:Clay at exodus.net]
> > > Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 4:48 PM
> > > To: 'Bill Darte'; 'Alec H. Peterson'; vwp at arin.net
> > > Subject: RE: Been quiet in here...
> > >
> > >
> > > it is more than a vague notion.  It is a fact...
> > >
> > > A small percentage of our Customers use the overwhelmingly
> > > largest amounts
> > > of address space.
> > >
> > > This policy should not scare web-hosters.  I think that
> > > webhosters should
> > > make the attempt to be efficient with their use of address
> > > space.  We have
> > > hammered our name-based hosting servers and we have not seen
> > > an appreciable
> > > drop in performance compared to the same servers running IP
> > > based hosting.
> > > If there is a valid reason for a service provider (any
> > > service, not just
> > > webhosters) to use IP-based hosting, I think it is not
> > > unreasonable to have
> > > them provide documentation to support that requirement.
> > > Accountability
> > > isn't something that is necessarily bad.
> > >
> > > -Clayton Lambert
> > > Exodus Communications
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On
> > Behalf Of Bill
> > > Darte
> > > Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 1:24 PM
> > > To: 'Alec H. Peterson'; vwp at arin.net
> > > Subject: RE: Been quiet in here...
> > >
> > >
> > > I have seen no evidence that there is a problem. No scope, no
> > > magnitude, no
> > > trends, just a vague notion that it is wasting "lots" of addresses.
> > > Bill Darte
> > > AC


From simon at optinet.com  Sat Jan  6 18:18:53 2001
From: simon at optinet.com (Simon)
Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2001 18:18:53 -0500
Subject: ARIN Justified...
In-Reply-To: <3A579B97.D1FBD821@quadrix.com>
Message-ID: <200101062314.SAA10200@rs1.arin.net>

Doesn't scale in what sense? doing virtual web hosting, what other traffic are you concerned about? 

-Simon

On Sat, 06 Jan 2001 17:26:31 -0500, Bill Van Emburg wrote:

>Simon wrote:
>> 
>> For virtual hosting, you can parse access log files. For us, billing isn't the issue, but attacks, search engines, 
anonymous
>> FTP, SSL, and few other things are. Our biggest concern is DoS. One can *easily* cause DoS for sites sharing the 
same
>> IP and there is no fast/easy way of blocking the attack. It happened once, and it surely didn't look pretty. You can 
find
>> my post in the archive regarding the attack.
>> 
>> -Simon
>> 
>
>Parsing access log files will not, unfortunately, solve the billing
>issue, as this method does not scale.  It also leaves out any traffic
>that is not HTTP traffic, making "bandwidth reports" substantially
>inaccurate.
>-- 
>
>				     -- Bill Van Emburg
>				     	Quadrix Solutions, Inc.
>Phone: 732-235-2335, x206		(mailto:bve at quadrix.com)
>Fax:   732-235-2336			(http://quadrix.com)
>		The eBusiness Solutions Company
>





From SRogers at Affinity.com  Sat Jan  6 19:15:28 2001
From: SRogers at Affinity.com (Scott Rogers)
Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2001 16:15:28 -0800 
Subject: ARIN Justified...
Message-ID: <23AE217BF800D411B12500D0B73CF36E5B9F78@exchange.affinityla.com>

SO let's all open a $50. account and request a
few thousand IP addresses :-)

At least we will knoe where to go to get more when
we all run out.

(Please, no flames... I'm kidding... Well sort of :-)

-----Original Message-----
From: Simon
To: vwp at arin.net
Sent: 1/5/01 7:57 PM
Subject: Re: ARIN Justified...

Now, this is how IPs are wasted. Why in the world they can't use one IP
per client, I've no idea. It's interesting too, they assign each new
domain a unique IP unless you refuse. Very strange. I doubt it's a typo,
too. I mean, if you can use named-based hosting and imply so, then why
give unique IPs by default. I think companies like this should be
penalized somehow.

"Why pay up to $50 per month for additional domains added to your
hosting account? With Blue Gravity Hosting, all domains are combined
under one account, and one usage based billing plan. Host an unlimited
number of domains under a single account, for one low monthly price. Pay
a one-time setup fee of $5.00 per domain (each domain is assigned a
unique IP address unless otherwise requested)!"




From decosta at bayconnect.com  Sat Jan  6 19:40:00 2001
From: decosta at bayconnect.com (NeoBoi)
Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2001 16:40:00 -0800
Subject: ARIN Justified...
References: <23AE217BF800D411B12500D0B73CF36E5B9F78@exchange.affinityla.com>
Message-ID: <3A57BAE0.4BA2ADD7@bayconnect.com>

I agree, unless the client is using SSL, there is no need for a Single IP
per domain....its a waste...

Scott Rogers wrote:

> SO let's all open a $50. account and request a
> few thousand IP addresses :-)
>
> At least we will knoe where to go to get more when
> we all run out.
>
> (Please, no flames... I'm kidding... Well sort of :-)
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Simon
> To: vwp at arin.net
> Sent: 1/5/01 7:57 PM
> Subject: Re: ARIN Justified...
>
> Now, this is how IPs are wasted. Why in the world they can't use one IP
> per client, I've no idea. It's interesting too, they assign each new
> domain a unique IP unless you refuse. Very strange. I doubt it's a typo,
> too. I mean, if you can use named-based hosting and imply so, then why
> give unique IPs by default. I think companies like this should be
> penalized somehow.
>
> "Why pay up to $50 per month for additional domains added to your
> hosting account? With Blue Gravity Hosting, all domains are combined
> under one account, and one usage based billing plan. Host an unlimited
> number of domains under a single account, for one low monthly price. Pay
> a one-time setup fee of $5.00 per domain (each domain is assigned a
> unique IP address unless otherwise requested)!"



From lgilbert at rawhideinc.com  Mon Jan  1 08:02:14 2001
From: lgilbert at rawhideinc.com (Leonard Gilbert)
Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2001 08:02:14 -0500
Subject: ARIN Justified...
In-Reply-To: <3A57BAE0.4BA2ADD7@bayconnect.com>
Message-ID: <HKEKLJNKKDBEAMHAGKPDMEGBCAAA.lgilbert@rawhideinc.com>

OK, so what do you do with the search engines that don't support it. Tell
all the businesses that use the search engines to get their business from
somewhere else?

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of NeoBoi
Sent: Saturday, January 06, 2001 7:40 PM
To: Scott Rogers
Cc: 'Simon '; 'vwp at arin.net '
Subject: Re: ARIN Justified...


I agree, unless the client is using SSL, there is no need for a Single IP
per domain....its a waste...

Scott Rogers wrote:

> SO let's all open a $50. account and request a
> few thousand IP addresses :-)
>
> At least we will knoe where to go to get more when
> we all run out.
>
> (Please, no flames... I'm kidding... Well sort of :-)
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Simon
> To: vwp at arin.net
> Sent: 1/5/01 7:57 PM
> Subject: Re: ARIN Justified...
>
> Now, this is how IPs are wasted. Why in the world they can't use one IP
> per client, I've no idea. It's interesting too, they assign each new
> domain a unique IP unless you refuse. Very strange. I doubt it's a typo,
> too. I mean, if you can use named-based hosting and imply so, then why
> give unique IPs by default. I think companies like this should be
> penalized somehow.
>
> "Why pay up to $50 per month for additional domains added to your
> hosting account? With Blue Gravity Hosting, all domains are combined
> under one account, and one usage based billing plan. Host an unlimited
> number of domains under a single account, for one low monthly price. Pay
> a one-time setup fee of $5.00 per domain (each domain is assigned a
> unique IP address unless otherwise requested)!"



From decosta at bayconnect.com  Sat Jan  6 20:07:26 2001
From: decosta at bayconnect.com (NeoBoi)
Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2001 17:07:26 -0800
Subject: ARIN Justified...
References: <HKEKLJNKKDBEAMHAGKPDMEGBCAAA.lgilbert@rawhideinc.com>
Message-ID: <3A57C14E.7F7F6587@bayconnect.com>

search engines stay in business because of people that visit their sits and
click on their ads, if they cant find what they are looking for, then they
wot visit, and the search engines will be forced to change their means of
spidering...

Leonard Gilbert wrote:

> OK, so what do you do with the search engines that don't support it. Tell
> all the businesses that use the search engines to get their business from
> somewhere else?
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of NeoBoi
> Sent: Saturday, January 06, 2001 7:40 PM
> To: Scott Rogers
> Cc: 'Simon '; 'vwp at arin.net '
> Subject: Re: ARIN Justified...
>
> I agree, unless the client is using SSL, there is no need for a Single IP
> per domain....its a waste...
>
> Scott Rogers wrote:
>
> > SO let's all open a $50. account and request a
> > few thousand IP addresses :-)
> >
> > At least we will knoe where to go to get more when
> > we all run out.
> >
> > (Please, no flames... I'm kidding... Well sort of :-)
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Simon
> > To: vwp at arin.net
> > Sent: 1/5/01 7:57 PM
> > Subject: Re: ARIN Justified...
> >
> > Now, this is how IPs are wasted. Why in the world they can't use one IP
> > per client, I've no idea. It's interesting too, they assign each new
> > domain a unique IP unless you refuse. Very strange. I doubt it's a typo,
> > too. I mean, if you can use named-based hosting and imply so, then why
> > give unique IPs by default. I think companies like this should be
> > penalized somehow.
> >
> > "Why pay up to $50 per month for additional domains added to your
> > hosting account? With Blue Gravity Hosting, all domains are combined
> > under one account, and one usage based billing plan. Host an unlimited
> > number of domains under a single account, for one low monthly price. Pay
> > a one-time setup fee of $5.00 per domain (each domain is assigned a
> > unique IP address unless otherwise requested)!"



From lgilbert at rawhideinc.com  Mon Jan  1 08:07:10 2001
From: lgilbert at rawhideinc.com (Leonard Gilbert)
Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2001 08:07:10 -0500
Subject: ARIN Justified...
In-Reply-To: <3A57C14E.7F7F6587@bayconnect.com>
Message-ID: <HKEKLJNKKDBEAMHAGKPDGEGCCAAA.lgilbert@rawhideinc.com>

Getting them to change not forcing them to play along is the key. We need to
get them to change their ways so noone loses any business.

-----Original Message-----
From: decosta at bayconnect.com [mailto:decosta at bayconnect.com]
Sent: Saturday, January 06, 2001 8:07 PM
To: Leonard Gilbert
Cc: Scott Rogers; 'Simon '; vwp at arin.net
Subject: Re: ARIN Justified...


search engines stay in business because of people that visit their sits and
click on their ads, if they cant find what they are looking for, then they
wot visit, and the search engines will be forced to change their means of
spidering...

Leonard Gilbert wrote:

> OK, so what do you do with the search engines that don't support it. Tell
> all the businesses that use the search engines to get their business from
> somewhere else?
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of NeoBoi
> Sent: Saturday, January 06, 2001 7:40 PM
> To: Scott Rogers
> Cc: 'Simon '; 'vwp at arin.net '
> Subject: Re: ARIN Justified...
>
> I agree, unless the client is using SSL, there is no need for a Single IP
> per domain....its a waste...
>
> Scott Rogers wrote:
>
> > SO let's all open a $50. account and request a
> > few thousand IP addresses :-)
> >
> > At least we will knoe where to go to get more when
> > we all run out.
> >
> > (Please, no flames... I'm kidding... Well sort of :-)
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Simon
> > To: vwp at arin.net
> > Sent: 1/5/01 7:57 PM
> > Subject: Re: ARIN Justified...
> >
> > Now, this is how IPs are wasted. Why in the world they can't use one IP
> > per client, I've no idea. It's interesting too, they assign each new
> > domain a unique IP unless you refuse. Very strange. I doubt it's a typo,
> > too. I mean, if you can use named-based hosting and imply so, then why
> > give unique IPs by default. I think companies like this should be
> > penalized somehow.
> >
> > "Why pay up to $50 per month for additional domains added to your
> > hosting account? With Blue Gravity Hosting, all domains are combined
> > under one account, and one usage based billing plan. Host an unlimited
> > number of domains under a single account, for one low monthly price. Pay
> > a one-time setup fee of $5.00 per domain (each domain is assigned a
> > unique IP address unless otherwise requested)!"



From simon at optinet.com  Sat Jan  6 20:17:17 2001
From: simon at optinet.com (Simon)
Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2001 20:17:17 -0500
Subject: ARIN Justified...
In-Reply-To: <HKEKLJNKKDBEAMHAGKPDMEGBCAAA.lgilbert@rawhideinc.com>
Message-ID: <200101070113.UAA02080@rs2.arin.net>

Most popular search engines, those that drive 90+% of traffic, support IP-less domains. A major problem is when they ban 
the IPs due to spam. They do this because a spammer has lots of domains pointing to the same IP. It's easier to ban 1 IP 
instead of 50 individual domains...

-Simon

On Mon, 1 Jan 2001 08:02:14 -0500, Leonard Gilbert wrote:

>OK, so what do you do with the search engines that don't support it. Tell
>all the businesses that use the search engines to get their business from
>somewhere else?
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of NeoBoi
>Sent: Saturday, January 06, 2001 7:40 PM
>To: Scott Rogers
>Cc: 'Simon '; 'vwp at arin.net '
>Subject: Re: ARIN Justified...
>
>
>I agree, unless the client is using SSL, there is no need for a Single IP
>per domain....its a waste...
>
>Scott Rogers wrote:
>
>> SO let's all open a $50. account and request a
>> few thousand IP addresses :-)
>>
>> At least we will knoe where to go to get more when
>> we all run out.
>>
>> (Please, no flames... I'm kidding... Well sort of :-)
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Simon
>> To: vwp at arin.net
>> Sent: 1/5/01 7:57 PM
>> Subject: Re: ARIN Justified...
>>
>> Now, this is how IPs are wasted. Why in the world they can't use one IP
>> per client, I've no idea. It's interesting too, they assign each new
>> domain a unique IP unless you refuse. Very strange. I doubt it's a typo,
>> too. I mean, if you can use named-based hosting and imply so, then why
>> give unique IPs by default. I think companies like this should be
>> penalized somehow.
>>
>> "Why pay up to $50 per month for additional domains added to your
>> hosting account? With Blue Gravity Hosting, all domains are combined
>> under one account, and one usage based billing plan. Host an unlimited
>> number of domains under a single account, for one low monthly price. Pay
>> a one-time setup fee of $5.00 per domain (each domain is assigned a
>> unique IP address unless otherwise requested)!"
>
>





From SRogers at Affinity.com  Sun Jan  7 11:51:10 2001
From: SRogers at Affinity.com (Scott Rogers)
Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2001 08:51:10 -0800 
Subject: ARIN Justified...
Message-ID: <23AE217BF800D411B12500D0B73CF36E5B9F7A@exchange.affinityla.com>

 Let me reverse this.

Can you provide ONE MAJOR search engine that DOES support
name based virtual servers "Correctly".

-----Original Message-----
From: Jawaid.Bazyar at foreThought.net
To: Leonard Gilbert
Cc: NeoBoi; Scott Rogers; 'Simon '; vwp at arin.net
Sent: 1/6/01 5:07 PM
Subject: RE: ARIN Justified...


Can someone PLEASE provide a list of these search engines, and provide
proof (i.e., a letter from the engine's technical staff) that they don't
support HTTP/1.1?

It's all well and good to say "this might be a problem", but to make a
decision we need FACTS, not suppositions.

On Mon, 1 Jan 2001, Leonard Gilbert wrote:

> OK, so what do you do with the search engines that don't support it.
Tell
> all the businesses that use the search engines to get their business
from
> somewhere else?

--
 Jawaid Bazyar                 |   Affordable WWW & Internet Solutions
 foreThought.net               |   for Small Business
 jawaid.bazyar at foreThought.net |   910 16th Street, #1220  (303)
228-0070
 --The Future is Now!--        |   Denver, CO 80202        (303)
228-0077 fax


From SRogers at Affinity.com  Sun Jan  7 15:48:18 2001
From: SRogers at Affinity.com (Scott Rogers)
Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2001 12:48:18 -0800 
Subject: ARIN Justified...
Message-ID: <23AE217BF800D411B12500D0B73CF36E5B9F7D@exchange.affinityla.com>

OK, I've heard of two search engines now that
support http/1.1 name based virtual web sites.

  AltaVista and Excite. 

I have a feeling this is recent (last 6 months).
This is good news to me.  Now, does anyone know
about YAHOO, LYCOS, MSN (go, google, snap, whatever)?

WHat are the other "major" search engines?

-- 


From simon at optinet.com  Sun Jan  7 15:58:06 2001
From: simon at optinet.com (Simon)
Date: Sun, 07 Jan 2001 15:58:06 -0500
Subject: ARIN Justified...
In-Reply-To: <23AE217BF800D411B12500D0B73CF36E5B9F7A@exchange.affinityla.com>
Message-ID: <200101072053.PAA19325@rs2.arin.net>

I personally submit our website to search engines. Most major ones started supplying Host: domain.com header over 1 
year ago. Yahoo, Altavista, Infoseek, and others. Right now, most probably all major search engines support it. The 
problem is getting banned by the IP, not submitting and getting listed.

-Simon

On Sun, 7 Jan 2001 08:51:10 -0800, Scott Rogers wrote:

> Let me reverse this.
>
>Can you provide ONE MAJOR search engine that DOES support
>name based virtual servers "Correctly".
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Jawaid.Bazyar at foreThought.net
>To: Leonard Gilbert
>Cc: NeoBoi; Scott Rogers; 'Simon '; vwp at arin.net
>Sent: 1/6/01 5:07 PM
>Subject: RE: ARIN Justified...
>
>
>Can someone PLEASE provide a list of these search engines, and provide
>proof (i.e., a letter from the engine's technical staff) that they don't
>support HTTP/1.1?
>
>It's all well and good to say "this might be a problem", but to make a
>decision we need FACTS, not suppositions.
>
>On Mon, 1 Jan 2001, Leonard Gilbert wrote:
>
>> OK, so what do you do with the search engines that don't support it.
>Tell
>> all the businesses that use the search engines to get their business
>from
>> somewhere else?
>
>--
> Jawaid Bazyar                 |   Affordable WWW & Internet Solutions
> foreThought.net               |   for Small Business
> jawaid.bazyar at foreThought.net |   910 16th Street, #1220  (303)
>228-0070
> --The Future is Now!--        |   Denver, CO 80202        (303)
>228-0077 fax
>





From decosta at bayconnect.com  Sun Jan  7 16:05:13 2001
From: decosta at bayconnect.com (Joe DeCosta)
Date: Sun, 07 Jan 2001 13:05:13 -0800
Subject: ARIN Justified...
References: <23AE217BF800D411B12500D0B73CF36E5B9F7D@exchange.affinityla.com>
Message-ID: <3A58DA09.E46A152C@bayconnect.com>

I'm pretty sure that Yahoo! and google, do, because all of our VHosted
sites appear on their directories.
Scott Rogers wrote:

> OK, I've heard of two search engines now that
> support http/1.1 name based virtual web sites.
>
>   AltaVista and Excite.
>
> I have a feeling this is recent (last 6 months).
> This is good news to me.  Now, does anyone know
> about YAHOO, LYCOS, MSN (go, google, snap, whatever)?
>
> WHat are the other "major" search engines?
>
> --



From SRogers at Affinity.com  Sun Jan  7 18:41:33 2001
From: SRogers at Affinity.com (Scott Rogers)
Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2001 15:41:33 -0800 
Subject: ARIN Justified...
Message-ID: <23AE217BF800D411B12500D0B73CF36E5B9F80@exchange.affinityla.com>

OK, It appears I've been unber a misconception.
To my defense, it's been over a year since I did
anything directly with the search engines.

The good news (for me) is that I now have more ammunition
to deny IP addresses to my customers, since they were
using the "search engines don't support it" excuse.

I understand that SSL (may) still be a valid reason for
individual addresses.  Am I wrong here? (Anyone).

As far as I'm concernded, if they (my customers) get
their IP addresses blocked, then they are either doing
something they are not supposed to be doing, or allowing
their customers to do things they shouldn't be doing.
I'd rather have to give them a second IP when they get one
blocked, and have them go through the hassle of re-numbering
everthing, than give them a block of IP's (they they will
just get blocked anyway).  It might even discourage them
from letting their IP's be used for SPAM, DoS, etc if they
have to keep renumbering and changing the DNS for everything,
everytime they do something stupid.

As the Decicated Server/Colocation facility, I do bandwidth
accounting by Switch Port (bytes based), not IP addresses.
My customers seem to be happy with Web reporting (WebTrends)
to breack it down from there.  This does include FTP, but
not streaming audio.  They will have to figure that out
themselves.

So, as a hosting company, what other valid reasons are left
for multiple "real" IP's, other than SSL ?

BTW: Thanks for letting me vent here and there, as well as
correcting some of my mis-conceptions on the search engines.
Now maybe I won't sound so much like the high and mighty fool :-)

-----Original Message-----
From: Joe DeCosta
To: Scott Rogers
Cc: 'Jawaid.Bazyar at foreThought.net '; ''Leonard Gilbert ' '; '''Simon ' ' ';
''vwp at arin.net ' '
Sent: 1/7/01 1:05 PM
Subject: Re: ARIN Justified...

I'm pretty sure that Yahoo! and google, do, because all of our VHosted
sites appear on their directories.
Scott Rogers wrote:

> OK, I've heard of two search engines now that
> support http/1.1 name based virtual web sites.
>
>   AltaVista and Excite.
>
> I have a feeling this is recent (last 6 months).
> This is good news to me.  Now, does anyone know
> about YAHOO, LYCOS, MSN (go, google, snap, whatever)?
>
> WHat are the other "major" search engines?
>
> --


From simon at optinet.com  Sun Jan  7 18:58:26 2001
From: simon at optinet.com (Simon)
Date: Sun, 07 Jan 2001 18:58:26 -0500
Subject: ARIN Justified...
In-Reply-To: <23AE217BF800D411B12500D0B73CF36E5B9F80@exchange.affinityla.com>
Message-ID: <200101072353.SAA27767@rs1.arin.net>

I don't know what's up with SSL, but we run it fine in IP-less setup. No one ever reported any problems. As for getting IP
(s) banned from a SE, it's not due to spammers submitting IPs instead of their domain name, but due to search engines 
using IPs to ban instead of the site name. Imagine a hosting company that has 100 clients sharing 1 IP and someone 
gets this IP banned. This automatically bans all 99 other client's sites for no reason. That's where the problem is.

-Simon

On Sun, 7 Jan 2001 15:41:33 -0800, Scott Rogers wrote:

>OK, It appears I've been unber a misconception.
>To my defense, it's been over a year since I did
>anything directly with the search engines.
>
>The good news (for me) is that I now have more ammunition
>to deny IP addresses to my customers, since they were
>using the "search engines don't support it" excuse.
>
>I understand that SSL (may) still be a valid reason for
>individual addresses.  Am I wrong here? (Anyone).
>
>As far as I'm concernded, if they (my customers) get
>their IP addresses blocked, then they are either doing
>something they are not supposed to be doing, or allowing
>their customers to do things they shouldn't be doing.
>I'd rather have to give them a second IP when they get one
>blocked, and have them go through the hassle of re-numbering
>everthing, than give them a block of IP's (they they will
>just get blocked anyway).  It might even discourage them
>from letting their IP's be used for SPAM, DoS, etc if they
>have to keep renumbering and changing the DNS for everything,
>everytime they do something stupid.
>
>As the Decicated Server/Colocation facility, I do bandwidth
>accounting by Switch Port (bytes based), not IP addresses.
>My customers seem to be happy with Web reporting (WebTrends)
>to breack it down from there.  This does include FTP, but
>not streaming audio.  They will have to figure that out
>themselves.
>
>So, as a hosting company, what other valid reasons are left
>for multiple "real" IP's, other than SSL ?
>
>BTW: Thanks for letting me vent here and there, as well as
>correcting some of my mis-conceptions on the search engines.
>Now maybe I won't sound so much like the high and mighty fool :-)
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Joe DeCosta
>To: Scott Rogers
>Cc: 'Jawaid.Bazyar at foreThought.net '; ''Leonard Gilbert ' '; '''Simon ' ' ';
>''vwp at arin.net ' '
>Sent: 1/7/01 1:05 PM
>Subject: Re: ARIN Justified...
>
>I'm pretty sure that Yahoo! and google, do, because all of our VHosted
>sites appear on their directories.
>Scott Rogers wrote:
>
>> OK, I've heard of two search engines now that
>> support http/1.1 name based virtual web sites.
>>
>>   AltaVista and Excite.
>>
>> I have a feeling this is recent (last 6 months).
>> This is good news to me.  Now, does anyone know
>> about YAHOO, LYCOS, MSN (go, google, snap, whatever)?
>>
>> WHat are the other "major" search engines?
>>
>> --
>





From SRogers at Affinity.com  Sun Jan  7 19:09:32 2001
From: SRogers at Affinity.com (Scott Rogers)
Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2001 16:09:32 -0800 
Subject: ARIN Justified...
Message-ID: <23AE217BF800D411B12500D0B73CF36E5B9F82@exchange.affinityla.com>

Thanks for the clarifications.

What are some of the reasons a Search Engine would ban
an IP?

Like I said, part of me (the part that has no revenue requirements)
says if the customer gets his IP banned, then they (probably)
deserved it.  My customer is the owner of the server.  In my opinion,
they need to take responsibility for their customers.

On the flip side, a large portion of them (my customers) are
clue-less people that bought servers with control panels to let
them add their own customers.  They usally neither know nor care
what those people do unless/until it costs them money.  Either in bandwidth
charges, or cancellation of other customers.  

They also seem to care when we pull their plug after they have been
compromised and the hacker starts using them as a jumping off point
for the next victim.  We are very proactive in that reguard.  If only
the real ISP's would be as proactive.  Even simple access lists to
block source addresses not their own (spoofing) would help.  Yes, I
know I'm off the topic...  Just a freindly reminder to all to help
protect the net.

-----Original Message-----
From: Simon
To: vwp at arin.net
Sent: 1/7/01 3:58 PM
Subject: RE: ARIN Justified...

I don't know what's up with SSL, but we run it fine in IP-less setup. No
one ever reported any problems. As for getting IP
(s) banned from a SE, it's not due to spammers submitting IPs instead of
their domain name, but due to search engines 
using IPs to ban instead of the site name. Imagine a hosting company
that has 100 clients sharing 1 IP and someone 
gets this IP banned. This automatically bans all 99 other client's sites
for no reason. That's where the problem is.

-Simon

On Sun, 7 Jan 2001 15:41:33 -0800, Scott Rogers wrote:

>OK, It appears I've been unber a misconception.
>To my defense, it's been over a year since I did
>anything directly with the search engines.
>
>The good news (for me) is that I now have more ammunition
>to deny IP addresses to my customers, since they were
>using the "search engines don't support it" excuse.
>
>I understand that SSL (may) still be a valid reason for
>individual addresses.  Am I wrong here? (Anyone).
>
>As far as I'm concernded, if they (my customers) get
>their IP addresses blocked, then they are either doing
>something they are not supposed to be doing, or allowing
>their customers to do things they shouldn't be doing.
>I'd rather have to give them a second IP when they get one
>blocked, and have them go through the hassle of re-numbering
>everthing, than give them a block of IP's (they they will
>just get blocked anyway).  It might even discourage them
>from letting their IP's be used for SPAM, DoS, etc if they
>have to keep renumbering and changing the DNS for everything,
>everytime they do something stupid.
>
>As the Decicated Server/Colocation facility, I do bandwidth
>accounting by Switch Port (bytes based), not IP addresses.
>My customers seem to be happy with Web reporting (WebTrends)
>to breack it down from there.  This does include FTP, but
>not streaming audio.  They will have to figure that out
>themselves.
>
>So, as a hosting company, what other valid reasons are left
>for multiple "real" IP's, other than SSL ?
>
>BTW: Thanks for letting me vent here and there, as well as
>correcting some of my mis-conceptions on the search engines.
>Now maybe I won't sound so much like the high and mighty fool :-)
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Joe DeCosta
>To: Scott Rogers
>Cc: 'Jawaid.Bazyar at foreThought.net '; ''Leonard Gilbert ' '; '''Simon '
' ';
>''vwp at arin.net ' '
>Sent: 1/7/01 1:05 PM
>Subject: Re: ARIN Justified...
>
>I'm pretty sure that Yahoo! and google, do, because all of our VHosted
>sites appear on their directories.
>Scott Rogers wrote:
>
>> OK, I've heard of two search engines now that
>> support http/1.1 name based virtual web sites.
>>
>>   AltaVista and Excite.
>>
>> I have a feeling this is recent (last 6 months).
>> This is good news to me.  Now, does anyone know
>> about YAHOO, LYCOS, MSN (go, google, snap, whatever)?
>>
>> WHat are the other "major" search engines?
>>
>> --
>




From simon at optinet.com  Sun Jan  7 19:37:09 2001
From: simon at optinet.com (Simon)
Date: Sun, 07 Jan 2001 19:37:09 -0500
Subject: ARIN Justified...
In-Reply-To: <23AE217BF800D411B12500D0B73CF36E5B9F82@exchange.affinityla.com>
Message-ID: <200101080032.TAA02100@rs2.arin.net>

It doesn't apply in your case for the most part. I'm talking about web hosting companies that do virtual hosting and use 
shared IP to host many sites. In your case, you assign each of your client a unique IP(s) for their server. The reason SE 
ban using an IP is because it's easier. It's much easier for a spammer to change a domain name than an IP and get 
away with a ban. Or, where a spammer has lots of domains pointing to the same IP, it's much easier to ban the IP instead 
of each domain name individually. I'm sure there are other reasons... those two are just few that I know of.

-Simon 

On Sun, 7 Jan 2001 16:09:32 -0800, Scot Rogers wrote:

>Thanks for the clarifications.
>
>What are some of the reasons a Search Engine would ban
>an IP?
>
>Like I said, part of me (the part that has no revenue requirements)
>says if the customer gets his IP banned, then they (probably)
>deserved it.  My customer is the owner of the server.  In my opinion,
>they need to take responsibility for their customers.
>
>On the flip side, a large portion of them (my customers) are
>clue-less people that bought servers with control panels to let
>them add their own customers.  They usally neither know nor care
>what those people do unless/until it costs them money.  Either in bandwidth
>charges, or cancellation of other customers.  
>
>They also seem to care when we pull their plug after they have been
>compromised and the hacker starts using them as a jumping off point
>for the next victim.  We are very proactive in that reguard.  If only
>the real ISP's would be as proactive.  Even simple access lists to
>block source addresses not their own (spoofing) would help.  Yes, I
>know I'm off the topic...  Just a freindly reminder to all to help
>protect the net.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Simon
>To: vwp at arin.net
>Sent: 1/7/01 3:58 PM
>Subject: RE: ARIN Justified...
>
>I don't know what's up with SSL, but we run it fine in IP-less setup. No
>one ever reported any problems. As for getting IP
>(s) banned from a SE, it's not due to spammers submitting IPs instead of
>their domain name, but due to search engines 
>using IPs to ban instead of the site name. Imagine a hosting company
>that has 100 clients sharing 1 IP and someone 
>gets this IP banned. This automatically bans all 99 other client's sites
>for no reason. That's where the problem is.
>
>-Simon
>
>On Sun, 7 Jan 2001 15:41:33 -0800, Scott Rogers wrote:
>
>>OK, It appears I've been unber a misconception.
>>To my defense, it's been over a year since I did
>>anything directly with the search engines.
>>
>>The good news (for me) is that I now have more ammunition
>>to deny IP addresses to my customers, since they were
>>using the "search engines don't support it" excuse.
>>
>>I understand that SSL (may) still be a valid reason for
>>individual addresses.  Am I wrong here? (Anyone).
>>
>>As far as I'm concernded, if they (my customers) get
>>their IP addresses blocked, then they are either doing
>>something they are not supposed to be doing, or allowing
>>their customers to do things they shouldn't be doing.
>>I'd rather have to give them a second IP when they get one
>>blocked, and have them go through the hassle of re-numbering
>>everthing, than give them a block of IP's (they they will
>>just get blocked anyway).  It might even discourage them
>>from letting their IP's be used for SPAM, DoS, etc if they
>>have to keep renumbering and changing the DNS for everything,
>>everytime they do something stupid.
>>
>>As the Decicated Server/Colocation facility, I do bandwidth
>>accounting by Switch Port (bytes based), not IP addresses.
>>My customers seem to be happy with Web reporting (WebTrends)
>>to breack it down from there.  This does include FTP, but
>>not streaming audio.  They will have to figure that out
>>themselves.
>>
>>So, as a hosting company, what other valid reasons are left
>>for multiple "real" IP's, other than SSL ?
>>
>>BTW: Thanks for letting me vent here and there, as well as
>>correcting some of my mis-conceptions on the search engines.
>>Now maybe I won't sound so much like the high and mighty fool :-)
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Joe DeCosta
>>To: Scott Rogers
>>Cc: 'Jawaid.Bazyar at foreThought.net '; ''Leonard Gilbert ' '; '''Simon '
>' ';
>>''vwp at arin.net ' '
>>Sent: 1/7/01 1:05 PM
>>Subject: Re: ARIN Justified...
>>
>>I'm pretty sure that Yahoo! and google, do, because all of our VHosted
>>sites appear on their directories.
>>Scott Rogers wrote:
>>
>>> OK, I've heard of two search engines now that
>>> support http/1.1 name based virtual web sites.
>>>
>>>   AltaVista and Excite.
>>>
>>> I have a feeling this is recent (last 6 months).
>>> This is good news to me.  Now, does anyone know
>>> about YAHOO, LYCOS, MSN (go, google, snap, whatever)?
>>>
>>> WHat are the other "major" search engines?
>>>
>>> --
>>
>
>
>





From jpm at asp-one.com  Mon Jan  8 11:56:13 2001
From: jpm at asp-one.com (John McNamee)
Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2001 10:56:13 -0600
Subject: My thoughts on ARIN web hosting policy
Message-ID: <3A599CCD.29747.44114A@localhost>

My first concern is that a significant policy change is being considered
without any formal study showing that IP-per-domain web hosting is actually
a major cause of IP address depletion.  I'm not saying it isn't -- I'm saying 
that I don't know, and nobody has done a scientific study of the issue.
Can't ARIN find some university to do the research and write a report?

Assuming the hard data emerges and IP-per-domain hosting is found
to be a threat to the address pool, it becomes a problem that the entire
industry must face together.  Any pain must be shared equally.  The
proposed ARIN policy could have a disparate impact on newer/smaller
hosting companies.  Large established companies with lots of existing
IP allocations could continue to offer IP-based hosting to some/all of
their customer base, while new entrants could not.  Regardless of
whether this rises to the level of a legal anti-trust problem (IANAL),
it bothers me on a fairness basis.  I believe strongly in free markets,
but the market isn't free if different rules apply to established players
versus new competitiors.

--
John McNamee
Director of Operations
ASP-One Inc.



From simon at optinet.com  Mon Jan  8 12:25:13 2001
From: simon at optinet.com (Simon)
Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2001 12:25:13 -0500
Subject: My thoughts on ARIN web hosting policy
In-Reply-To: <3A599CCD.29747.44114A@localhost>
Message-ID: <200101081721.MAA08302@rs1.arin.net>

I agree with you completely on how it would impact mostly new/small business. It actually was that way for us until ARIN 
suspended the policy.

-Simon

On Mon, 8 Jan 2001 10:56:13 -0600, John McNamee wrote:

>My first concern is that a significant policy change is being considered
>without any formal study showing that IP-per-domain web hosting is actually
>a major cause of IP address depletion.  I'm not saying it isn't -- I'm saying 
>that I don't know, and nobody has done a scientific study of the issue.
>Can't ARIN find some university to do the research and write a report?
>
>Assuming the hard data emerges and IP-per-domain hosting is found
>to be a threat to the address pool, it becomes a problem that the entire
>industry must face together.  Any pain must be shared equally.  The
>proposed ARIN policy could have a disparate impact on newer/smaller
>hosting companies.  Large established companies with lots of existing
>IP allocations could continue to offer IP-based hosting to some/all of
>their customer base, while new entrants could not.  Regardless of
>whether this rises to the level of a legal anti-trust problem (IANAL),
>it bothers me on a fairness basis.  I believe strongly in free markets,
>but the market isn't free if different rules apply to established players
>versus new competitiors.
>
>--
>John McNamee
>Director of Operations
>ASP-One Inc.
>
>





From cshelton at atlanticasp.com  Mon Jan  8 12:34:22 2001
From: cshelton at atlanticasp.com (Christopher D. Shelton)
Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2001 12:34:22 -0500
Subject: My thoughts on ARIN web hosting policy
In-Reply-To: <200101081721.MAA08302@rs1.arin.net>
Message-ID: <017a01c07999$3d938890$e29b8d3f@aberdeen.marylandtechnology.com>

Does anyone know if there is an efficient way for us to determine who is
currently using the various IP blocks - on a macro analysis scale?  I know I
have personally be in large companies that have several Class "C" blocks
that they are not using because they proxy everything.  They just happened
to be assigned to them back in the day when people thought you needed 400
public IP's for 400 in-house computers.

Christopher D. Shelton
Founder and CEO
AtlanticASP.com, Inc.
Baltimore, Maryland





I agree with you completely on how it would impact mostly new/small
business. It actually was that way for us until ARIN
suspended the policy.

-Simon

On Mon, 8 Jan 2001 10:56:13 -0600, John McNamee wrote:

>My first concern is that a significant policy change is being considered
>without any formal study showing that IP-per-domain web hosting is actually
>a major cause of IP address depletion.  I'm not saying it isn't -- I'm
saying
>that I don't know, and nobody has done a scientific study of the issue.
>Can't ARIN find some university to do the research and write a report?
>
>Assuming the hard data emerges and IP-per-domain hosting is found
>to be a threat to the address pool, it becomes a problem that the entire
>industry must face together.  Any pain must be shared equally.  The
>proposed ARIN policy could have a disparate impact on newer/smaller
>hosting companies.  Large established companies with lots of existing
>IP allocations could continue to offer IP-based hosting to some/all of
>their customer base, while new entrants could not.  Regardless of
>whether this rises to the level of a legal anti-trust problem (IANAL),
>it bothers me on a fairness basis.  I believe strongly in free markets,
>but the market isn't free if different rules apply to established players
>versus new competitiors.
>
>--
>John McNamee
>Director of Operations
>ASP-One Inc.
>
>





From Clay at exodus.net  Mon Jan  8 12:59:11 2001
From: Clay at exodus.net (Clayton Lambert)
Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2001 09:59:11 -0800
Subject: ARIN Justified...
In-Reply-To: <200101060353.WAA09073@rs1.arin.net>
Message-ID: <200101081759.JAA06459@exoserv.exodus.net>

Wow...Sounds like a marketing ad.

-Clay
    -----Original Message-----
    From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of Simon
    Sent: Friday, January 05, 2001 7:58 PM
    To: vwp at arin.net
    Subject: Re: ARIN Justified...


    Now, this is how IPs are wasted. Why in the world they can't use one IP
per client, I've no idea. It's interesting too, they assign each new domain
a unique IP unless you refuse. Very strange. I doubt it's a typo, too. I
mean, if you can use named-based hosting and imply so, then why give unique
IPs by default. I think companies like this should be penalized somehow.

    "Why pay up to $50 per month for additional domains added to your
hosting account? With Blue Gravity Hosting, all domains are combined under
one account, and one usage based billing plan. Host an unlimited number of
domains under a single account, for one low monthly price. Pay a one-time
setup fee of $5.00 per domain (each domain is assigned a unique IP address
unless otherwise requested)!"




begin 666 ATT00762.html
M/"%$3T-465!%($A434P at 4%5"3$E#("(M+R]7,T,O+T141"!7,R!(5$U,+R]%
M3B(^#0H\2%1-3#X-"CQ(14%$/@T*/$U%5$$@2%144"U%455)5CTB0V]N=&5N
M="U4>7!E(B!#3TY414Y4/2)T97AT+VAT;6P[(&-H87)S970]:7-O+3 at X-3DM
M,2(^#0H-"@T*#0H\345402!C;VYT96YT/2<B35-(5$U,(#0N-S(N,S<Q,RXV
M,# B)R!N86UE/4=%3D52051/4CX-"CPO2$5!1#X-"CQ"3T19/@T*/$1)5CX\
M4U!!3B!C;&%S<STU-S<U-34X,3<M,#@P,3(P,#$^/$9/3E0 at 8V]L;W(](S P
M,#!F9B!F86-E/4%R:6%L( T*<VEZ93TR/E=O=RXN+E-O=6YD<R!L:6ME(&$@
M;6%R:V5T:6YG(&%D+CPO1D].5#X\+U-004X^/"]$258^#0H\1$E6/CQ34$%.
M(&-L87-S/34W-S4U-3 at Q-RTP.# Q,C P,3X\1D].5"!C;VQO<CTC,# P,&9F
M(&9A8V4]07)I86P@#0IS:7IE/3(^/"]&3TY4/CPO4U!!3CXF;F)S<#L\+T1)
M5CX-"CQ$258^/%-004X at 8VQA<W,]-3<W-34U.#$W+3 X,#$R,# Q/CQ&3TY4
M(&-O;&]R/2,P,# P9F8 at 9F%C93U!<FEA;" -"G-I>F4],CXM0VQA>3PO1D].
M5#X\+U-004X^/"]$258^#0H\0DQ/0TM154]413X-"B @(" \1$E6(&-L87-S
M/4]U=&QO;VM-97-S86=E2&5A9&5R/CQ&3TY4(&9A8V4](E1I;65S($YE=R!2
M;VUA;B(@#0H@(" @<VEZ93TR/BTM+2TM3W)I9VEN86P at 365S<V%G92TM+2TM
M/$)2/CQ"/D9R;VTZ/"]"/B!O=VYE<BUV=W! 87)I;BYN970@#0H@(" @6VUA
M:6QT;SIO=VYE<BUV=W! 87)I;BYN971=/$(^3VX at 0F5H86QF($]F/"]"/B!3
M:6UO;CQ"4CX\0CY396YT.CPO0CX at 1G)I9&%Y+" -"B @("!*86YU87)Y(# U
M+" R,# Q(#<Z-3@@4$T\0E(^/$(^5&\Z/"]"/B!V=W! 87)I;BYN970\0E(^
M/$(^4W5B:F5C=#H\+T(^(%)E.B -"B @("!!4DE.($IU<W1I9FEE9"XN+CQ"
M4CX\0E(^/"]&3TY4/CPO1$E6/CQ&3TY4(&9A8V4](DU3(%-H96QL($1L9R(@
M1$5&055,5" ]( T*(" @($9!0T4^/$9/3E0@<VEZ93TQ($1%1D%53%0@/2!3
M25I%(%!/24Y44TE:12 ](#@^3F]W+"!T:&ES(&ES(&AO=R!)4', at 87)E( T*
M(" @('=A<W1E9"X at 5VAY(&EN('1H92!W;W)L9"!T:&5Y(&-A;B=T('5S92!O
M;F4 at 25 @<&5R(&-L:65N="P at 22=V92!N;R!I9&5A+B -"B @("!)="=S(&EN
M=&5R97-T:6YG('1O;RP@=&AE>2!A<W-I9VX at 96%C:"!N97<@9&]M86EN(&$@
M=6YI<75E($E0('5N;&5S<R!Y;W4@#0H@(" @<F5F=7-E+B!697)Y('-T<F%N
M9V4N($D at 9&]U8G0@:70G<R!A('1Y<&\L('1O;RX at 22!M96%N+"!I9B!Y;W4@
M8V%N('5S92 -"B @("!N86UE9"UB87-E9"!H;W-T:6YG(&%N9"!I;7!L>2!S
M;RP@=&AE;B!W:'D at 9VEV92!U;FEQ=64 at 25!S(&)Y(&1E9F%U;'0N($D@#0H@
M(" @=&AI;FL at 8V]M<&%N:65S(&QI:V4@=&AI<R!S:&]U;&0 at 8F4@<&5N86QI
M>F5D('-O;65H;W<N/$)2/CQ"4CX\1D].5" -"B @("!F86-E/2)4:6UE<R!.
M97<@4F]M86XB/CQ&3TY4('-I>F4],R!03TE.5%-)6D4@/2 Q,CXF<75O=#M7
M:'D@<&%Y('5P('1O("0U," -"B @("!P97(@;6]N=&@@9F]R(&%D9&ET:6]N
M86P at 9&]M86EN<R!A9&1E9"!T;R!Y;W5R(&AO<W1I;F<@86-C;W5N=#\@5VET
M:"!";'5E( T*(" @($=R879I='D at 2&]S=&EN9RP at 86QL(&1O;6%I;G, at 87)E
M(&-O;6)I;F5D('5N9&5R(&]N92!A8V-O=6YT+"!A;F0@;VYE( T*(" @(#Q)
M/G5S86=E(&)A<V5D/"])/B!B:6QL:6YG('!L86XN($AO<W0 at 86X@=6YL:6UI
M=&5D(&YU;6)E<B!O9B!D;VUA:6YS('5N9&5R(&$@#0H@(" @<VEN9VQE(&%C
M8V]U;G0L(&9O<B!O;F4@;&]W(&UO;G1H;'D@<')I8V4N(%!A>2!A(#Q)/F]N
M92UT:6UE/"])/B!S971U<"!F964@#0H@(" @;V8@)#4N,# @<&5R(&1O;6%I
M;B H96%C:"!D;VUA:6X@:7, at 87-S:6=N960 at 82!U;FEQ=64 at 25 @861D<F5S
M<R!U;FQE<W,@#0H@(" @;W1H97)W:7-E(')E<75E<W1E9"DA)G%U;W0[/$)2
M/CQ&3TY4(&9A8V4](DU3(%-H96QL($1L9R(@1$5&055,5" ]( T*(" @($9!
M0T4^/$9/3E0@<VEZ93TQ($1%1D%53%0@/2!325I%(%!/24Y44TE:12 ]( T*
M(" @(#@^/$)2/CPO1D].5#X\+T9/3E0^/"]&3TY4/CPO1D].5#X\+T9/3E0^
D/"]&3TY4/CPO0DQ/0TM154]413X\+T)/1%D^/"](5$U,/@T*
`
end



From bve at quadrix.com  Mon Jan  8 17:16:34 2001
From: bve at quadrix.com (Bill Van Emburg)
Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2001 17:16:34 -0500
Subject: ARIN Justified...
References: <md5:F63C30C0CE677C44CFE5686EA7C6B033>
Message-ID: <3A5A3C42.893CFC0A@quadrix.com>

Simon wrote:
> 
> Doesn't scale in what sense? doing virtual web hosting, what other traffic are you concerned about?
> 

Doesn't scale in that when you take millions of hits a day, your tools
can't parse the bandwidth information out of the reports in any kind of
economical fashion.  In fact, one of my customers just dumped
Macromedia's Aria tool because, while it's a great tool in terms of
functionality, it simply can't scale to meet the sheer volume of log
files generated daily.

What other traffic I'm concerned about is, first of all, the difference
between application-layer total data transfer and actual bandwidth
consumed.  Then there is FTP data transfer, SMTP, POP, etc.

Parsing HTTP log files simply can't meet these needs.
-- 

				     -- Bill Van Emburg
				     	Quadrix Solutions, Inc.
Phone: 732-235-2335, x206		(mailto:bve at quadrix.com)
Fax:   732-235-2336			(http://quadrix.com)
		The eBusiness Solutions Company


From simon at optinet.com  Mon Jan  8 17:24:22 2001
From: simon at optinet.com (Simon)
Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2001 17:24:22 -0500
Subject: ARIN Justified...
In-Reply-To: <3A5A3C42.893CFC0A@quadrix.com>
Message-ID: <200101082220.RAA19683@rs1.arin.net>

We have servers with over 5-10 million hits and parse logs daily at night. It takes about 2 hours to parse the logs per 
machine. Mostly due to resolving IPs. To get just the bandwidth, 10 million hits log file can be parsed in matter of 
minutes. So, you just need better tools ;-) As for other traffic such as FTP, there is a log file which can be parsed, too. 
We actually do this for anonymous FTP. I don't know who charges for POP/SMTP traffic, but same method can be 
implied here to calculate the bandwidth, too. It's matter of having right tools for the job. They are out there or you can 
have a programmer write custom set for your needs. Keep in mind, I'm referring to virtual web hosting, not dedicated.

-Simon

On Mon, 08 Jan 2001 17:16:34 -0500, Bill Van Emburg wrote:

>Simon wrote:
>> 
>> Doesn't scale in what sense? doing virtual web hosting, what other traffic are you concerned about?
>> 
>
>Doesn't scale in that when you take millions of hits a day, your tools
>can't parse the bandwidth information out of the reports in any kind of
>economical fashion.  In fact, one of my customers just dumped
>Macromedia's Aria tool because, while it's a great tool in terms of
>functionality, it simply can't scale to meet the sheer volume of log
>files generated daily.
>
>What other traffic I'm concerned about is, first of all, the difference
>between application-layer total data transfer and actual bandwidth
>consumed.  Then there is FTP data transfer, SMTP, POP, etc.
>
>Parsing HTTP log files simply can't meet these needs.
>-- 
>
>				     -- Bill Van Emburg
>				     	Quadrix Solutions, Inc.
>Phone: 732-235-2335, x206		(mailto:bve at quadrix.com)
>Fax:   732-235-2336			(http://quadrix.com)
>		The eBusiness Solutions Company
>





From Clay at exodus.net  Mon Jan  8 19:59:07 2001
From: Clay at exodus.net (Clayton Lambert)
Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2001 16:59:07 -0800
Subject: ARIN Justified...
In-Reply-To: <DA58D604766F1B499D2D0BDDD5E17DF104388A@exvsny1.nymail.virtualscape.com>
Message-ID: <200101090059.QAA28374@exoserv.exodus.net>

IPv6 is not the panacea you seem to think it is...

With a mentality like that, we'd burn thru IPv6 in 10 years or less...

-Clay

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of Douglas
Cohn
Sent: Friday, January 05, 2001 6:59 AM
To: vwp at arin.net
Subject: FW: ARIN Justified...


I forwarded your email to the list for you

-----Original Message-----
From: Allen Ahoffman [mailto:ahoffman at announce.com]
Sent: Friday, July 10, 2893 6:44 PM
To: Douglas Cohn
Subject: Re: ARIN Justified...


OK let me interject a question into this discussion:

Why are we requiring a /19 or in some cases /20 of space before being
allowed to get our own allocation?
I realize management is an issue, but a $2500/year it encourages small
users to build up to that point.

We get users who don't want us to have iI space from other vendors, so
we
get pressure for more iP usage and pressure for less.

For example, in converting from one provider to another I have had
difficult time getting replacment iP space in less than 8 months now,
but
was making efforts to not purchase the /19.  I thik we might bge by
without it but the minimum size creates pressure to fill IP(s).
I do agree that users seem to want IP(s) without reason, seems like IPV6
might look more appealing every day?


[Charset
iso-8859-1 unsupported,
filtering to ASCII...] > I must get my two cents in here as well.
>
> I feel Clayton has the right track.
>
> I manage IP allocation as well for dedicated and colocated clients.
Our
> policy used to state each server was issued 16 IPs.  We provision with
1
> IP only.  If a client asks for the rest I also require the need for
the
> IPs.
> Too often they want them for testing or only because they saw that
they
> get 16 IPs with a server.  They must supply the domain names and
reasons
> why they cannot use IPless hosting.  While I will not force IPless
> hosting on clients I push it and train it's use for free.
>
> We now state that you get a single IP with each dedicated server and
> additional IPs are billed on a monthly basis.  This helps a lot to
> defray usage.  While it is a revenue stream that is not it's purpose
> whatsoever.
>
> In Shared hosting though the issues are clearly Search engines and SSL
> as far as I know.
>
> Most people understand why we watch our address space and appreciate
it.
>
> Douglas Cohn
> Manager NY Engineering
> Hostcentric, Inc.
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of
Stephen
> Elliott
> Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 4:47 PM
> To: Clayton Lambert; Virtual IP List
> Subject: Re: ARIN Justified...
>
>
> :-)  The reason I mentioned Exodus is because we are a customer of
> Exodus, and in my opinion, the policy is too restrictive.  And the
> statement was directed at the fact that Exodus hosts many companies
that
> are in the business of hosting websites, not Exodus as a company.  As
I
> have stated in earlier postings, simply clamping down and restricting
> virtual web hosting is not the answer.  Any list of justifications, no
> matter how much thought went into it, will not cover every possible
> reason for needing the IP's.  Documentation is a great thing, just the
> fact that someone has to sit down and write out a list of machines
that
> need IP's will deter most people from requesting extra IP's.
> -Stephen
>
> Clayton Lambert wrote:
> >
> > Do you have ANY idea of what you are saying?  Sorry for appearing
> brash,
> > but...I run the IP maintenance organization at Exodus, and I would
> easily
> > stack our allocation policy up against anybody's.
> >
> > You have no idea what you are talking about in regard to larger
> companies.
> > Exodus consumes a very modest amount of address space given our size
> and
> > presence on the Internet.  There are much smaller competitors of
ours
> that
> > consume larger amounts of IP space.
> >
> > Exodus is already pioneering the efficiency of use ideology that I
> would
> > like to see ARIN adopt (a strong HTTP1.1 stance on ARIN's part is a
> good
> > start).  We currently require extensive supporting documentation for
> IP
> > requests from all our Customers.  A Customer has to show a
documented
> need
> > for their usage request and we file all these requests and refer to
> past
> > requests and detail as additional requests for address space occur.
> This
> > method gives us a very clear and honest indication of IP address
usage
> > growth. This allows us to support our Customers' IP addressing needs
> in a
> > very accurate and efficient way.  The end result is less consumption
> of IPv4
> > space across the board.
> >
> > Clayton Lambert
> > Exodus Communications
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of
> Stephen
> > Elliott
> > Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 12:20 PM
> > To: Virtual IP List
> > Subject: RE: ARIN Justified...
> >
> >         The big guys that you refer to are generally not in the web
> hosting
> > business and therefore are outside of the scope of this
conversation.
> > The real concern is the big guys like Exodus and UUNet.  Since IPv6
is
> > not a viable option for general consumption yet, we need to
> concentrate
> > on conserving the existing IPv4 space.  As far as search engines go,
> if
> > enough sites start using HTTP1.1 software virtual servers, they will
> be
> > forced to upgrade their spiders to support it.  I would suggest that
> one
> > of the main issues at hand is billing.  Billing for web hosting
> > companies that is.  Most companies bundle bandwidth with their
hosting
> > packages, and current billing packages utilize destination IP
address
> > information to gather this information.  If there is not a way to
get
> > this information without drastic changes to both billing software
and
> in
> > some cases hardware, there will be very strong opposition to any
> changes
> > in the way IP addresses are given out.
> > -Stephen
> >
> > --
> > Stephen Elliott                 Harrison & Troxell
> > Systems & Networking Manager    2 Faneuil Hall Marketplace
> > Systems & Networking Group      Boston, Ma 02109
> > (617)227-0494 Phone             (617)720-3918 Fax
>
> --
> Stephen Elliott                 Harrison & Troxell
> Systems & Networking Manager    2 Faneuil Hall Marketplace
> Systems & Networking Group      Boston, Ma 02109
> (617)227-0494 Phone             (617)720-3918 Fax
>




From decosta at bayconnect.com  Mon Jan  8 21:43:57 2001
From: decosta at bayconnect.com (Joe DeCosta)
Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2001 18:43:57 -0800
Subject: ARIN Justified...
References: <200101090059.QAA28374@exoserv.exodus.net>
Message-ID: <000b01c079e6$04181520$cd00000a@andrade.net>

agreed, but with all of the home users, shouldn't some of the major ISP's be
considering NAT for DSL/ISDN and Dialup users? i mean, it's an idea, i don't
know how well it would be accepted, i also think that AOL should be forced
to use NAT.........its rediclous to see how many IP blocks they own, but
dialup/isdn/dsl NAT i think could be a suggestion to ISP's no??


----- Original Message -----
From: "Clayton Lambert" <Clay at exodus.net>
To: "'Douglas Cohn'" <Douglas.Cohn at Virtualscape.com>; <vwp at arin.net>
Sent: Monday, January 08, 2001 4:59 PM
Subject: RE: ARIN Justified...


> IPv6 is not the panacea you seem to think it is...
>
> With a mentality like that, we'd burn thru IPv6 in 10 years or less...
>
> -Clay
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of Douglas
> Cohn
> Sent: Friday, January 05, 2001 6:59 AM
> To: vwp at arin.net
> Subject: FW: ARIN Justified...
>
>
> I forwarded your email to the list for you
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Allen Ahoffman [mailto:ahoffman at announce.com]
> Sent: Friday, July 10, 2893 6:44 PM
> To: Douglas Cohn
> Subject: Re: ARIN Justified...
>
>
> OK let me interject a question into this discussion:
>
> Why are we requiring a /19 or in some cases /20 of space before being
> allowed to get our own allocation?
> I realize management is an issue, but a $2500/year it encourages small
> users to build up to that point.
>
> We get users who don't want us to have iI space from other vendors, so
> we
> get pressure for more iP usage and pressure for less.
>
> For example, in converting from one provider to another I have had
> difficult time getting replacment iP space in less than 8 months now,
> but
> was making efforts to not purchase the /19.  I thik we might bge by
> without it but the minimum size creates pressure to fill IP(s).
> I do agree that users seem to want IP(s) without reason, seems like IPV6
> might look more appealing every day?
>
>
> [Charset
> iso-8859-1 unsupported,
> filtering to ASCII...] > I must get my two cents in here as well.
> >
> > I feel Clayton has the right track.
> >
> > I manage IP allocation as well for dedicated and colocated clients.
> Our
> > policy used to state each server was issued 16 IPs.  We provision with
> 1
> > IP only.  If a client asks for the rest I also require the need for
> the
> > IPs.
> > Too often they want them for testing or only because they saw that
> they
> > get 16 IPs with a server.  They must supply the domain names and
> reasons
> > why they cannot use IPless hosting.  While I will not force IPless
> > hosting on clients I push it and train it's use for free.
> >
> > We now state that you get a single IP with each dedicated server and
> > additional IPs are billed on a monthly basis.  This helps a lot to
> > defray usage.  While it is a revenue stream that is not it's purpose
> > whatsoever.
> >
> > In Shared hosting though the issues are clearly Search engines and SSL
> > as far as I know.
> >
> > Most people understand why we watch our address space and appreciate
> it.
> >
> > Douglas Cohn
> > Manager NY Engineering
> > Hostcentric, Inc.
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of
> Stephen
> > Elliott
> > Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 4:47 PM
> > To: Clayton Lambert; Virtual IP List
> > Subject: Re: ARIN Justified...
> >
> >
> > :-)  The reason I mentioned Exodus is because we are a customer of
> > Exodus, and in my opinion, the policy is too restrictive.  And the
> > statement was directed at the fact that Exodus hosts many companies
> that
> > are in the business of hosting websites, not Exodus as a company.  As
> I
> > have stated in earlier postings, simply clamping down and restricting
> > virtual web hosting is not the answer.  Any list of justifications, no
> > matter how much thought went into it, will not cover every possible
> > reason for needing the IP's.  Documentation is a great thing, just the
> > fact that someone has to sit down and write out a list of machines
> that
> > need IP's will deter most people from requesting extra IP's.
> > -Stephen
> >
> > Clayton Lambert wrote:
> > >
> > > Do you have ANY idea of what you are saying?  Sorry for appearing
> > brash,
> > > but...I run the IP maintenance organization at Exodus, and I would
> > easily
> > > stack our allocation policy up against anybody's.
> > >
> > > You have no idea what you are talking about in regard to larger
> > companies.
> > > Exodus consumes a very modest amount of address space given our size
> > and
> > > presence on the Internet.  There are much smaller competitors of
> ours
> > that
> > > consume larger amounts of IP space.
> > >
> > > Exodus is already pioneering the efficiency of use ideology that I
> > would
> > > like to see ARIN adopt (a strong HTTP1.1 stance on ARIN's part is a
> > good
> > > start).  We currently require extensive supporting documentation for
> > IP
> > > requests from all our Customers.  A Customer has to show a
> documented
> > need
> > > for their usage request and we file all these requests and refer to
> > past
> > > requests and detail as additional requests for address space occur.
> > This
> > > method gives us a very clear and honest indication of IP address
> usage
> > > growth. This allows us to support our Customers' IP addressing needs
> > in a
> > > very accurate and efficient way.  The end result is less consumption
> > of IPv4
> > > space across the board.
> > >
> > > Clayton Lambert
> > > Exodus Communications
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of
> > Stephen
> > > Elliott
> > > Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 12:20 PM
> > > To: Virtual IP List
> > > Subject: RE: ARIN Justified...
> > >
> > >         The big guys that you refer to are generally not in the web
> > hosting
> > > business and therefore are outside of the scope of this
> conversation.
> > > The real concern is the big guys like Exodus and UUNet.  Since IPv6
> is
> > > not a viable option for general consumption yet, we need to
> > concentrate
> > > on conserving the existing IPv4 space.  As far as search engines go,
> > if
> > > enough sites start using HTTP1.1 software virtual servers, they will
> > be
> > > forced to upgrade their spiders to support it.  I would suggest that
> > one
> > > of the main issues at hand is billing.  Billing for web hosting
> > > companies that is.  Most companies bundle bandwidth with their
> hosting
> > > packages, and current billing packages utilize destination IP
> address
> > > information to gather this information.  If there is not a way to
> get
> > > this information without drastic changes to both billing software
> and
> > in
> > > some cases hardware, there will be very strong opposition to any
> > changes
> > > in the way IP addresses are given out.
> > > -Stephen
> > >
> > > --
> > > Stephen Elliott                 Harrison & Troxell
> > > Systems & Networking Manager    2 Faneuil Hall Marketplace
> > > Systems & Networking Group      Boston, Ma 02109
> > > (617)227-0494 Phone             (617)720-3918 Fax
> >
> > --
> > Stephen Elliott                 Harrison & Troxell
> > Systems & Networking Manager    2 Faneuil Hall Marketplace
> > Systems & Networking Group      Boston, Ma 02109
> > (617)227-0494 Phone             (617)720-3918 Fax
> >
>
>



From susan at lh.net  Mon Jan  8 23:42:02 2001
From: susan at lh.net (Susan Zeigler)
Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2001 22:42:02 -0600
Subject: ARIN Justified...
References: <200101090059.QAA28374@exoserv.exodus.net> <000b01c079e6$04181520$cd00000a@andrade.net>
Message-ID: <3A5A969A.4C41600E@lh.net>

We use NAT almost exclusively for DSL solutions. We partner with DSL
providers such as Rhythms, Jato, Quest, etc., to provide the internet
services. Some DSL solutions still require a small subnet, but for the
most part, it's all NAT. Our high-speed clients, which compromise the
majority of our business, have the choice of NAT or static subnets. Our
guidelines for allocation are stringent, however, and we do not allocate
for IP-based hosting. We will only allow one IP per NIC. While the
majority of our larger clients use some sort of proxy solution and a /29
or /30, we do have one client to whom we've allocated a /21--none of
that is used for hosting, however, they have implemented public IPs
accross their enterprise WAN. The smaller clients are the ones who use
the majority of our IPs--/27s and /28s abound.

Our dedicated and collocated clients also fall under the one IP per NIC
guideline. The only exception to this rule is multiple certificates on a
single server/NIC. Multiple SSL sites can be hosted on one certificate
(i.e. single IP) but multiple certificates cannot be hosted on a single
IP. Very few of our clients have more than one certificate on a
server--the amount of IPs that are more than one to a NIC are less than
1000th of a percent of our allocation (all totaled we currently have the
equivilent of @ 1-/18 and 1-/17 and are requesting more).


Joe DeCosta wrote:
> 
> agreed, but with all of the home users, shouldn't some of the major ISP's be
> considering NAT for DSL/ISDN and Dialup users? i mean, it's an idea, i don't
> know how well it would be accepted, i also think that AOL should be forced
> to use NAT.........its rediclous to see how many IP blocks they own, but
> dialup/isdn/dsl NAT i think could be a suggestion to ISP's no??
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Clayton Lambert" <Clay at exodus.net>
> To: "'Douglas Cohn'" <Douglas.Cohn at Virtualscape.com>; <vwp at arin.net>
> Sent: Monday, January 08, 2001 4:59 PM
> Subject: RE: ARIN Justified...
> 
> > IPv6 is not the panacea you seem to think it is...
> >
> > With a mentality like that, we'd burn thru IPv6 in 10 years or less...
> >
> > -Clay
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of Douglas
> > Cohn
> > Sent: Friday, January 05, 2001 6:59 AM
> > To: vwp at arin.net
> > Subject: FW: ARIN Justified...
> >
> >
> > I forwarded your email to the list for you
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Allen Ahoffman [mailto:ahoffman at announce.com]
> > Sent: Friday, July 10, 2893 6:44 PM
> > To: Douglas Cohn
> > Subject: Re: ARIN Justified...
> >
> >
> > OK let me interject a question into this discussion:
> >
> > Why are we requiring a /19 or in some cases /20 of space before being
> > allowed to get our own allocation?
> > I realize management is an issue, but a $2500/year it encourages small
> > users to build up to that point.
> >
> > We get users who don't want us to have iI space from other vendors, so
> > we
> > get pressure for more iP usage and pressure for less.
> >
> > For example, in converting from one provider to another I have had
> > difficult time getting replacment iP space in less than 8 months now,
> > but
> > was making efforts to not purchase the /19.  I thik we might bge by
> > without it but the minimum size creates pressure to fill IP(s).
> > I do agree that users seem to want IP(s) without reason, seems like IPV6
> > might look more appealing every day?
> >
> >
> > [Charset
> > iso-8859-1 unsupported,
> > filtering to ASCII...] > I must get my two cents in here as well.
> > >
> > > I feel Clayton has the right track.
> > >
> > > I manage IP allocation as well for dedicated and colocated clients.
> > Our
> > > policy used to state each server was issued 16 IPs.  We provision with
> > 1
> > > IP only.  If a client asks for the rest I also require the need for
> > the
> > > IPs.
> > > Too often they want them for testing or only because they saw that
> > they
> > > get 16 IPs with a server.  They must supply the domain names and
> > reasons
> > > why they cannot use IPless hosting.  While I will not force IPless
> > > hosting on clients I push it and train it's use for free.
> > >
> > > We now state that you get a single IP with each dedicated server and
> > > additional IPs are billed on a monthly basis.  This helps a lot to
> > > defray usage.  While it is a revenue stream that is not it's purpose
> > > whatsoever.
> > >
> > > In Shared hosting though the issues are clearly Search engines and SSL
> > > as far as I know.
> > >
> > > Most people understand why we watch our address space and appreciate
> > it.
> > >
> > > Douglas Cohn
> > > Manager NY Engineering
> > > Hostcentric, Inc.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of
> > Stephen
> > > Elliott
> > > Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 4:47 PM
> > > To: Clayton Lambert; Virtual IP List
> > > Subject: Re: ARIN Justified...
> > >
> > >
> > > :-)  The reason I mentioned Exodus is because we are a customer of
> > > Exodus, and in my opinion, the policy is too restrictive.  And the
> > > statement was directed at the fact that Exodus hosts many companies
> > that
> > > are in the business of hosting websites, not Exodus as a company.  As
> > I
> > > have stated in earlier postings, simply clamping down and restricting
> > > virtual web hosting is not the answer.  Any list of justifications, no
> > > matter how much thought went into it, will not cover every possible
> > > reason for needing the IP's.  Documentation is a great thing, just the
> > > fact that someone has to sit down and write out a list of machines
> > that
> > > need IP's will deter most people from requesting extra IP's.
> > > -Stephen
> > >
> > > Clayton Lambert wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Do you have ANY idea of what you are saying?  Sorry for appearing
> > > brash,
> > > > but...I run the IP maintenance organization at Exodus, and I would
> > > easily
> > > > stack our allocation policy up against anybody's.
> > > >
> > > > You have no idea what you are talking about in regard to larger
> > > companies.
> > > > Exodus consumes a very modest amount of address space given our size
> > > and
> > > > presence on the Internet.  There are much smaller competitors of
> > ours
> > > that
> > > > consume larger amounts of IP space.
> > > >
> > > > Exodus is already pioneering the efficiency of use ideology that I
> > > would
> > > > like to see ARIN adopt (a strong HTTP1.1 stance on ARIN's part is a
> > > good
> > > > start).  We currently require extensive supporting documentation for
> > > IP
> > > > requests from all our Customers.  A Customer has to show a
> > documented
> > > need
> > > > for their usage request and we file all these requests and refer to
> > > past
> > > > requests and detail as additional requests for address space occur.
> > > This
> > > > method gives us a very clear and honest indication of IP address
> > usage
> > > > growth. This allows us to support our Customers' IP addressing needs
> > > in a
> > > > very accurate and efficient way.  The end result is less consumption
> > > of IPv4
> > > > space across the board.
> > > >
> > > > Clayton Lambert
> > > > Exodus Communications
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of
> > > Stephen
> > > > Elliott
> > > > Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 12:20 PM
> > > > To: Virtual IP List
> > > > Subject: RE: ARIN Justified...
> > > >
> > > >         The big guys that you refer to are generally not in the web
> > > hosting
> > > > business and therefore are outside of the scope of this
> > conversation.
> > > > The real concern is the big guys like Exodus and UUNet.  Since IPv6
> > is
> > > > not a viable option for general consumption yet, we need to
> > > concentrate
> > > > on conserving the existing IPv4 space.  As far as search engines go,
> > > if
> > > > enough sites start using HTTP1.1 software virtual servers, they will
> > > be
> > > > forced to upgrade their spiders to support it.  I would suggest that
> > > one
> > > > of the main issues at hand is billing.  Billing for web hosting
> > > > companies that is.  Most companies bundle bandwidth with their
> > hosting
> > > > packages, and current billing packages utilize destination IP
> > address
> > > > information to gather this information.  If there is not a way to
> > get
> > > > this information without drastic changes to both billing software
> > and
> > > in
> > > > some cases hardware, there will be very strong opposition to any
> > > changes
> > > > in the way IP addresses are given out.
> > > > -Stephen
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Stephen Elliott                 Harrison & Troxell
> > > > Systems & Networking Manager    2 Faneuil Hall Marketplace
> > > > Systems & Networking Group      Boston, Ma 02109
> > > > (617)227-0494 Phone             (617)720-3918 Fax
> > >
> > > --
> > > Stephen Elliott                 Harrison & Troxell
> > > Systems & Networking Manager    2 Faneuil Hall Marketplace
> > > Systems & Networking Group      Boston, Ma 02109
> > > (617)227-0494 Phone             (617)720-3918 Fax
> > >
> >
> >

-- 

-- 
-Susan
-- 
Susan Zeigler       |      Technical Services
susan at lh.net        |      Lighthouse Communications, Inc.
515-244-1115        |      Digital Network Services


From Clay at exodus.net  Tue Jan  9 17:17:10 2001
From: Clay at exodus.net (Clayton Lambert)
Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2001 14:17:10 -0800
Subject: ARIN Justified...
In-Reply-To: <000b01c079e6$04181520$cd00000a@andrade.net>
Message-ID: <200101092217.OAA20622@exoserv.exodus.net>

No argument at all on those points either Joe,

In fact, it seems there is a lot of common ground on this topic, maybe we
should try to identify the specific agreed-upon points and disagreements...?

It might be something to work from.

-Clay

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of Joe
DeCosta
Sent: Monday, January 08, 2001 6:44 PM
To: Clayton Lambert; 'Douglas Cohn'; vwp at arin.net
Subject: Re: ARIN Justified...


agreed, but with all of the home users, shouldn't some of the major ISP's be
considering NAT for DSL/ISDN and Dialup users? i mean, it's an idea, i don't
know how well it would be accepted, i also think that AOL should be forced
to use NAT.........its rediclous to see how many IP blocks they own, but
dialup/isdn/dsl NAT i think could be a suggestion to ISP's no??


----- Original Message -----
From: "Clayton Lambert" <Clay at exodus.net>
To: "'Douglas Cohn'" <Douglas.Cohn at Virtualscape.com>; <vwp at arin.net>
Sent: Monday, January 08, 2001 4:59 PM
Subject: RE: ARIN Justified...


> IPv6 is not the panacea you seem to think it is...
>
> With a mentality like that, we'd burn thru IPv6 in 10 years or less...
>
> -Clay
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of Douglas
> Cohn
> Sent: Friday, January 05, 2001 6:59 AM
> To: vwp at arin.net
> Subject: FW: ARIN Justified...
>
>
> I forwarded your email to the list for you
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Allen Ahoffman [mailto:ahoffman at announce.com]
> Sent: Friday, July 10, 2893 6:44 PM
> To: Douglas Cohn
> Subject: Re: ARIN Justified...
>
>
> OK let me interject a question into this discussion:
>
> Why are we requiring a /19 or in some cases /20 of space before being
> allowed to get our own allocation?
> I realize management is an issue, but a $2500/year it encourages small
> users to build up to that point.
>
> We get users who don't want us to have iI space from other vendors, so
> we
> get pressure for more iP usage and pressure for less.
>
> For example, in converting from one provider to another I have had
> difficult time getting replacment iP space in less than 8 months now,
> but
> was making efforts to not purchase the /19.  I thik we might bge by
> without it but the minimum size creates pressure to fill IP(s).
> I do agree that users seem to want IP(s) without reason, seems like IPV6
> might look more appealing every day?
>
>
> [Charset
> iso-8859-1 unsupported,
> filtering to ASCII...] > I must get my two cents in here as well.
> >
> > I feel Clayton has the right track.
> >
> > I manage IP allocation as well for dedicated and colocated clients.
> Our
> > policy used to state each server was issued 16 IPs.  We provision with
> 1
> > IP only.  If a client asks for the rest I also require the need for
> the
> > IPs.
> > Too often they want them for testing or only because they saw that
> they
> > get 16 IPs with a server.  They must supply the domain names and
> reasons
> > why they cannot use IPless hosting.  While I will not force IPless
> > hosting on clients I push it and train it's use for free.
> >
> > We now state that you get a single IP with each dedicated server and
> > additional IPs are billed on a monthly basis.  This helps a lot to
> > defray usage.  While it is a revenue stream that is not it's purpose
> > whatsoever.
> >
> > In Shared hosting though the issues are clearly Search engines and SSL
> > as far as I know.
> >
> > Most people understand why we watch our address space and appreciate
> it.
> >
> > Douglas Cohn
> > Manager NY Engineering
> > Hostcentric, Inc.
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of
> Stephen
> > Elliott
> > Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 4:47 PM
> > To: Clayton Lambert; Virtual IP List
> > Subject: Re: ARIN Justified...
> >
> >
> > :-)  The reason I mentioned Exodus is because we are a customer of
> > Exodus, and in my opinion, the policy is too restrictive.  And the
> > statement was directed at the fact that Exodus hosts many companies
> that
> > are in the business of hosting websites, not Exodus as a company.  As
> I
> > have stated in earlier postings, simply clamping down and restricting
> > virtual web hosting is not the answer.  Any list of justifications, no
> > matter how much thought went into it, will not cover every possible
> > reason for needing the IP's.  Documentation is a great thing, just the
> > fact that someone has to sit down and write out a list of machines
> that
> > need IP's will deter most people from requesting extra IP's.
> > -Stephen
> >
> > Clayton Lambert wrote:
> > >
> > > Do you have ANY idea of what you are saying?  Sorry for appearing
> > brash,
> > > but...I run the IP maintenance organization at Exodus, and I would
> > easily
> > > stack our allocation policy up against anybody's.
> > >
> > > You have no idea what you are talking about in regard to larger
> > companies.
> > > Exodus consumes a very modest amount of address space given our size
> > and
> > > presence on the Internet.  There are much smaller competitors of
> ours
> > that
> > > consume larger amounts of IP space.
> > >
> > > Exodus is already pioneering the efficiency of use ideology that I
> > would
> > > like to see ARIN adopt (a strong HTTP1.1 stance on ARIN's part is a
> > good
> > > start).  We currently require extensive supporting documentation for
> > IP
> > > requests from all our Customers.  A Customer has to show a
> documented
> > need
> > > for their usage request and we file all these requests and refer to
> > past
> > > requests and detail as additional requests for address space occur.
> > This
> > > method gives us a very clear and honest indication of IP address
> usage
> > > growth. This allows us to support our Customers' IP addressing needs
> > in a
> > > very accurate and efficient way.  The end result is less consumption
> > of IPv4
> > > space across the board.
> > >
> > > Clayton Lambert
> > > Exodus Communications
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of
> > Stephen
> > > Elliott
> > > Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 12:20 PM
> > > To: Virtual IP List
> > > Subject: RE: ARIN Justified...
> > >
> > >         The big guys that you refer to are generally not in the web
> > hosting
> > > business and therefore are outside of the scope of this
> conversation.
> > > The real concern is the big guys like Exodus and UUNet.  Since IPv6
> is
> > > not a viable option for general consumption yet, we need to
> > concentrate
> > > on conserving the existing IPv4 space.  As far as search engines go,
> > if
> > > enough sites start using HTTP1.1 software virtual servers, they will
> > be
> > > forced to upgrade their spiders to support it.  I would suggest that
> > one
> > > of the main issues at hand is billing.  Billing for web hosting
> > > companies that is.  Most companies bundle bandwidth with their
> hosting
> > > packages, and current billing packages utilize destination IP
> address
> > > information to gather this information.  If there is not a way to
> get
> > > this information without drastic changes to both billing software
> and
> > in
> > > some cases hardware, there will be very strong opposition to any
> > changes
> > > in the way IP addresses are given out.
> > > -Stephen
> > >
> > > --
> > > Stephen Elliott                 Harrison & Troxell
> > > Systems & Networking Manager    2 Faneuil Hall Marketplace
> > > Systems & Networking Group      Boston, Ma 02109
> > > (617)227-0494 Phone             (617)720-3918 Fax
> >
> > --
> > Stephen Elliott                 Harrison & Troxell
> > Systems & Networking Manager    2 Faneuil Hall Marketplace
> > Systems & Networking Group      Boston, Ma 02109
> > (617)227-0494 Phone             (617)720-3918 Fax
> >
>
>




From mbutler at mcgi.com  Tue Jan  9 17:32:56 2001
From: mbutler at mcgi.com (Michael Butler)
Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 14:32:56 -0800
Subject: ARIN Justified...
In-Reply-To: <200101092217.OAA20622@exoserv.exodus.net>
References: <000b01c079e6$04181520$cd00000a@andrade.net>
Message-ID: <5.0.2.1.0.20010109143033.00a62b00@mail.wperfect.com>

Wonderfully interesting conversation.

Anyone know where I can get a good description of the NAT and how it works?

MJB

At 14:17 1/9/01 -0800, Clayton Lambert wrote:
>No argument at all on those points either Joe,
>
>In fact, it seems there is a lot of common ground on this topic, maybe we
>should try to identify the specific agreed-upon points and disagreements...?
>
>It might be something to work from.
>
>-Clay
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of Joe
>DeCosta
>Sent: Monday, January 08, 2001 6:44 PM
>To: Clayton Lambert; 'Douglas Cohn'; vwp at arin.net
>Subject: Re: ARIN Justified...
>
>
>agreed, but with all of the home users, shouldn't some of the major ISP's be
>considering NAT for DSL/ISDN and Dialup users? i mean, it's an idea, i don't
>know how well it would be accepted, i also think that AOL should be forced
>to use NAT.........its rediclous to see how many IP blocks they own, but
>dialup/isdn/dsl NAT i think could be a suggestion to ISP's no??
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Clayton Lambert" <Clay at exodus.net>
>To: "'Douglas Cohn'" <Douglas.Cohn at Virtualscape.com>; <vwp at arin.net>
>Sent: Monday, January 08, 2001 4:59 PM
>Subject: RE: ARIN Justified...
>
>
> > IPv6 is not the panacea you seem to think it is...
> >
> > With a mentality like that, we'd burn thru IPv6 in 10 years or less...
> >
> > -Clay
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of Douglas
> > Cohn
> > Sent: Friday, January 05, 2001 6:59 AM
> > To: vwp at arin.net
> > Subject: FW: ARIN Justified...
> >
> >
> > I forwarded your email to the list for you
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Allen Ahoffman [mailto:ahoffman at announce.com]
> > Sent: Friday, July 10, 2893 6:44 PM
> > To: Douglas Cohn
> > Subject: Re: ARIN Justified...
> >
> >
> > OK let me interject a question into this discussion:
> >
> > Why are we requiring a /19 or in some cases /20 of space before being
> > allowed to get our own allocation?
> > I realize management is an issue, but a $2500/year it encourages small
> > users to build up to that point.
> >
> > We get users who don't want us to have iI space from other vendors, so
> > we
> > get pressure for more iP usage and pressure for less.
> >
> > For example, in converting from one provider to another I have had
> > difficult time getting replacment iP space in less than 8 months now,
> > but
> > was making efforts to not purchase the /19.  I thik we might bge by
> > without it but the minimum size creates pressure to fill IP(s).
> > I do agree that users seem to want IP(s) without reason, seems like IPV6
> > might look more appealing every day?
> >
> >
> > [Charset
> > iso-8859-1 unsupported,
> > filtering to ASCII...] > I must get my two cents in here as well.
> > >
> > > I feel Clayton has the right track.
> > >
> > > I manage IP allocation as well for dedicated and colocated clients.
> > Our
> > > policy used to state each server was issued 16 IPs.  We provision with
> > 1
> > > IP only.  If a client asks for the rest I also require the need for
> > the
> > > IPs.
> > > Too often they want them for testing or only because they saw that
> > they
> > > get 16 IPs with a server.  They must supply the domain names and
> > reasons
> > > why they cannot use IPless hosting.  While I will not force IPless
> > > hosting on clients I push it and train it's use for free.
> > >
> > > We now state that you get a single IP with each dedicated server and
> > > additional IPs are billed on a monthly basis.  This helps a lot to
> > > defray usage.  While it is a revenue stream that is not it's purpose
> > > whatsoever.
> > >
> > > In Shared hosting though the issues are clearly Search engines and SSL
> > > as far as I know.
> > >
> > > Most people understand why we watch our address space and appreciate
> > it.
> > >
> > > Douglas Cohn
> > > Manager NY Engineering
> > > Hostcentric, Inc.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of
> > Stephen
> > > Elliott
> > > Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 4:47 PM
> > > To: Clayton Lambert; Virtual IP List
> > > Subject: Re: ARIN Justified...
> > >
> > >
> > > :-)  The reason I mentioned Exodus is because we are a customer of
> > > Exodus, and in my opinion, the policy is too restrictive.  And the
> > > statement was directed at the fact that Exodus hosts many companies
> > that
> > > are in the business of hosting websites, not Exodus as a company.  As
> > I
> > > have stated in earlier postings, simply clamping down and restricting
> > > virtual web hosting is not the answer.  Any list of justifications, no
> > > matter how much thought went into it, will not cover every possible
> > > reason for needing the IP's.  Documentation is a great thing, just the
> > > fact that someone has to sit down and write out a list of machines
> > that
> > > need IP's will deter most people from requesting extra IP's.
> > > -Stephen
> > >
> > > Clayton Lambert wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Do you have ANY idea of what you are saying?  Sorry for appearing
> > > brash,
> > > > but...I run the IP maintenance organization at Exodus, and I would
> > > easily
> > > > stack our allocation policy up against anybody's.
> > > >
> > > > You have no idea what you are talking about in regard to larger
> > > companies.
> > > > Exodus consumes a very modest amount of address space given our size
> > > and
> > > > presence on the Internet.  There are much smaller competitors of
> > ours
> > > that
> > > > consume larger amounts of IP space.
> > > >
> > > > Exodus is already pioneering the efficiency of use ideology that I
> > > would
> > > > like to see ARIN adopt (a strong HTTP1.1 stance on ARIN's part is a
> > > good
> > > > start).  We currently require extensive supporting documentation for
> > > IP
> > > > requests from all our Customers.  A Customer has to show a
> > documented
> > > need
> > > > for their usage request and we file all these requests and refer to
> > > past
> > > > requests and detail as additional requests for address space occur.
> > > This
> > > > method gives us a very clear and honest indication of IP address
> > usage
> > > > growth. This allows us to support our Customers' IP addressing needs
> > > in a
> > > > very accurate and efficient way.  The end result is less consumption
> > > of IPv4
> > > > space across the board.
> > > >
> > > > Clayton Lambert
> > > > Exodus Communications
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of
> > > Stephen
> > > > Elliott
> > > > Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 12:20 PM
> > > > To: Virtual IP List
> > > > Subject: RE: ARIN Justified...
> > > >
> > > >         The big guys that you refer to are generally not in the web
> > > hosting
> > > > business and therefore are outside of the scope of this
> > conversation.
> > > > The real concern is the big guys like Exodus and UUNet.  Since IPv6
> > is
> > > > not a viable option for general consumption yet, we need to
> > > concentrate
> > > > on conserving the existing IPv4 space.  As far as search engines go,
> > > if
> > > > enough sites start using HTTP1.1 software virtual servers, they will
> > > be
> > > > forced to upgrade their spiders to support it.  I would suggest that
> > > one
> > > > of the main issues at hand is billing.  Billing for web hosting
> > > > companies that is.  Most companies bundle bandwidth with their
> > hosting
> > > > packages, and current billing packages utilize destination IP
> > address
> > > > information to gather this information.  If there is not a way to
> > get
> > > > this information without drastic changes to both billing software
> > and
> > > in
> > > > some cases hardware, there will be very strong opposition to any
> > > changes
> > > > in the way IP addresses are given out.
> > > > -Stephen
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Stephen Elliott                 Harrison & Troxell
> > > > Systems & Networking Manager    2 Faneuil Hall Marketplace
> > > > Systems & Networking Group      Boston, Ma 02109
> > > > (617)227-0494 Phone             (617)720-3918 Fax
> > >
> > > --
> > > Stephen Elliott                 Harrison & Troxell
> > > Systems & Networking Manager    2 Faneuil Hall Marketplace
> > > Systems & Networking Group      Boston, Ma 02109
> > > (617)227-0494 Phone             (617)720-3918 Fax
> > >
> >
> >



From decosta at bayconnect.com  Tue Jan  9 18:00:07 2001
From: decosta at bayconnect.com (Joe DeCosta)
Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2001 15:00:07 -0800
Subject: ARIN Justified...
References: <200101092217.OAA20622@exoserv.exodus.net>
Message-ID: <000901c07a8f$e9820c20$cd00000a@andrade.net>

Well, what do you think that the best approach to this would be, I think a
BIG part of the entire IP space problem is the HUGE market of ISP's like
earthlink, Genuity(aka BBN), and the free services that just give any schmoe
an IP address, I don't think that this is soemthing that  is viable, we even
to a small Extent use NAT/Name based Virtual Hosting for  some of the
domains runing on the secondary T1 in our office.  This all works fine, and
uses 1 ip for many things.  Perhaps this is a viable options, but i do think
that ARIN should enforce some sort of NAT with providers (aol, earthlink,
freebie ISPs et al.) who allow just anybody to have an IP when its not
needed.  from an admin point of view this can be a bit hellish but well
worth the IP space that is being wasted on people that dont *NEED* random
inbound traffic.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Clayton Lambert" <Clay at exodus.net>
To: "'Joe DeCosta'" <decosta at bayconnect.com>; "'Douglas Cohn'"
<Douglas.Cohn at Virtualscape.com>; <vwp at arin.net>
Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2001 2:17 PM
Subject: RE: ARIN Justified...


> No argument at all on those points either Joe,
>
> In fact, it seems there is a lot of common ground on this topic, maybe we
> should try to identify the specific agreed-upon points and
disagreements...?
>
> It might be something to work from.
>
> -Clay
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of Joe
> DeCosta
> Sent: Monday, January 08, 2001 6:44 PM
> To: Clayton Lambert; 'Douglas Cohn'; vwp at arin.net
> Subject: Re: ARIN Justified...
>
>
> agreed, but with all of the home users, shouldn't some of the major ISP's
be
> considering NAT for DSL/ISDN and Dialup users? i mean, it's an idea, i
don't
> know how well it would be accepted, i also think that AOL should be forced
> to use NAT.........its rediclous to see how many IP blocks they own, but
> dialup/isdn/dsl NAT i think could be a suggestion to ISP's no??
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Clayton Lambert" <Clay at exodus.net>
> To: "'Douglas Cohn'" <Douglas.Cohn at Virtualscape.com>; <vwp at arin.net>
> Sent: Monday, January 08, 2001 4:59 PM
> Subject: RE: ARIN Justified...
>
>
> > IPv6 is not the panacea you seem to think it is...
> >
> > With a mentality like that, we'd burn thru IPv6 in 10 years or less...
> >
> > -Clay
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of Douglas
> > Cohn
> > Sent: Friday, January 05, 2001 6:59 AM
> > To: vwp at arin.net
> > Subject: FW: ARIN Justified...
> >
> >
> > I forwarded your email to the list for you
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Allen Ahoffman [mailto:ahoffman at announce.com]
> > Sent: Friday, July 10, 2893 6:44 PM
> > To: Douglas Cohn
> > Subject: Re: ARIN Justified...
> >
> >
> > OK let me interject a question into this discussion:
> >
> > Why are we requiring a /19 or in some cases /20 of space before being
> > allowed to get our own allocation?
> > I realize management is an issue, but a $2500/year it encourages small
> > users to build up to that point.
> >
> > We get users who don't want us to have iI space from other vendors, so
> > we
> > get pressure for more iP usage and pressure for less.
> >
> > For example, in converting from one provider to another I have had
> > difficult time getting replacment iP space in less than 8 months now,
> > but
> > was making efforts to not purchase the /19.  I thik we might bge by
> > without it but the minimum size creates pressure to fill IP(s).
> > I do agree that users seem to want IP(s) without reason, seems like IPV6
> > might look more appealing every day?
> >
> >
> > [Charset
> > iso-8859-1 unsupported,
> > filtering to ASCII...] > I must get my two cents in here as well.
> > >
> > > I feel Clayton has the right track.
> > >
> > > I manage IP allocation as well for dedicated and colocated clients.
> > Our
> > > policy used to state each server was issued 16 IPs.  We provision with
> > 1
> > > IP only.  If a client asks for the rest I also require the need for
> > the
> > > IPs.
> > > Too often they want them for testing or only because they saw that
> > they
> > > get 16 IPs with a server.  They must supply the domain names and
> > reasons
> > > why they cannot use IPless hosting.  While I will not force IPless
> > > hosting on clients I push it and train it's use for free.
> > >
> > > We now state that you get a single IP with each dedicated server and
> > > additional IPs are billed on a monthly basis.  This helps a lot to
> > > defray usage.  While it is a revenue stream that is not it's purpose
> > > whatsoever.
> > >
> > > In Shared hosting though the issues are clearly Search engines and SSL
> > > as far as I know.
> > >
> > > Most people understand why we watch our address space and appreciate
> > it.
> > >
> > > Douglas Cohn
> > > Manager NY Engineering
> > > Hostcentric, Inc.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of
> > Stephen
> > > Elliott
> > > Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 4:47 PM
> > > To: Clayton Lambert; Virtual IP List
> > > Subject: Re: ARIN Justified...
> > >
> > >
> > > :-)  The reason I mentioned Exodus is because we are a customer of
> > > Exodus, and in my opinion, the policy is too restrictive.  And the
> > > statement was directed at the fact that Exodus hosts many companies
> > that
> > > are in the business of hosting websites, not Exodus as a company.  As
> > I
> > > have stated in earlier postings, simply clamping down and restricting
> > > virtual web hosting is not the answer.  Any list of justifications, no
> > > matter how much thought went into it, will not cover every possible
> > > reason for needing the IP's.  Documentation is a great thing, just the
> > > fact that someone has to sit down and write out a list of machines
> > that
> > > need IP's will deter most people from requesting extra IP's.
> > > -Stephen
> > >
> > > Clayton Lambert wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Do you have ANY idea of what you are saying?  Sorry for appearing
> > > brash,
> > > > but...I run the IP maintenance organization at Exodus, and I would
> > > easily
> > > > stack our allocation policy up against anybody's.
> > > >
> > > > You have no idea what you are talking about in regard to larger
> > > companies.
> > > > Exodus consumes a very modest amount of address space given our size
> > > and
> > > > presence on the Internet.  There are much smaller competitors of
> > ours
> > > that
> > > > consume larger amounts of IP space.
> > > >
> > > > Exodus is already pioneering the efficiency of use ideology that I
> > > would
> > > > like to see ARIN adopt (a strong HTTP1.1 stance on ARIN's part is a
> > > good
> > > > start).  We currently require extensive supporting documentation for
> > > IP
> > > > requests from all our Customers.  A Customer has to show a
> > documented
> > > need
> > > > for their usage request and we file all these requests and refer to
> > > past
> > > > requests and detail as additional requests for address space occur.
> > > This
> > > > method gives us a very clear and honest indication of IP address
> > usage
> > > > growth. This allows us to support our Customers' IP addressing needs
> > > in a
> > > > very accurate and efficient way.  The end result is less consumption
> > > of IPv4
> > > > space across the board.
> > > >
> > > > Clayton Lambert
> > > > Exodus Communications
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of
> > > Stephen
> > > > Elliott
> > > > Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 12:20 PM
> > > > To: Virtual IP List
> > > > Subject: RE: ARIN Justified...
> > > >
> > > >         The big guys that you refer to are generally not in the web
> > > hosting
> > > > business and therefore are outside of the scope of this
> > conversation.
> > > > The real concern is the big guys like Exodus and UUNet.  Since IPv6
> > is
> > > > not a viable option for general consumption yet, we need to
> > > concentrate
> > > > on conserving the existing IPv4 space.  As far as search engines go,
> > > if
> > > > enough sites start using HTTP1.1 software virtual servers, they will
> > > be
> > > > forced to upgrade their spiders to support it.  I would suggest that
> > > one
> > > > of the main issues at hand is billing.  Billing for web hosting
> > > > companies that is.  Most companies bundle bandwidth with their
> > hosting
> > > > packages, and current billing packages utilize destination IP
> > address
> > > > information to gather this information.  If there is not a way to
> > get
> > > > this information without drastic changes to both billing software
> > and
> > > in
> > > > some cases hardware, there will be very strong opposition to any
> > > changes
> > > > in the way IP addresses are given out.
> > > > -Stephen
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Stephen Elliott                 Harrison & Troxell
> > > > Systems & Networking Manager    2 Faneuil Hall Marketplace
> > > > Systems & Networking Group      Boston, Ma 02109
> > > > (617)227-0494 Phone             (617)720-3918 Fax
> > >
> > > --
> > > Stephen Elliott                 Harrison & Troxell
> > > Systems & Networking Manager    2 Faneuil Hall Marketplace
> > > Systems & Networking Group      Boston, Ma 02109
> > > (617)227-0494 Phone             (617)720-3918 Fax
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
>



From jmacknik at inflow.com  Tue Jan  9 18:35:21 2001
From: jmacknik at inflow.com (Jim Macknik)
Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2001 16:35:21 -0700 
Subject: ARIN Justified...
Message-ID: <D71AE516100FD411BC5A00508B62C411025B01B8@polo.admin.den.inflow.com>

This brings up a good point, as well. How will ARIN enforce its policies?
There are large companies out there that have several Class B or Class A
ranges all to themselves that they "reserved" years ago. I doubt many of
these organizations could properly justify this space at this time.

Will ARIN require them to justify their use and take away the extras,
requiring huge organizations or ISPs to completely re-allocate their
addressing? If they don't, how will they be able to justify revoking denying
space to others looking to increase their allocation? 

This isn't an easy one, but it certainly has to be addressed if ARIN is
concerned about political ramifications of a policy that will affect whether
businesses can even *do* business.

-----Original Message-----
From: Joe DeCosta [mailto:decosta at bayconnect.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2001 4:00 PM
To: Clayton Lambert; 'Douglas Cohn'; vwp at arin.net
Subject: Re: ARIN Justified...


Well, what do you think that the best approach to this would be, I think a
BIG part of the entire IP space problem is the HUGE market of ISP's like
earthlink, Genuity(aka BBN), and the free services that just give any schmoe
an IP address, I don't think that this is soemthing that  is viable, we even
to a small Extent use NAT/Name based Virtual Hosting for  some of the
domains runing on the secondary T1 in our office.  This all works fine, and
uses 1 ip for many things.  Perhaps this is a viable options, but i do think
that ARIN should enforce some sort of NAT with providers (aol, earthlink,
freebie ISPs et al.) who allow just anybody to have an IP when its not
needed.  from an admin point of view this can be a bit hellish but well
worth the IP space that is being wasted on people that dont *NEED* random
inbound traffic.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Clayton Lambert" <Clay at exodus.net>
To: "'Joe DeCosta'" <decosta at bayconnect.com>; "'Douglas Cohn'"
<Douglas.Cohn at Virtualscape.com>; <vwp at arin.net>
Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2001 2:17 PM
Subject: RE: ARIN Justified...


> No argument at all on those points either Joe,
>
> In fact, it seems there is a lot of common ground on this topic, maybe we
> should try to identify the specific agreed-upon points and
disagreements...?
>
> It might be something to work from.
>
> -Clay
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of Joe
> DeCosta
> Sent: Monday, January 08, 2001 6:44 PM
> To: Clayton Lambert; 'Douglas Cohn'; vwp at arin.net
> Subject: Re: ARIN Justified...
>
>
> agreed, but with all of the home users, shouldn't some of the major ISP's
be
> considering NAT for DSL/ISDN and Dialup users? i mean, it's an idea, i
don't
> know how well it would be accepted, i also think that AOL should be forced
> to use NAT.........its rediclous to see how many IP blocks they own, but
> dialup/isdn/dsl NAT i think could be a suggestion to ISP's no??
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Clayton Lambert" <Clay at exodus.net>
> To: "'Douglas Cohn'" <Douglas.Cohn at Virtualscape.com>; <vwp at arin.net>
> Sent: Monday, January 08, 2001 4:59 PM
> Subject: RE: ARIN Justified...
>
>
> > IPv6 is not the panacea you seem to think it is...
> >
> > With a mentality like that, we'd burn thru IPv6 in 10 years or less...
> >
> > -Clay
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of Douglas
> > Cohn
> > Sent: Friday, January 05, 2001 6:59 AM
> > To: vwp at arin.net
> > Subject: FW: ARIN Justified...
> >
> >
> > I forwarded your email to the list for you
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Allen Ahoffman [mailto:ahoffman at announce.com]
> > Sent: Friday, July 10, 2893 6:44 PM
> > To: Douglas Cohn
> > Subject: Re: ARIN Justified...
> >
> >
> > OK let me interject a question into this discussion:
> >
> > Why are we requiring a /19 or in some cases /20 of space before being
> > allowed to get our own allocation?
> > I realize management is an issue, but a $2500/year it encourages small
> > users to build up to that point.
> >
> > We get users who don't want us to have iI space from other vendors, so
> > we
> > get pressure for more iP usage and pressure for less.
> >
> > For example, in converting from one provider to another I have had
> > difficult time getting replacment iP space in less than 8 months now,
> > but
> > was making efforts to not purchase the /19.  I thik we might bge by
> > without it but the minimum size creates pressure to fill IP(s).
> > I do agree that users seem to want IP(s) without reason, seems like IPV6
> > might look more appealing every day?
> >
> >
> > [Charset
> > iso-8859-1 unsupported,
> > filtering to ASCII...] > I must get my two cents in here as well.
> > >
> > > I feel Clayton has the right track.
> > >
> > > I manage IP allocation as well for dedicated and colocated clients.
> > Our
> > > policy used to state each server was issued 16 IPs.  We provision with
> > 1
> > > IP only.  If a client asks for the rest I also require the need for
> > the
> > > IPs.
> > > Too often they want them for testing or only because they saw that
> > they
> > > get 16 IPs with a server.  They must supply the domain names and
> > reasons
> > > why they cannot use IPless hosting.  While I will not force IPless
> > > hosting on clients I push it and train it's use for free.
> > >
> > > We now state that you get a single IP with each dedicated server and
> > > additional IPs are billed on a monthly basis.  This helps a lot to
> > > defray usage.  While it is a revenue stream that is not it's purpose
> > > whatsoever.
> > >
> > > In Shared hosting though the issues are clearly Search engines and SSL
> > > as far as I know.
> > >
> > > Most people understand why we watch our address space and appreciate
> > it.
> > >
> > > Douglas Cohn
> > > Manager NY Engineering
> > > Hostcentric, Inc.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of
> > Stephen
> > > Elliott
> > > Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 4:47 PM
> > > To: Clayton Lambert; Virtual IP List
> > > Subject: Re: ARIN Justified...
> > >
> > >
> > > :-)  The reason I mentioned Exodus is because we are a customer of
> > > Exodus, and in my opinion, the policy is too restrictive.  And the
> > > statement was directed at the fact that Exodus hosts many companies
> > that
> > > are in the business of hosting websites, not Exodus as a company.  As
> > I
> > > have stated in earlier postings, simply clamping down and restricting
> > > virtual web hosting is not the answer.  Any list of justifications, no
> > > matter how much thought went into it, will not cover every possible
> > > reason for needing the IP's.  Documentation is a great thing, just the
> > > fact that someone has to sit down and write out a list of machines
> > that
> > > need IP's will deter most people from requesting extra IP's.
> > > -Stephen
> > >
> > > Clayton Lambert wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Do you have ANY idea of what you are saying?  Sorry for appearing
> > > brash,
> > > > but...I run the IP maintenance organization at Exodus, and I would
> > > easily
> > > > stack our allocation policy up against anybody's.
> > > >
> > > > You have no idea what you are talking about in regard to larger
> > > companies.
> > > > Exodus consumes a very modest amount of address space given our size
> > > and
> > > > presence on the Internet.  There are much smaller competitors of
> > ours
> > > that
> > > > consume larger amounts of IP space.
> > > >
> > > > Exodus is already pioneering the efficiency of use ideology that I
> > > would
> > > > like to see ARIN adopt (a strong HTTP1.1 stance on ARIN's part is a
> > > good
> > > > start).  We currently require extensive supporting documentation for
> > > IP
> > > > requests from all our Customers.  A Customer has to show a
> > documented
> > > need
> > > > for their usage request and we file all these requests and refer to
> > > past
> > > > requests and detail as additional requests for address space occur.
> > > This
> > > > method gives us a very clear and honest indication of IP address
> > usage
> > > > growth. This allows us to support our Customers' IP addressing needs
> > > in a
> > > > very accurate and efficient way.  The end result is less consumption
> > > of IPv4
> > > > space across the board.
> > > >
> > > > Clayton Lambert
> > > > Exodus Communications
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of
> > > Stephen
> > > > Elliott
> > > > Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 12:20 PM
> > > > To: Virtual IP List
> > > > Subject: RE: ARIN Justified...
> > > >
> > > >         The big guys that you refer to are generally not in the web
> > > hosting
> > > > business and therefore are outside of the scope of this
> > conversation.
> > > > The real concern is the big guys like Exodus and UUNet.  Since IPv6
> > is
> > > > not a viable option for general consumption yet, we need to
> > > concentrate
> > > > on conserving the existing IPv4 space.  As far as search engines go,
> > > if
> > > > enough sites start using HTTP1.1 software virtual servers, they will
> > > be
> > > > forced to upgrade their spiders to support it.  I would suggest that
> > > one
> > > > of the main issues at hand is billing.  Billing for web hosting
> > > > companies that is.  Most companies bundle bandwidth with their
> > hosting
> > > > packages, and current billing packages utilize destination IP
> > address
> > > > information to gather this information.  If there is not a way to
> > get
> > > > this information without drastic changes to both billing software
> > and
> > > in
> > > > some cases hardware, there will be very strong opposition to any
> > > changes
> > > > in the way IP addresses are given out.
> > > > -Stephen
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Stephen Elliott                 Harrison & Troxell
> > > > Systems & Networking Manager    2 Faneuil Hall Marketplace
> > > > Systems & Networking Group      Boston, Ma 02109
> > > > (617)227-0494 Phone             (617)720-3918 Fax
> > >
> > > --
> > > Stephen Elliott                 Harrison & Troxell
> > > Systems & Networking Manager    2 Faneuil Hall Marketplace
> > > Systems & Networking Group      Boston, Ma 02109
> > > (617)227-0494 Phone             (617)720-3918 Fax
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
>


From ctodd at netgate.net  Tue Jan  9 20:09:16 2001
From: ctodd at netgate.net (Chris Miller)
Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2001 17:09:16 -0800 (PST)
Subject: ARIN Justified..
In-Reply-To: <D71AE516100FD411BC5A00508B62C411025B01B8@polo.admin.den.inflow.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSI.4.05L.10101091704560.12923-100000@rs.netgate.net>


Sun Microsystems (and others companies I'm sure) has many addresses that
never see the internet, they use most of these strictly for their internal
networks. Surely they could use reserved addresses for many of these
purposes.....

Sun Microsystems, Inc. (NETBLK-SUN4)
   2550 Garcia Avenue
   Mountain View, CA 94043

   Netname: SUN4
   Netblock: 129.144.0.0 - 129.159.255.255

Chris

On Tue, 9 Jan 2001, Jim Macknik wrote:

> This brings up a good point, as well. How will ARIN enforce its policies?
> There are large companies out there that have several Class B or Class A
> ranges all to themselves that they "reserved" years ago. I doubt many of
> these organizations could properly justify this space at this time.
> 
> Will ARIN require them to justify their use and take away the extras,
> requiring huge organizations or ISPs to completely re-allocate their
> addressing? If they don't, how will they be able to justify revoking denying
> space to others looking to increase their allocation? 
> 
> This isn't an easy one, but it certainly has to be addressed if ARIN is
> concerned about political ramifications of a policy that will affect whether
> businesses can even *do* business.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joe DeCosta [mailto:decosta at bayconnect.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2001 4:00 PM
> To: Clayton Lambert; 'Douglas Cohn'; vwp at arin.net
> Subject: Re: ARIN Justified...
> 
> 
> Well, what do you think that the best approach to this would be, I think a
> BIG part of the entire IP space problem is the HUGE market of ISP's like
> earthlink, Genuity(aka BBN), and the free services that just give any schmoe
> an IP address, I don't think that this is soemthing that  is viable, we even
> to a small Extent use NAT/Name based Virtual Hosting for  some of the
> domains runing on the secondary T1 in our office.  This all works fine, and
> uses 1 ip for many things.  Perhaps this is a viable options, but i do think
> that ARIN should enforce some sort of NAT with providers (aol, earthlink,
> freebie ISPs et al.) who allow just anybody to have an IP when its not
> needed.  from an admin point of view this can be a bit hellish but well
> worth the IP space that is being wasted on people that dont *NEED* random
> inbound traffic.
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Clayton Lambert" <Clay at exodus.net>
> To: "'Joe DeCosta'" <decosta at bayconnect.com>; "'Douglas Cohn'"
> <Douglas.Cohn at Virtualscape.com>; <vwp at arin.net>
> Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2001 2:17 PM
> Subject: RE: ARIN Justified...
> 
> 
> > No argument at all on those points either Joe,
> >
> > In fact, it seems there is a lot of common ground on this topic, maybe we
> > should try to identify the specific agreed-upon points and
> disagreements...?
> >
> > It might be something to work from.
> >
> > -Clay
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of Joe
> > DeCosta
> > Sent: Monday, January 08, 2001 6:44 PM
> > To: Clayton Lambert; 'Douglas Cohn'; vwp at arin.net
> > Subject: Re: ARIN Justified...
> >
> >
> > agreed, but with all of the home users, shouldn't some of the major ISP's
> be
> > considering NAT for DSL/ISDN and Dialup users? i mean, it's an idea, i
> don't
> > know how well it would be accepted, i also think that AOL should be forced
> > to use NAT.........its rediclous to see how many IP blocks they own, but
> > dialup/isdn/dsl NAT i think could be a suggestion to ISP's no??
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Clayton Lambert" <Clay at exodus.net>
> > To: "'Douglas Cohn'" <Douglas.Cohn at Virtualscape.com>; <vwp at arin.net>
> > Sent: Monday, January 08, 2001 4:59 PM
> > Subject: RE: ARIN Justified...
> >
> >
> > > IPv6 is not the panacea you seem to think it is...
> > >
> > > With a mentality like that, we'd burn thru IPv6 in 10 years or less...
> > >
> > > -Clay
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of Douglas
> > > Cohn
> > > Sent: Friday, January 05, 2001 6:59 AM
> > > To: vwp at arin.net
> > > Subject: FW: ARIN Justified...
> > >
> > >
> > > I forwarded your email to the list for you
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Allen Ahoffman [mailto:ahoffman at announce.com]
> > > Sent: Friday, July 10, 2893 6:44 PM
> > > To: Douglas Cohn
> > > Subject: Re: ARIN Justified...
> > >
> > >
> > > OK let me interject a question into this discussion:
> > >
> > > Why are we requiring a /19 or in some cases /20 of space before being
> > > allowed to get our own allocation?
> > > I realize management is an issue, but a $2500/year it encourages small
> > > users to build up to that point.
> > >
> > > We get users who don't want us to have iI space from other vendors, so
> > > we
> > > get pressure for more iP usage and pressure for less.
> > >
> > > For example, in converting from one provider to another I have had
> > > difficult time getting replacment iP space in less than 8 months now,
> > > but
> > > was making efforts to not purchase the /19.  I thik we might bge by
> > > without it but the minimum size creates pressure to fill IP(s).
> > > I do agree that users seem to want IP(s) without reason, seems like IPV6
> > > might look more appealing every day?
> > >
> > >
> > > [Charset
> > > iso-8859-1 unsupported,
> > > filtering to ASCII...] > I must get my two cents in here as well.
> > > >
> > > > I feel Clayton has the right track.
> > > >
> > > > I manage IP allocation as well for dedicated and colocated clients.
> > > Our
> > > > policy used to state each server was issued 16 IPs.  We provision with
> > > 1
> > > > IP only.  If a client asks for the rest I also require the need for
> > > the
> > > > IPs.
> > > > Too often they want them for testing or only because they saw that
> > > they
> > > > get 16 IPs with a server.  They must supply the domain names and
> > > reasons
> > > > why they cannot use IPless hosting.  While I will not force IPless
> > > > hosting on clients I push it and train it's use for free.
> > > >
> > > > We now state that you get a single IP with each dedicated server and
> > > > additional IPs are billed on a monthly basis.  This helps a lot to
> > > > defray usage.  While it is a revenue stream that is not it's purpose
> > > > whatsoever.
> > > >
> > > > In Shared hosting though the issues are clearly Search engines and SSL
> > > > as far as I know.
> > > >
> > > > Most people understand why we watch our address space and appreciate
> > > it.
> > > >
> > > > Douglas Cohn
> > > > Manager NY Engineering
> > > > Hostcentric, Inc.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of
> > > Stephen
> > > > Elliott
> > > > Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 4:47 PM
> > > > To: Clayton Lambert; Virtual IP List
> > > > Subject: Re: ARIN Justified...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > :-)  The reason I mentioned Exodus is because we are a customer of
> > > > Exodus, and in my opinion, the policy is too restrictive.  And the
> > > > statement was directed at the fact that Exodus hosts many companies
> > > that
> > > > are in the business of hosting websites, not Exodus as a company.  As
> > > I
> > > > have stated in earlier postings, simply clamping down and restricting
> > > > virtual web hosting is not the answer.  Any list of justifications, no
> > > > matter how much thought went into it, will not cover every possible
> > > > reason for needing the IP's.  Documentation is a great thing, just the
> > > > fact that someone has to sit down and write out a list of machines
> > > that
> > > > need IP's will deter most people from requesting extra IP's.
> > > > -Stephen
> > > >
> > > > Clayton Lambert wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Do you have ANY idea of what you are saying?  Sorry for appearing
> > > > brash,
> > > > > but...I run the IP maintenance organization at Exodus, and I would
> > > > easily
> > > > > stack our allocation policy up against anybody's.
> > > > >
> > > > > You have no idea what you are talking about in regard to larger
> > > > companies.
> > > > > Exodus consumes a very modest amount of address space given our size
> > > > and
> > > > > presence on the Internet.  There are much smaller competitors of
> > > ours
> > > > that
> > > > > consume larger amounts of IP space.
> > > > >
> > > > > Exodus is already pioneering the efficiency of use ideology that I
> > > > would
> > > > > like to see ARIN adopt (a strong HTTP1.1 stance on ARIN's part is a
> > > > good
> > > > > start).  We currently require extensive supporting documentation for
> > > > IP
> > > > > requests from all our Customers.  A Customer has to show a
> > > documented
> > > > need
> > > > > for their usage request and we file all these requests and refer to
> > > > past
> > > > > requests and detail as additional requests for address space occur.
> > > > This
> > > > > method gives us a very clear and honest indication of IP address
> > > usage
> > > > > growth. This allows us to support our Customers' IP addressing needs
> > > > in a
> > > > > very accurate and efficient way.  The end result is less consumption
> > > > of IPv4
> > > > > space across the board.
> > > > >
> > > > > Clayton Lambert
> > > > > Exodus Communications
> > > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of
> > > > Stephen
> > > > > Elliott
> > > > > Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 12:20 PM
> > > > > To: Virtual IP List
> > > > > Subject: RE: ARIN Justified...
> > > > >
> > > > >         The big guys that you refer to are generally not in the web
> > > > hosting
> > > > > business and therefore are outside of the scope of this
> > > conversation.
> > > > > The real concern is the big guys like Exodus and UUNet.  Since IPv6
> > > is
> > > > > not a viable option for general consumption yet, we need to
> > > > concentrate
> > > > > on conserving the existing IPv4 space.  As far as search engines go,
> > > > if
> > > > > enough sites start using HTTP1.1 software virtual servers, they will
> > > > be
> > > > > forced to upgrade their spiders to support it.  I would suggest that
> > > > one
> > > > > of the main issues at hand is billing.  Billing for web hosting
> > > > > companies that is.  Most companies bundle bandwidth with their
> > > hosting
> > > > > packages, and current billing packages utilize destination IP
> > > address
> > > > > information to gather this information.  If there is not a way to
> > > get
> > > > > this information without drastic changes to both billing software
> > > and
> > > > in
> > > > > some cases hardware, there will be very strong opposition to any
> > > > changes
> > > > > in the way IP addresses are given out.
> > > > > -Stephen
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Stephen Elliott                 Harrison & Troxell
> > > > > Systems & Networking Manager    2 Faneuil Hall Marketplace
> > > > > Systems & Networking Group      Boston, Ma 02109
> > > > > (617)227-0494 Phone             (617)720-3918 Fax
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Stephen Elliott                 Harrison & Troxell
> > > > Systems & Networking Manager    2 Faneuil Hall Marketplace
> > > > Systems & Networking Group      Boston, Ma 02109
> > > > (617)227-0494 Phone             (617)720-3918 Fax
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> 



From decosta at bayconnect.com  Tue Jan  9 20:17:50 2001
From: decosta at bayconnect.com (Joe DeCosta)
Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2001 17:17:50 -0800
Subject: ARIN Justified...
References: <D71AE516100FD411BC5A00508B62C411025B01B8@polo.admin.den.inflow.com>
Message-ID: <001c01c07aa3$26ed07a0$cd00000a@andrade.net>

ARIN can enforce any policy it wants, remember, they CONTROL the IP traffic
of all of north america etc.  and who gets them, if they make an
administrative decision, it is most likely going to be in the best intrest
of the internet in general.  I doubt that GE needs an entire Class A subnet
etc etc. There are too many IP's issued in such a lax fashion.  Whereas we
are constantly being hounded by our Uplink to justify our small /24 because
they can't get IP's from ARIN hardly at all anymore.  It's not a matter will
arin require them to do it, its will the big TCP/IP stack carriers start
producing IPv6 compatible transport software.. In which case, it alleviates
the problem for now.  An ISP can assign real fully routeable IP's to
customers, but not the average end user who is doing simple web browsing and
e-mail and instant messaging etc.  It's not restricting whether or not a
business can do business, it is restricting how the IP's are controlled, one
day, there is going to come a time where there will be no IP's left at all,
because microsoft has their fingers in their tookuses (as does apple), in
creating a stable IPv6 compatible TCP/IP stack, etc... We're kind running
around in a paradox here....
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Macknik" <jmacknik at inflow.com>
To: <vwp at arin.net>
Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2001 3:35 PM
Subject: RE: ARIN Justified...


> This brings up a good point, as well. How will ARIN enforce its policies?
> There are large companies out there that have several Class B or Class A
> ranges all to themselves that they "reserved" years ago. I doubt many of
> these organizations could properly justify this space at this time.
>
> Will ARIN require them to justify their use and take away the extras,
> requiring huge organizations or ISPs to completely re-allocate their
> addressing? If they don't, how will they be able to justify revoking
denying
> space to others looking to increase their allocation?
>
> This isn't an easy one, but it certainly has to be addressed if ARIN is
> concerned about political ramifications of a policy that will affect
whether
> businesses can even *do* business.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joe DeCosta [mailto:decosta at bayconnect.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2001 4:00 PM
> To: Clayton Lambert; 'Douglas Cohn'; vwp at arin.net
> Subject: Re: ARIN Justified...
>
>
> Well, what do you think that the best approach to this would be, I think a
> BIG part of the entire IP space problem is the HUGE market of ISP's like
> earthlink, Genuity(aka BBN), and the free services that just give any
schmoe
> an IP address, I don't think that this is soemthing that  is viable, we
even
> to a small Extent use NAT/Name based Virtual Hosting for  some of the
> domains runing on the secondary T1 in our office.  This all works fine,
and
> uses 1 ip for many things.  Perhaps this is a viable options, but i do
think
> that ARIN should enforce some sort of NAT with providers (aol, earthlink,
> freebie ISPs et al.) who allow just anybody to have an IP when its not
> needed.  from an admin point of view this can be a bit hellish but well
> worth the IP space that is being wasted on people that dont *NEED* random
> inbound traffic.
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Clayton Lambert" <Clay at exodus.net>
> To: "'Joe DeCosta'" <decosta at bayconnect.com>; "'Douglas Cohn'"
> <Douglas.Cohn at Virtualscape.com>; <vwp at arin.net>
> Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2001 2:17 PM
> Subject: RE: ARIN Justified...
>
>
> > No argument at all on those points either Joe,
> >
> > In fact, it seems there is a lot of common ground on this topic, maybe
we
> > should try to identify the specific agreed-upon points and
> disagreements...?
> >
> > It might be something to work from.
> >
> > -Clay
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of Joe
> > DeCosta
> > Sent: Monday, January 08, 2001 6:44 PM
> > To: Clayton Lambert; 'Douglas Cohn'; vwp at arin.net
> > Subject: Re: ARIN Justified...
> >
> >
> > agreed, but with all of the home users, shouldn't some of the major
ISP's
> be
> > considering NAT for DSL/ISDN and Dialup users? i mean, it's an idea, i
> don't
> > know how well it would be accepted, i also think that AOL should be
forced
> > to use NAT.........its rediclous to see how many IP blocks they own, but
> > dialup/isdn/dsl NAT i think could be a suggestion to ISP's no??
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Clayton Lambert" <Clay at exodus.net>
> > To: "'Douglas Cohn'" <Douglas.Cohn at Virtualscape.com>; <vwp at arin.net>
> > Sent: Monday, January 08, 2001 4:59 PM
> > Subject: RE: ARIN Justified...
> >
> >
> > > IPv6 is not the panacea you seem to think it is...
> > >
> > > With a mentality like that, we'd burn thru IPv6 in 10 years or less...
> > >
> > > -Clay
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of
Douglas
> > > Cohn
> > > Sent: Friday, January 05, 2001 6:59 AM
> > > To: vwp at arin.net
> > > Subject: FW: ARIN Justified...
> > >
> > >
> > > I forwarded your email to the list for you
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Allen Ahoffman [mailto:ahoffman at announce.com]
> > > Sent: Friday, July 10, 2893 6:44 PM
> > > To: Douglas Cohn
> > > Subject: Re: ARIN Justified...
> > >
> > >
> > > OK let me interject a question into this discussion:
> > >
> > > Why are we requiring a /19 or in some cases /20 of space before being
> > > allowed to get our own allocation?
> > > I realize management is an issue, but a $2500/year it encourages small
> > > users to build up to that point.
> > >
> > > We get users who don't want us to have iI space from other vendors, so
> > > we
> > > get pressure for more iP usage and pressure for less.
> > >
> > > For example, in converting from one provider to another I have had
> > > difficult time getting replacment iP space in less than 8 months now,
> > > but
> > > was making efforts to not purchase the /19.  I thik we might bge by
> > > without it but the minimum size creates pressure to fill IP(s).
> > > I do agree that users seem to want IP(s) without reason, seems like
IPV6
> > > might look more appealing every day?
> > >
> > >
> > > [Charset
> > > iso-8859-1 unsupported,
> > > filtering to ASCII...] > I must get my two cents in here as well.
> > > >
> > > > I feel Clayton has the right track.
> > > >
> > > > I manage IP allocation as well for dedicated and colocated clients.
> > > Our
> > > > policy used to state each server was issued 16 IPs.  We provision
with
> > > 1
> > > > IP only.  If a client asks for the rest I also require the need for
> > > the
> > > > IPs.
> > > > Too often they want them for testing or only because they saw that
> > > they
> > > > get 16 IPs with a server.  They must supply the domain names and
> > > reasons
> > > > why they cannot use IPless hosting.  While I will not force IPless
> > > > hosting on clients I push it and train it's use for free.
> > > >
> > > > We now state that you get a single IP with each dedicated server and
> > > > additional IPs are billed on a monthly basis.  This helps a lot to
> > > > defray usage.  While it is a revenue stream that is not it's purpose
> > > > whatsoever.
> > > >
> > > > In Shared hosting though the issues are clearly Search engines and
SSL
> > > > as far as I know.
> > > >
> > > > Most people understand why we watch our address space and appreciate
> > > it.
> > > >
> > > > Douglas Cohn
> > > > Manager NY Engineering
> > > > Hostcentric, Inc.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of
> > > Stephen
> > > > Elliott
> > > > Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 4:47 PM
> > > > To: Clayton Lambert; Virtual IP List
> > > > Subject: Re: ARIN Justified...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > :-)  The reason I mentioned Exodus is because we are a customer of
> > > > Exodus, and in my opinion, the policy is too restrictive.  And the
> > > > statement was directed at the fact that Exodus hosts many companies
> > > that
> > > > are in the business of hosting websites, not Exodus as a company.
As
> > > I
> > > > have stated in earlier postings, simply clamping down and
restricting
> > > > virtual web hosting is not the answer.  Any list of justifications,
no
> > > > matter how much thought went into it, will not cover every possible
> > > > reason for needing the IP's.  Documentation is a great thing, just
the
> > > > fact that someone has to sit down and write out a list of machines
> > > that
> > > > need IP's will deter most people from requesting extra IP's.
> > > > -Stephen
> > > >
> > > > Clayton Lambert wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Do you have ANY idea of what you are saying?  Sorry for appearing
> > > > brash,
> > > > > but...I run the IP maintenance organization at Exodus, and I would
> > > > easily
> > > > > stack our allocation policy up against anybody's.
> > > > >
> > > > > You have no idea what you are talking about in regard to larger
> > > > companies.
> > > > > Exodus consumes a very modest amount of address space given our
size
> > > > and
> > > > > presence on the Internet.  There are much smaller competitors of
> > > ours
> > > > that
> > > > > consume larger amounts of IP space.
> > > > >
> > > > > Exodus is already pioneering the efficiency of use ideology that I
> > > > would
> > > > > like to see ARIN adopt (a strong HTTP1.1 stance on ARIN's part is
a
> > > > good
> > > > > start).  We currently require extensive supporting documentation
for
> > > > IP
> > > > > requests from all our Customers.  A Customer has to show a
> > > documented
> > > > need
> > > > > for their usage request and we file all these requests and refer
to
> > > > past
> > > > > requests and detail as additional requests for address space
occur.
> > > > This
> > > > > method gives us a very clear and honest indication of IP address
> > > usage
> > > > > growth. This allows us to support our Customers' IP addressing
needs
> > > > in a
> > > > > very accurate and efficient way.  The end result is less
consumption
> > > > of IPv4
> > > > > space across the board.
> > > > >
> > > > > Clayton Lambert
> > > > > Exodus Communications
> > > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of
> > > > Stephen
> > > > > Elliott
> > > > > Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 12:20 PM
> > > > > To: Virtual IP List
> > > > > Subject: RE: ARIN Justified...
> > > > >
> > > > >         The big guys that you refer to are generally not in the
web
> > > > hosting
> > > > > business and therefore are outside of the scope of this
> > > conversation.
> > > > > The real concern is the big guys like Exodus and UUNet.  Since
IPv6
> > > is
> > > > > not a viable option for general consumption yet, we need to
> > > > concentrate
> > > > > on conserving the existing IPv4 space.  As far as search engines
go,
> > > > if
> > > > > enough sites start using HTTP1.1 software virtual servers, they
will
> > > > be
> > > > > forced to upgrade their spiders to support it.  I would suggest
that
> > > > one
> > > > > of the main issues at hand is billing.  Billing for web hosting
> > > > > companies that is.  Most companies bundle bandwidth with their
> > > hosting
> > > > > packages, and current billing packages utilize destination IP
> > > address
> > > > > information to gather this information.  If there is not a way to
> > > get
> > > > > this information without drastic changes to both billing software
> > > and
> > > > in
> > > > > some cases hardware, there will be very strong opposition to any
> > > > changes
> > > > > in the way IP addresses are given out.
> > > > > -Stephen
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Stephen Elliott                 Harrison & Troxell
> > > > > Systems & Networking Manager    2 Faneuil Hall Marketplace
> > > > > Systems & Networking Group      Boston, Ma 02109
> > > > > (617)227-0494 Phone             (617)720-3918 Fax
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Stephen Elliott                 Harrison & Troxell
> > > > Systems & Networking Manager    2 Faneuil Hall Marketplace
> > > > Systems & Networking Group      Boston, Ma 02109
> > > > (617)227-0494 Phone             (617)720-3918 Fax
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>



From justin at gid.net  Tue Jan  9 20:22:08 2001
From: justin at gid.net (Justin W. Newton)
Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2001 17:22:08 -0800
Subject: ARIN Justified...
In-Reply-To: <000901c07a8f$e9820c20$cd00000a@andrade.net>
References: <200101092217.OAA20622@exoserv.exodus.net>
 <000901c07a8f$e9820c20$cd00000a@andrade.net>
Message-ID: <a0500191eb6816966de67@[10.100.162.85]>

How does one tell, in advance to connection, which users need a 
"real" IP address, and which users need NAT?  At the bare minimum NAT 
breaks P2P networks, which, in case you hadn't noticed, are becoming 
more popular.  I will point out that large dial ISP's do already use 
DHCP, so a user only has an IP assigned for the period of time that 
the user is logged on.




At 3:00 PM -0800 1/9/01, Joe DeCosta wrote:
>Well, what do you think that the best approach to this would be, I think a
>BIG part of the entire IP space problem is the HUGE market of ISP's like
>earthlink, Genuity(aka BBN), and the free services that just give any schmoe
>an IP address, I don't think that this is soemthing that  is viable, we even
>to a small Extent use NAT/Name based Virtual Hosting for  some of the
>domains runing on the secondary T1 in our office.  This all works fine, and
>uses 1 ip for many things.  Perhaps this is a viable options, but i do think
>that ARIN should enforce some sort of NAT with providers (aol, earthlink,
>freebie ISPs et al.) who allow just anybody to have an IP when its not
>needed.  from an admin point of view this can be a bit hellish but well
>worth the IP space that is being wasted on people that dont *NEED* random
>inbound traffic.
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Clayton Lambert" <Clay at exodus.net>
>To: "'Joe DeCosta'" <decosta at bayconnect.com>; "'Douglas Cohn'"
><Douglas.Cohn at Virtualscape.com>; <vwp at arin.net>
>Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2001 2:17 PM
>Subject: RE: ARIN Justified...
>
>
>>  No argument at all on those points either Joe,
>>
>>  In fact, it seems there is a lot of common ground on this topic, maybe we
>>  should try to identify the specific agreed-upon points and
>disagreements...?
>>
>>  It might be something to work from.
>>
>>  -Clay
>>
>>  -----Original Message-----
>>  From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of Joe
>>  DeCosta
>>  Sent: Monday, January 08, 2001 6:44 PM
>>  To: Clayton Lambert; 'Douglas Cohn'; vwp at arin.net
>>  Subject: Re: ARIN Justified...
>>
>>
>>  agreed, but with all of the home users, shouldn't some of the major ISP's
>be
>>  considering NAT for DSL/ISDN and Dialup users? i mean, it's an idea, i
>don't
>>  know how well it would be accepted, i also think that AOL should be forced
>>  to use NAT.........its rediclous to see how many IP blocks they own, but
>>  dialup/isdn/dsl NAT i think could be a suggestion to ISP's no??
>>
>>
>>  ----- Original Message -----
>>  From: "Clayton Lambert" <Clay at exodus.net>
>>  To: "'Douglas Cohn'" <Douglas.Cohn at Virtualscape.com>; <vwp at arin.net>
>>  Sent: Monday, January 08, 2001 4:59 PM
>>  Subject: RE: ARIN Justified...
>>
>>
>>  > IPv6 is not the panacea you seem to think it is...
>>  >
>>  > With a mentality like that, we'd burn thru IPv6 in 10 years or less...
>>  >
>>  > -Clay
>>  >
>>  > -----Original Message-----
>>  > From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of Douglas
>>  > Cohn
>>  > Sent: Friday, January 05, 2001 6:59 AM
>>  > To: vwp at arin.net
>>  > Subject: FW: ARIN Justified...
>>  >
>>  >
>>  > I forwarded your email to the list for you
>>  >
>>  > -----Original Message-----
>>  > From: Allen Ahoffman [mailto:ahoffman at announce.com]
>>  > Sent: Friday, July 10, 2893 6:44 PM
>>  > To: Douglas Cohn
>>  > Subject: Re: ARIN Justified...
>>  >
>>  >
>>  > OK let me interject a question into this discussion:
>>  >
>>  > Why are we requiring a /19 or in some cases /20 of space before being
>>  > allowed to get our own allocation?
>>  > I realize management is an issue, but a $2500/year it encourages small
>>  > users to build up to that point.
>>  >
>>  > We get users who don't want us to have iI space from other vendors, so
>>  > we
>>  > get pressure for more iP usage and pressure for less.
>>  >
>>  > For example, in converting from one provider to another I have had
>>  > difficult time getting replacment iP space in less than 8 months now,
>>  > but
>>  > was making efforts to not purchase the /19.  I thik we might bge by
>  > > without it but the minimum size creates pressure to fill IP(s).
>>  > I do agree that users seem to want IP(s) without reason, seems like IPV6
>>  > might look more appealing every day?
>>  >
>>  >
>>  > [Charset
>>  > iso-8859-1 unsupported,
>>  > filtering to ASCII...] > I must get my two cents in here as well.
>>  > >
>>  > > I feel Clayton has the right track.
>>  > >
>>  > > I manage IP allocation as well for dedicated and colocated clients.
>>  > Our
>>  > > policy used to state each server was issued 16 IPs.  We provision with
>>  > 1
>>  > > IP only.  If a client asks for the rest I also require the need for
>>  > the
>>  > > IPs.
>>  > > Too often they want them for testing or only because they saw that
>>  > they
>>  > > get 16 IPs with a server.  They must supply the domain names and
>>  > reasons
>>  > > why they cannot use IPless hosting.  While I will not force IPless
>>  > > hosting on clients I push it and train it's use for free.
>>  > >
>>  > > We now state that you get a single IP with each dedicated server and
>>  > > additional IPs are billed on a monthly basis.  This helps a lot to
>>  > > defray usage.  While it is a revenue stream that is not it's purpose
>>  > > whatsoever.
>>  > >
>>  > > In Shared hosting though the issues are clearly Search engines and SSL
>>  > > as far as I know.
>>  > >
>>  > > Most people understand why we watch our address space and appreciate
>>  > it.
>>  > >
>>  > > Douglas Cohn
>>  > > Manager NY Engineering
>>  > > Hostcentric, Inc.
>>  > >
>>  > >
>>  > >
>>  > > -----Original Message-----
>>  > > From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of
>>  > Stephen
>>  > > Elliott
>>  > > Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 4:47 PM
>>  > > To: Clayton Lambert; Virtual IP List
>>  > > Subject: Re: ARIN Justified...
>>  > >
>>  > >
>>  > > :-)  The reason I mentioned Exodus is because we are a customer of
>>  > > Exodus, and in my opinion, the policy is too restrictive.  And the
>>  > > statement was directed at the fact that Exodus hosts many companies
>>  > that
>>  > > are in the business of hosting websites, not Exodus as a company.  As
>>  > I
>>  > > have stated in earlier postings, simply clamping down and restricting
>>  > > virtual web hosting is not the answer.  Any list of justifications, no
>>  > > matter how much thought went into it, will not cover every possible
>>  > > reason for needing the IP's.  Documentation is a great thing, just the
>>  > > fact that someone has to sit down and write out a list of machines
>>  > that
>>  > > need IP's will deter most people from requesting extra IP's.
>>  > > -Stephen
>>  > >
>>  > > Clayton Lambert wrote:
>>  > > >
>>  > > > Do you have ANY idea of what you are saying?  Sorry for appearing
>>  > > brash,
>>  > > > but...I run the IP maintenance organization at Exodus, and I would
>>  > > easily
>>  > > > stack our allocation policy up against anybody's.
>>  > > >
>>  > > > You have no idea what you are talking about in regard to larger
>>  > > companies.
>>  > > > Exodus consumes a very modest amount of address space given our size
>>  > > and
>>  > > > presence on the Internet.  There are much smaller competitors of
>>  > ours
>>  > > that
>>  > > > consume larger amounts of IP space.
>>  > > >
>>  > > > Exodus is already pioneering the efficiency of use ideology that I
>>  > > would
>>  > > > like to see ARIN adopt (a strong HTTP1.1 stance on ARIN's part is a
>>  > > good
>>  > > > start).  We currently require extensive supporting documentation for
>>  > > IP
>>  > > > requests from all our Customers.  A Customer has to show a
>>  > documented
>>  > > need
>>  > > > for their usage request and we file all these requests and refer to
>>  > > past
>>  > > > requests and detail as additional requests for address space occur.
>>  > > This
>>  > > > method gives us a very clear and honest indication of IP address
>>  > usage
>>  > > > growth. This allows us to support our Customers' IP addressing needs
>>  > > in a
>>  > > > very accurate and efficient way.  The end result is less consumption
>>  > > of IPv4
>>  > > > space across the board.
>>  > > >
>>  > > > Clayton Lambert
>>  > > > Exodus Communications
>>  > > >
>>  > > > -----Original Message-----
>>  > > > From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of
>  > > > Stephen
>>  > > > Elliott
>>  > > > Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 12:20 PM
>>  > > > To: Virtual IP List
>>  > > > Subject: RE: ARIN Justified...
>>  > > >
>>  > > >         The big guys that you refer to are generally not in the web
>>  > > hosting
>>  > > > business and therefore are outside of the scope of this
>>  > conversation.
>>  > > > The real concern is the big guys like Exodus and UUNet.  Since IPv6
>>  > is
>>  > > > not a viable option for general consumption yet, we need to
>>  > > concentrate
>>  > > > on conserving the existing IPv4 space.  As far as search engines go,
>>  > > if
>>  > > > enough sites start using HTTP1.1 software virtual servers, they will
>>  > > be
>>  > > > forced to upgrade their spiders to support it.  I would suggest that
>>  > > one
>>  > > > of the main issues at hand is billing.  Billing for web hosting
>>  > > > companies that is.  Most companies bundle bandwidth with their
>>  > hosting
>>  > > > packages, and current billing packages utilize destination IP
>>  > address
>>  > > > information to gather this information.  If there is not a way to
>>  > get
>>  > > > this information without drastic changes to both billing software
>>  > and
>>  > > in
>>  > > > some cases hardware, there will be very strong opposition to any
>>  > > changes
>>  > > > in the way IP addresses are given out.
>>  > > > -Stephen
>>  > > >
>>  > > > --
>>  > > > Stephen Elliott                 Harrison & Troxell
>>  > > > Systems & Networking Manager    2 Faneuil Hall Marketplace
>>  > > > Systems & Networking Group      Boston, Ma 02109
>>  > > > (617)227-0494 Phone             (617)720-3918 Fax
>>  > >
>>  > > --
>>  > > Stephen Elliott                 Harrison & Troxell
>>  > > Systems & Networking Manager    2 Faneuil Hall Marketplace
>>  > > Systems & Networking Group      Boston, Ma 02109
>>  > > (617)227-0494 Phone             (617)720-3918 Fax
>>  > >
>>  >
>>  >
>>
>>
>>

-- 

Justin W. Newton
Senior Director, Networking and Telecommunications
NetZero, Inc.


From decosta at bayconnect.com  Tue Jan  9 20:30:00 2001
From: decosta at bayconnect.com (Joe DeCosta)
Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2001 17:30:00 -0800
Subject: ARIN Justified...
References: <200101092217.OAA20622@exoserv.exodus.net> <000901c07a8f$e9820c20$cd00000a@andrade.net> <a0500191eb6816966de67@[10.100.162.85]>
Message-ID: <002801c07aa4$da0d3de0$cd00000a@andrade.net>

Well, they get a NAT address by defualt, and if they complain that they need
a real one, a real one is assigned.  but who is going to run a server of
anykind of 56k analog dialup?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Justin W. Newton" <justin at gid.net>
To: "Joe DeCosta" <decosta at bayconnect.com>; "Clayton Lambert"
<Clay at exodus.net>; "'Douglas Cohn'" <Douglas.Cohn at Virtualscape.com>;
<vwp at arin.net>
Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2001 5:22 PM
Subject: Re: ARIN Justified...


> How does one tell, in advance to connection, which users need a
> "real" IP address, and which users need NAT?  At the bare minimum NAT
> breaks P2P networks, which, in case you hadn't noticed, are becoming
> more popular.  I will point out that large dial ISP's do already use
> DHCP, so a user only has an IP assigned for the period of time that
> the user is logged on.
>
>
>
>
> At 3:00 PM -0800 1/9/01, Joe DeCosta wrote:
> >Well, what do you think that the best approach to this would be, I think
a
> >BIG part of the entire IP space problem is the HUGE market of ISP's like
> >earthlink, Genuity(aka BBN), and the free services that just give any
schmoe
> >an IP address, I don't think that this is soemthing that  is viable, we
even
> >to a small Extent use NAT/Name based Virtual Hosting for  some of the
> >domains runing on the secondary T1 in our office.  This all works fine,
and
> >uses 1 ip for many things.  Perhaps this is a viable options, but i do
think
> >that ARIN should enforce some sort of NAT with providers (aol, earthlink,
> >freebie ISPs et al.) who allow just anybody to have an IP when its not
> >needed.  from an admin point of view this can be a bit hellish but well
> >worth the IP space that is being wasted on people that dont *NEED* random
> >inbound traffic.
> >
> >
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "Clayton Lambert" <Clay at exodus.net>
> >To: "'Joe DeCosta'" <decosta at bayconnect.com>; "'Douglas Cohn'"
> ><Douglas.Cohn at Virtualscape.com>; <vwp at arin.net>
> >Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2001 2:17 PM
> >Subject: RE: ARIN Justified...
> >
> >
> >>  No argument at all on those points either Joe,
> >>
> >>  In fact, it seems there is a lot of common ground on this topic, maybe
we
> >>  should try to identify the specific agreed-upon points and
> >disagreements...?
> >>
> >>  It might be something to work from.
> >>
> >>  -Clay
> >>
> >>  -----Original Message-----
> >>  From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of Joe
> >>  DeCosta
> >>  Sent: Monday, January 08, 2001 6:44 PM
> >>  To: Clayton Lambert; 'Douglas Cohn'; vwp at arin.net
> >>  Subject: Re: ARIN Justified...
> >>
> >>
> >>  agreed, but with all of the home users, shouldn't some of the major
ISP's
> >be
> >>  considering NAT for DSL/ISDN and Dialup users? i mean, it's an idea, i
> >don't
> >>  know how well it would be accepted, i also think that AOL should be
forced
> >>  to use NAT.........its rediclous to see how many IP blocks they own,
but
> >>  dialup/isdn/dsl NAT i think could be a suggestion to ISP's no??
> >>
> >>
> >>  ----- Original Message -----
> >>  From: "Clayton Lambert" <Clay at exodus.net>
> >>  To: "'Douglas Cohn'" <Douglas.Cohn at Virtualscape.com>; <vwp at arin.net>
> >>  Sent: Monday, January 08, 2001 4:59 PM
> >>  Subject: RE: ARIN Justified...
> >>
> >>
> >>  > IPv6 is not the panacea you seem to think it is...
> >>  >
> >>  > With a mentality like that, we'd burn thru IPv6 in 10 years or
less...
> >>  >
> >>  > -Clay
> >>  >
> >>  > -----Original Message-----
> >>  > From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of
Douglas
> >>  > Cohn
> >>  > Sent: Friday, January 05, 2001 6:59 AM
> >>  > To: vwp at arin.net
> >>  > Subject: FW: ARIN Justified...
> >>  >
> >>  >
> >>  > I forwarded your email to the list for you
> >>  >
> >>  > -----Original Message-----
> >>  > From: Allen Ahoffman [mailto:ahoffman at announce.com]
> >>  > Sent: Friday, July 10, 2893 6:44 PM
> >>  > To: Douglas Cohn
> >>  > Subject: Re: ARIN Justified...
> >>  >
> >>  >
> >>  > OK let me interject a question into this discussion:
> >>  >
> >>  > Why are we requiring a /19 or in some cases /20 of space before
being
> >>  > allowed to get our own allocation?
> >>  > I realize management is an issue, but a $2500/year it encourages
small
> >>  > users to build up to that point.
> >>  >
> >>  > We get users who don't want us to have iI space from other vendors,
so
> >>  > we
> >>  > get pressure for more iP usage and pressure for less.
> >>  >
> >>  > For example, in converting from one provider to another I have had
> >>  > difficult time getting replacment iP space in less than 8 months
now,
> >>  > but
> >>  > was making efforts to not purchase the /19.  I thik we might bge by
> >  > > without it but the minimum size creates pressure to fill IP(s).
> >>  > I do agree that users seem to want IP(s) without reason, seems like
IPV6
> >>  > might look more appealing every day?
> >>  >
> >>  >
> >>  > [Charset
> >>  > iso-8859-1 unsupported,
> >>  > filtering to ASCII...] > I must get my two cents in here as well.
> >>  > >
> >>  > > I feel Clayton has the right track.
> >>  > >
> >>  > > I manage IP allocation as well for dedicated and colocated
clients.
> >>  > Our
> >>  > > policy used to state each server was issued 16 IPs.  We provision
with
> >>  > 1
> >>  > > IP only.  If a client asks for the rest I also require the need
for
> >>  > the
> >>  > > IPs.
> >>  > > Too often they want them for testing or only because they saw that
> >>  > they
> >>  > > get 16 IPs with a server.  They must supply the domain names and
> >>  > reasons
> >>  > > why they cannot use IPless hosting.  While I will not force IPless
> >>  > > hosting on clients I push it and train it's use for free.
> >>  > >
> >>  > > We now state that you get a single IP with each dedicated server
and
> >>  > > additional IPs are billed on a monthly basis.  This helps a lot to
> >>  > > defray usage.  While it is a revenue stream that is not it's
purpose
> >>  > > whatsoever.
> >>  > >
> >>  > > In Shared hosting though the issues are clearly Search engines and
SSL
> >>  > > as far as I know.
> >>  > >
> >>  > > Most people understand why we watch our address space and
appreciate
> >>  > it.
> >>  > >
> >>  > > Douglas Cohn
> >>  > > Manager NY Engineering
> >>  > > Hostcentric, Inc.
> >>  > >
> >>  > >
> >>  > >
> >>  > > -----Original Message-----
> >>  > > From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of
> >>  > Stephen
> >>  > > Elliott
> >>  > > Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 4:47 PM
> >>  > > To: Clayton Lambert; Virtual IP List
> >>  > > Subject: Re: ARIN Justified...
> >>  > >
> >>  > >
> >>  > > :-)  The reason I mentioned Exodus is because we are a customer of
> >>  > > Exodus, and in my opinion, the policy is too restrictive.  And the
> >>  > > statement was directed at the fact that Exodus hosts many
companies
> >>  > that
> >>  > > are in the business of hosting websites, not Exodus as a company.
As
> >>  > I
> >>  > > have stated in earlier postings, simply clamping down and
restricting
> >>  > > virtual web hosting is not the answer.  Any list of
justifications, no
> >>  > > matter how much thought went into it, will not cover every
possible
> >>  > > reason for needing the IP's.  Documentation is a great thing, just
the
> >>  > > fact that someone has to sit down and write out a list of machines
> >>  > that
> >>  > > need IP's will deter most people from requesting extra IP's.
> >>  > > -Stephen
> >>  > >
> >>  > > Clayton Lambert wrote:
> >>  > > >
> >>  > > > Do you have ANY idea of what you are saying?  Sorry for
appearing
> >>  > > brash,
> >>  > > > but...I run the IP maintenance organization at Exodus, and I
would
> >>  > > easily
> >>  > > > stack our allocation policy up against anybody's.
> >>  > > >
> >>  > > > You have no idea what you are talking about in regard to larger
> >>  > > companies.
> >>  > > > Exodus consumes a very modest amount of address space given our
size
> >>  > > and
> >>  > > > presence on the Internet.  There are much smaller competitors of
> >>  > ours
> >>  > > that
> >>  > > > consume larger amounts of IP space.
> >>  > > >
> >>  > > > Exodus is already pioneering the efficiency of use ideology that
I
> >>  > > would
> >>  > > > like to see ARIN adopt (a strong HTTP1.1 stance on ARIN's part
is a
> >>  > > good
> >>  > > > start).  We currently require extensive supporting documentation
for
> >>  > > IP
> >>  > > > requests from all our Customers.  A Customer has to show a
> >>  > documented
> >>  > > need
> >>  > > > for their usage request and we file all these requests and refer
to
> >>  > > past
> >>  > > > requests and detail as additional requests for address space
occur.
> >>  > > This
> >>  > > > method gives us a very clear and honest indication of IP address
> >>  > usage
> >>  > > > growth. This allows us to support our Customers' IP addressing
needs
> >>  > > in a
> >>  > > > very accurate and efficient way.  The end result is less
consumption
> >>  > > of IPv4
> >>  > > > space across the board.
> >>  > > >
> >>  > > > Clayton Lambert
> >>  > > > Exodus Communications
> >>  > > >
> >>  > > > -----Original Message-----
> >>  > > > From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of
> >  > > > Stephen
> >>  > > > Elliott
> >>  > > > Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 12:20 PM
> >>  > > > To: Virtual IP List
> >>  > > > Subject: RE: ARIN Justified...
> >>  > > >
> >>  > > >         The big guys that you refer to are generally not in the
web
> >>  > > hosting
> >>  > > > business and therefore are outside of the scope of this
> >>  > conversation.
> >>  > > > The real concern is the big guys like Exodus and UUNet.  Since
IPv6
> >>  > is
> >>  > > > not a viable option for general consumption yet, we need to
> >>  > > concentrate
> >>  > > > on conserving the existing IPv4 space.  As far as search engines
go,
> >>  > > if
> >>  > > > enough sites start using HTTP1.1 software virtual servers, they
will
> >>  > > be
> >>  > > > forced to upgrade their spiders to support it.  I would suggest
that
> >>  > > one
> >>  > > > of the main issues at hand is billing.  Billing for web hosting
> >>  > > > companies that is.  Most companies bundle bandwidth with their
> >>  > hosting
> >>  > > > packages, and current billing packages utilize destination IP
> >>  > address
> >>  > > > information to gather this information.  If there is not a way
to
> >>  > get
> >>  > > > this information without drastic changes to both billing
software
> >>  > and
> >>  > > in
> >>  > > > some cases hardware, there will be very strong opposition to any
> >>  > > changes
> >>  > > > in the way IP addresses are given out.
> >>  > > > -Stephen
> >>  > > >
> >>  > > > --
> >>  > > > Stephen Elliott                 Harrison & Troxell
> >>  > > > Systems & Networking Manager    2 Faneuil Hall Marketplace
> >>  > > > Systems & Networking Group      Boston, Ma 02109
> >>  > > > (617)227-0494 Phone             (617)720-3918 Fax
> >>  > >
> >>  > > --
> >>  > > Stephen Elliott                 Harrison & Troxell
> >>  > > Systems & Networking Manager    2 Faneuil Hall Marketplace
> >>  > > Systems & Networking Group      Boston, Ma 02109
> >>  > > (617)227-0494 Phone             (617)720-3918 Fax
> >>  > >
> >>  >
> >>  >
> >>
> >>
> >>
>
> --
>
> Justin W. Newton
> Senior Director, Networking and Telecommunications
> NetZero, Inc.
>
>



From dwhipple at microsoft.com  Tue Jan  9 20:40:58 2001
From: dwhipple at microsoft.com (David Whipple)
Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2001 17:40:58 -0800 
Subject: ARIN Justified...
Message-ID: <8E937B8C67213B41BB5C87E2C6FCC223012AB701@red-msg-29.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>

Well, I don't really want to start a religious war, but NAT does break the
end to end model of IP.  Don't get me wrong, NAT is great technology, I use
it at home to do my LAN, but I can't do things like IPsec at home because of
it.  So we should be very careful to adequate things that break the
recommended IAB(IETF) architecture criteria.

Thanks.
David Whipple.

-----Original Message-----
From: Joe DeCosta [mailto:decosta at bayconnect.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2001 8:30 PM
To: Clayton Lambert; 'Douglas Cohn'; vwp at arin.net; Justin W. Newton
Subject: Re: ARIN Justified...


Well, they get a NAT address by defualt, and if they complain that they need
a real one, a real one is assigned.  but who is going to run a server of
anykind of 56k analog dialup?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Justin W. Newton" <justin at gid.net>
To: "Joe DeCosta" <decosta at bayconnect.com>; "Clayton Lambert"
<Clay at exodus.net>; "'Douglas Cohn'" <Douglas.Cohn at Virtualscape.com>;
<vwp at arin.net>
Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2001 5:22 PM
Subject: Re: ARIN Justified...


> How does one tell, in advance to connection, which users need a
> "real" IP address, and which users need NAT?  At the bare minimum NAT
> breaks P2P networks, which, in case you hadn't noticed, are becoming
> more popular.  I will point out that large dial ISP's do already use
> DHCP, so a user only has an IP assigned for the period of time that
> the user is logged on.
>
>
>
>
> At 3:00 PM -0800 1/9/01, Joe DeCosta wrote:
> >Well, what do you think that the best approach to this would be, I think
a
> >BIG part of the entire IP space problem is the HUGE market of ISP's like
> >earthlink, Genuity(aka BBN), and the free services that just give any
schmoe
> >an IP address, I don't think that this is soemthing that  is viable, we
even
> >to a small Extent use NAT/Name based Virtual Hosting for  some of the
> >domains runing on the secondary T1 in our office.  This all works fine,
and
> >uses 1 ip for many things.  Perhaps this is a viable options, but i do
think
> >that ARIN should enforce some sort of NAT with providers (aol, earthlink,
> >freebie ISPs et al.) who allow just anybody to have an IP when its not
> >needed.  from an admin point of view this can be a bit hellish but well
> >worth the IP space that is being wasted on people that dont *NEED* random
> >inbound traffic.
> >
> >
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "Clayton Lambert" <Clay at exodus.net>
> >To: "'Joe DeCosta'" <decosta at bayconnect.com>; "'Douglas Cohn'"
> ><Douglas.Cohn at Virtualscape.com>; <vwp at arin.net>
> >Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2001 2:17 PM
> >Subject: RE: ARIN Justified...
> >
> >
> >>  No argument at all on those points either Joe,
> >>
> >>  In fact, it seems there is a lot of common ground on this topic, maybe
we
> >>  should try to identify the specific agreed-upon points and
> >disagreements...?
> >>
> >>  It might be something to work from.
> >>
> >>  -Clay
> >>
> >>  -----Original Message-----
> >>  From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of Joe
> >>  DeCosta
> >>  Sent: Monday, January 08, 2001 6:44 PM
> >>  To: Clayton Lambert; 'Douglas Cohn'; vwp at arin.net
> >>  Subject: Re: ARIN Justified...
> >>
> >>
> >>  agreed, but with all of the home users, shouldn't some of the major
ISP's
> >be
> >>  considering NAT for DSL/ISDN and Dialup users? i mean, it's an idea, i
> >don't
> >>  know how well it would be accepted, i also think that AOL should be
forced
> >>  to use NAT.........its rediclous to see how many IP blocks they own,
but
> >>  dialup/isdn/dsl NAT i think could be a suggestion to ISP's no??
> >>
> >>
> >>  ----- Original Message -----
> >>  From: "Clayton Lambert" <Clay at exodus.net>
> >>  To: "'Douglas Cohn'" <Douglas.Cohn at Virtualscape.com>; <vwp at arin.net>
> >>  Sent: Monday, January 08, 2001 4:59 PM
> >>  Subject: RE: ARIN Justified...
> >>
> >>
> >>  > IPv6 is not the panacea you seem to think it is...
> >>  >
> >>  > With a mentality like that, we'd burn thru IPv6 in 10 years or
less...
> >>  >
> >>  > -Clay
> >>  >
> >>  > -----Original Message-----
> >>  > From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of
Douglas
> >>  > Cohn
> >>  > Sent: Friday, January 05, 2001 6:59 AM
> >>  > To: vwp at arin.net
> >>  > Subject: FW: ARIN Justified...
> >>  >
> >>  >
> >>  > I forwarded your email to the list for you
> >>  >
> >>  > -----Original Message-----
> >>  > From: Allen Ahoffman [mailto:ahoffman at announce.com]
> >>  > Sent: Friday, July 10, 2893 6:44 PM
> >>  > To: Douglas Cohn
> >>  > Subject: Re: ARIN Justified...
> >>  >
> >>  >
> >>  > OK let me interject a question into this discussion:
> >>  >
> >>  > Why are we requiring a /19 or in some cases /20 of space before
being
> >>  > allowed to get our own allocation?
> >>  > I realize management is an issue, but a $2500/year it encourages
small
> >>  > users to build up to that point.
> >>  >
> >>  > We get users who don't want us to have iI space from other vendors,
so
> >>  > we
> >>  > get pressure for more iP usage and pressure for less.
> >>  >
> >>  > For example, in converting from one provider to another I have had
> >>  > difficult time getting replacment iP space in less than 8 months
now,
> >>  > but
> >>  > was making efforts to not purchase the /19.  I thik we might bge by
> >  > > without it but the minimum size creates pressure to fill IP(s).
> >>  > I do agree that users seem to want IP(s) without reason, seems like
IPV6
> >>  > might look more appealing every day?
> >>  >
> >>  >
> >>  > [Charset
> >>  > iso-8859-1 unsupported,
> >>  > filtering to ASCII...] > I must get my two cents in here as well.
> >>  > >
> >>  > > I feel Clayton has the right track.
> >>  > >
> >>  > > I manage IP allocation as well for dedicated and colocated
clients.
> >>  > Our
> >>  > > policy used to state each server was issued 16 IPs.  We provision
with
> >>  > 1
> >>  > > IP only.  If a client asks for the rest I also require the need
for
> >>  > the
> >>  > > IPs.
> >>  > > Too often they want them for testing or only because they saw that
> >>  > they
> >>  > > get 16 IPs with a server.  They must supply the domain names and
> >>  > reasons
> >>  > > why they cannot use IPless hosting.  While I will not force IPless
> >>  > > hosting on clients I push it and train it's use for free.
> >>  > >
> >>  > > We now state that you get a single IP with each dedicated server
and
> >>  > > additional IPs are billed on a monthly basis.  This helps a lot to
> >>  > > defray usage.  While it is a revenue stream that is not it's
purpose
> >>  > > whatsoever.
> >>  > >
> >>  > > In Shared hosting though the issues are clearly Search engines and
SSL
> >>  > > as far as I know.
> >>  > >
> >>  > > Most people understand why we watch our address space and
appreciate
> >>  > it.
> >>  > >
> >>  > > Douglas Cohn
> >>  > > Manager NY Engineering
> >>  > > Hostcentric, Inc.
> >>  > >
> >>  > >
> >>  > >
> >>  > > -----Original Message-----
> >>  > > From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of
> >>  > Stephen
> >>  > > Elliott
> >>  > > Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 4:47 PM
> >>  > > To: Clayton Lambert; Virtual IP List
> >>  > > Subject: Re: ARIN Justified...
> >>  > >
> >>  > >
> >>  > > :-)  The reason I mentioned Exodus is because we are a customer of
> >>  > > Exodus, and in my opinion, the policy is too restrictive.  And the
> >>  > > statement was directed at the fact that Exodus hosts many
companies
> >>  > that
> >>  > > are in the business of hosting websites, not Exodus as a company.
As
> >>  > I
> >>  > > have stated in earlier postings, simply clamping down and
restricting
> >>  > > virtual web hosting is not the answer.  Any list of
justifications, no
> >>  > > matter how much thought went into it, will not cover every
possible
> >>  > > reason for needing the IP's.  Documentation is a great thing, just
the
> >>  > > fact that someone has to sit down and write out a list of machines
> >>  > that
> >>  > > need IP's will deter most people from requesting extra IP's.
> >>  > > -Stephen
> >>  > >
> >>  > > Clayton Lambert wrote:
> >>  > > >
> >>  > > > Do you have ANY idea of what you are saying?  Sorry for
appearing
> >>  > > brash,
> >>  > > > but...I run the IP maintenance organization at Exodus, and I
would
> >>  > > easily
> >>  > > > stack our allocation policy up against anybody's.
> >>  > > >
> >>  > > > You have no idea what you are talking about in regard to larger
> >>  > > companies.
> >>  > > > Exodus consumes a very modest amount of address space given our
size
> >>  > > and
> >>  > > > presence on the Internet.  There are much smaller competitors of
> >>  > ours
> >>  > > that
> >>  > > > consume larger amounts of IP space.
> >>  > > >
> >>  > > > Exodus is already pioneering the efficiency of use ideology that
I
> >>  > > would
> >>  > > > like to see ARIN adopt (a strong HTTP1.1 stance on ARIN's part
is a
> >>  > > good
> >>  > > > start).  We currently require extensive supporting documentation
for
> >>  > > IP
> >>  > > > requests from all our Customers.  A Customer has to show a
> >>  > documented
> >>  > > need
> >>  > > > for their usage request and we file all these requests and refer
to
> >>  > > past
> >>  > > > requests and detail as additional requests for address space
occur.
> >>  > > This
> >>  > > > method gives us a very clear and honest indication of IP address
> >>  > usage
> >>  > > > growth. This allows us to support our Customers' IP addressing
needs
> >>  > > in a
> >>  > > > very accurate and efficient way.  The end result is less
consumption
> >>  > > of IPv4
> >>  > > > space across the board.
> >>  > > >
> >>  > > > Clayton Lambert
> >>  > > > Exodus Communications
> >>  > > >
> >>  > > > -----Original Message-----
> >>  > > > From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of
> >  > > > Stephen
> >>  > > > Elliott
> >>  > > > Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 12:20 PM
> >>  > > > To: Virtual IP List
> >>  > > > Subject: RE: ARIN Justified...
> >>  > > >
> >>  > > >         The big guys that you refer to are generally not in the
web
> >>  > > hosting
> >>  > > > business and therefore are outside of the scope of this
> >>  > conversation.
> >>  > > > The real concern is the big guys like Exodus and UUNet.  Since
IPv6
> >>  > is
> >>  > > > not a viable option for general consumption yet, we need to
> >>  > > concentrate
> >>  > > > on conserving the existing IPv4 space.  As far as search engines
go,
> >>  > > if
> >>  > > > enough sites start using HTTP1.1 software virtual servers, they
will
> >>  > > be
> >>  > > > forced to upgrade their spiders to support it.  I would suggest
that
> >>  > > one
> >>  > > > of the main issues at hand is billing.  Billing for web hosting
> >>  > > > companies that is.  Most companies bundle bandwidth with their
> >>  > hosting
> >>  > > > packages, and current billing packages utilize destination IP
> >>  > address
> >>  > > > information to gather this information.  If there is not a way
to
> >>  > get
> >>  > > > this information without drastic changes to both billing
software
> >>  > and
> >>  > > in
> >>  > > > some cases hardware, there will be very strong opposition to any
> >>  > > changes
> >>  > > > in the way IP addresses are given out.
> >>  > > > -Stephen
> >>  > > >
> >>  > > > --
> >>  > > > Stephen Elliott                 Harrison & Troxell
> >>  > > > Systems & Networking Manager    2 Faneuil Hall Marketplace
> >>  > > > Systems & Networking Group      Boston, Ma 02109
> >>  > > > (617)227-0494 Phone             (617)720-3918 Fax
> >>  > >
> >>  > > --
> >>  > > Stephen Elliott                 Harrison & Troxell
> >>  > > Systems & Networking Manager    2 Faneuil Hall Marketplace
> >>  > > Systems & Networking Group      Boston, Ma 02109
> >>  > > (617)227-0494 Phone             (617)720-3918 Fax
> >>  > >
> >>  >
> >>  >
> >>
> >>
> >>
>
> --
>
> Justin W. Newton
> Senior Director, Networking and Telecommunications
> NetZero, Inc.
>
>



From Clay at exodus.net  Tue Jan  9 21:07:38 2001
From: Clay at exodus.net (Clayton Lambert)
Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2001 18:07:38 -0800
Subject: ARIN Justified...
In-Reply-To: <D71AE516100FD411BC5A00508B62C411025B01B8@polo.admin.den.inflow.com>
Message-ID: <200101100208.SAA24936@exoserv.exodus.net>

I think that companies with /8's and multiple unjustified /16's should have
to provide supporting documentation to keep them.

-Clay

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of Jim
Macknik
Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2001 3:35 PM
To: vwp at arin.net
Subject: RE: ARIN Justified...


This brings up a good point, as well. How will ARIN enforce its policies?
There are large companies out there that have several Class B or Class A
ranges all to themselves that they "reserved" years ago. I doubt many of
these organizations could properly justify this space at this time.

Will ARIN require them to justify their use and take away the extras,
requiring huge organizations or ISPs to completely re-allocate their
addressing? If they don't, how will they be able to justify revoking denying
space to others looking to increase their allocation?

This isn't an easy one, but it certainly has to be addressed if ARIN is
concerned about political ramifications of a policy that will affect whether
businesses can even *do* business.

-----Original Message-----
From: Joe DeCosta [mailto:decosta at bayconnect.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2001 4:00 PM
To: Clayton Lambert; 'Douglas Cohn'; vwp at arin.net
Subject: Re: ARIN Justified...


Well, what do you think that the best approach to this would be, I think a
BIG part of the entire IP space problem is the HUGE market of ISP's like
earthlink, Genuity(aka BBN), and the free services that just give any schmoe
an IP address, I don't think that this is soemthing that  is viable, we even
to a small Extent use NAT/Name based Virtual Hosting for  some of the
domains runing on the secondary T1 in our office.  This all works fine, and
uses 1 ip for many things.  Perhaps this is a viable options, but i do think
that ARIN should enforce some sort of NAT with providers (aol, earthlink,
freebie ISPs et al.) who allow just anybody to have an IP when its not
needed.  from an admin point of view this can be a bit hellish but well
worth the IP space that is being wasted on people that dont *NEED* random
inbound traffic.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Clayton Lambert" <Clay at exodus.net>
To: "'Joe DeCosta'" <decosta at bayconnect.com>; "'Douglas Cohn'"
<Douglas.Cohn at Virtualscape.com>; <vwp at arin.net>
Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2001 2:17 PM
Subject: RE: ARIN Justified...


> No argument at all on those points either Joe,
>
> In fact, it seems there is a lot of common ground on this topic, maybe we
> should try to identify the specific agreed-upon points and
disagreements...?
>
> It might be something to work from.
>
> -Clay
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of Joe
> DeCosta
> Sent: Monday, January 08, 2001 6:44 PM
> To: Clayton Lambert; 'Douglas Cohn'; vwp at arin.net
> Subject: Re: ARIN Justified...
>
>
> agreed, but with all of the home users, shouldn't some of the major ISP's
be
> considering NAT for DSL/ISDN and Dialup users? i mean, it's an idea, i
don't
> know how well it would be accepted, i also think that AOL should be forced
> to use NAT.........its rediclous to see how many IP blocks they own, but
> dialup/isdn/dsl NAT i think could be a suggestion to ISP's no??
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Clayton Lambert" <Clay at exodus.net>
> To: "'Douglas Cohn'" <Douglas.Cohn at Virtualscape.com>; <vwp at arin.net>
> Sent: Monday, January 08, 2001 4:59 PM
> Subject: RE: ARIN Justified...
>
>
> > IPv6 is not the panacea you seem to think it is...
> >
> > With a mentality like that, we'd burn thru IPv6 in 10 years or less...
> >
> > -Clay
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of Douglas
> > Cohn
> > Sent: Friday, January 05, 2001 6:59 AM
> > To: vwp at arin.net
> > Subject: FW: ARIN Justified...
> >
> >
> > I forwarded your email to the list for you
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Allen Ahoffman [mailto:ahoffman at announce.com]
> > Sent: Friday, July 10, 2893 6:44 PM
> > To: Douglas Cohn
> > Subject: Re: ARIN Justified...
> >
> >
> > OK let me interject a question into this discussion:
> >
> > Why are we requiring a /19 or in some cases /20 of space before being
> > allowed to get our own allocation?
> > I realize management is an issue, but a $2500/year it encourages small
> > users to build up to that point.
> >
> > We get users who don't want us to have iI space from other vendors, so
> > we
> > get pressure for more iP usage and pressure for less.
> >
> > For example, in converting from one provider to another I have had
> > difficult time getting replacment iP space in less than 8 months now,
> > but
> > was making efforts to not purchase the /19.  I thik we might bge by
> > without it but the minimum size creates pressure to fill IP(s).
> > I do agree that users seem to want IP(s) without reason, seems like IPV6
> > might look more appealing every day?
> >
> >
> > [Charset
> > iso-8859-1 unsupported,
> > filtering to ASCII...] > I must get my two cents in here as well.
> > >
> > > I feel Clayton has the right track.
> > >
> > > I manage IP allocation as well for dedicated and colocated clients.
> > Our
> > > policy used to state each server was issued 16 IPs.  We provision with
> > 1
> > > IP only.  If a client asks for the rest I also require the need for
> > the
> > > IPs.
> > > Too often they want them for testing or only because they saw that
> > they
> > > get 16 IPs with a server.  They must supply the domain names and
> > reasons
> > > why they cannot use IPless hosting.  While I will not force IPless
> > > hosting on clients I push it and train it's use for free.
> > >
> > > We now state that you get a single IP with each dedicated server and
> > > additional IPs are billed on a monthly basis.  This helps a lot to
> > > defray usage.  While it is a revenue stream that is not it's purpose
> > > whatsoever.
> > >
> > > In Shared hosting though the issues are clearly Search engines and SSL
> > > as far as I know.
> > >
> > > Most people understand why we watch our address space and appreciate
> > it.
> > >
> > > Douglas Cohn
> > > Manager NY Engineering
> > > Hostcentric, Inc.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of
> > Stephen
> > > Elliott
> > > Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 4:47 PM
> > > To: Clayton Lambert; Virtual IP List
> > > Subject: Re: ARIN Justified...
> > >
> > >
> > > :-)  The reason I mentioned Exodus is because we are a customer of
> > > Exodus, and in my opinion, the policy is too restrictive.  And the
> > > statement was directed at the fact that Exodus hosts many companies
> > that
> > > are in the business of hosting websites, not Exodus as a company.  As
> > I
> > > have stated in earlier postings, simply clamping down and restricting
> > > virtual web hosting is not the answer.  Any list of justifications, no
> > > matter how much thought went into it, will not cover every possible
> > > reason for needing the IP's.  Documentation is a great thing, just the
> > > fact that someone has to sit down and write out a list of machines
> > that
> > > need IP's will deter most people from requesting extra IP's.
> > > -Stephen
> > >
> > > Clayton Lambert wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Do you have ANY idea of what you are saying?  Sorry for appearing
> > > brash,
> > > > but...I run the IP maintenance organization at Exodus, and I would
> > > easily
> > > > stack our allocation policy up against anybody's.
> > > >
> > > > You have no idea what you are talking about in regard to larger
> > > companies.
> > > > Exodus consumes a very modest amount of address space given our size
> > > and
> > > > presence on the Internet.  There are much smaller competitors of
> > ours
> > > that
> > > > consume larger amounts of IP space.
> > > >
> > > > Exodus is already pioneering the efficiency of use ideology that I
> > > would
> > > > like to see ARIN adopt (a strong HTTP1.1 stance on ARIN's part is a
> > > good
> > > > start).  We currently require extensive supporting documentation for
> > > IP
> > > > requests from all our Customers.  A Customer has to show a
> > documented
> > > need
> > > > for their usage request and we file all these requests and refer to
> > > past
> > > > requests and detail as additional requests for address space occur.
> > > This
> > > > method gives us a very clear and honest indication of IP address
> > usage
> > > > growth. This allows us to support our Customers' IP addressing needs
> > > in a
> > > > very accurate and efficient way.  The end result is less consumption
> > > of IPv4
> > > > space across the board.
> > > >
> > > > Clayton Lambert
> > > > Exodus Communications
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of
> > > Stephen
> > > > Elliott
> > > > Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 12:20 PM
> > > > To: Virtual IP List
> > > > Subject: RE: ARIN Justified...
> > > >
> > > >         The big guys that you refer to are generally not in the web
> > > hosting
> > > > business and therefore are outside of the scope of this
> > conversation.
> > > > The real concern is the big guys like Exodus and UUNet.  Since IPv6
> > is
> > > > not a viable option for general consumption yet, we need to
> > > concentrate
> > > > on conserving the existing IPv4 space.  As far as search engines go,
> > > if
> > > > enough sites start using HTTP1.1 software virtual servers, they will
> > > be
> > > > forced to upgrade their spiders to support it.  I would suggest that
> > > one
> > > > of the main issues at hand is billing.  Billing for web hosting
> > > > companies that is.  Most companies bundle bandwidth with their
> > hosting
> > > > packages, and current billing packages utilize destination IP
> > address
> > > > information to gather this information.  If there is not a way to
> > get
> > > > this information without drastic changes to both billing software
> > and
> > > in
> > > > some cases hardware, there will be very strong opposition to any
> > > changes
> > > > in the way IP addresses are given out.
> > > > -Stephen
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Stephen Elliott                 Harrison & Troxell
> > > > Systems & Networking Manager    2 Faneuil Hall Marketplace
> > > > Systems & Networking Group      Boston, Ma 02109
> > > > (617)227-0494 Phone             (617)720-3918 Fax
> > >
> > > --
> > > Stephen Elliott                 Harrison & Troxell
> > > Systems & Networking Manager    2 Faneuil Hall Marketplace
> > > Systems & Networking Group      Boston, Ma 02109
> > > (617)227-0494 Phone             (617)720-3918 Fax
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
>




From ahp at hilander.com  Tue Jan  9 21:07:41 2001
From: ahp at hilander.com (Alec H. Peterson)
Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 19:07:41 -0700
Subject: ARIN Justified...
References: <200101092217.OAA20622@exoserv.exodus.net> <000901c07a8f$e9820c20$cd00000a@andrade.net> <a0500191eb6816966de67@[10.100.162.85]> <002801c07aa4$da0d3de0$cd00000a@andrade.net>
Message-ID: <3A5BC3ED.8C0BA309@hilander.com>

Joe DeCosta wrote:
> 
> Well, they get a NAT address by defualt, and if they complain that they need
> a real one, a real one is assigned.  but who is going to run a server of
> anykind of 56k analog dialup?

I bet there are a lot of people out there using Napster and its ilk over a
dialup.

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!"


From hershey at easystreet.com  Tue Jan  9 21:11:57 2001
From: hershey at easystreet.com (Chris Hershey)
Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2001 18:11:57 -0800
Subject: ARIN Justified...
In-Reply-To: <002801c07aa4$da0d3de0$cd00000a@andrade.net>
Message-ID: <NCBBIBIGAKPDLBGFNOHEAELDJFAA.hershey@easystreet.com>


Look, I don't mean any disrespect, and I'm sure I've got a whole let less
technical experience than most of the people on this list, probably
including yourself, but have you ever worked at an ISP before?  And have you
ever dealt with either the engineering of dial-up or DSL networks, or the
support of dial-up or DSL customers?

Because, from the point of view of somebody that deals with that sort of
thing every day, the notion of giving customers a NAT address and waiting
until they complain to give them a routable one, I have to tell you, is
something the other side of rediculous.  From either an engineering, or a
support point of view alone, let alone the combined effects of both sides of
the equation it would be essentially an impossible proposition.

Also, the issue of NAT not working can have very little to do with whether
or not a server is running over the connection.  But, even with that, yes,
there are a great many dial-up users who do run servers of various kinds,
and they do it over connections ranging from 28.8 (or slower) to high speed
DSL or cable connections.  There are a great many enthusiasts out there who
just play with things and setup their own mail servers, or set up ftp
servers just so they can trade files with their friends.

And, doing anything just for dial-up users doesn't really make sense,
because all of the growth is in broadband.  So the only solutions that would
have any impact, would have to encompass broadband services.  And then
you're dealing with an even more sophisticated consumer, many of whom run
servers of any and all kinds you can imagine.  Whether it be ftp, http, any
number of game servers, messaging, e-mail, and whatever else they can get
thier hands on.

Heck, even without servers there are an uncountable number of applications
and services that would be absolutely unusable in a NAT environment.  At a
minimum very special configuration (over the head of most users) is required
in some applications as basic as ICQ.  Not to mention the more sophisticated
applications such as VPN solutions and allowances that must be made for
persons gaining access to their company networks through firewalls based on
their static routable IP address.

The negative publicity alone for any ISP trying to implement such a plan
would drive away existing an potential customers, and ultimately force them
out of business.  I'd be willing to bet you could lose as much as half your
client base within 30 to 60 days.  You can't even predict all the
applications you might break trying to do such a thing.  And there's no way
you could staff enough people to handle the support burdon.

I wholly encourage the use of NAT wherever possible.  But possible almost
always means in highly controlled environments such as corporate LANs.  It
is not nearly an appropriate solution for general access networks.

The ultimate issue I'd like to see dealt with in all this, is there seem to
be a whole of people commenting within this policy discussion, who really
don't understand how the policy will affect the ISPs that are the gateway to
the Internet.  I don't know what the solution is, but it might help if
peoples signatures included a title or position, or some other description
of what their background is.  I think that all comments are welcome, but the
people making the decisions need to understand how informed (or
ill-informed) those comments are.

I for one, am a junior system administrator and primary hostmaster for
EasyStreet Online Services, Inc. (www.easystreet.com).
--

-Chris Hershey
hershey at easystreet.com


> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of Joe
> DeCosta
> Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2001 5:30 PM
> To: Clayton Lambert; 'Douglas Cohn'; vwp at arin.net; Justin W. Newton
> Subject: Re: ARIN Justified...
>
>
> Well, they get a NAT address by defualt, and if they complain
> that they need
> a real one, a real one is assigned.  but who is going to run a server of
> anykind of 56k analog dialup?
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Justin W. Newton" <justin at gid.net>
> To: "Joe DeCosta" <decosta at bayconnect.com>; "Clayton Lambert"
> <Clay at exodus.net>; "'Douglas Cohn'" <Douglas.Cohn at Virtualscape.com>;
> <vwp at arin.net>
> Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2001 5:22 PM
> Subject: Re: ARIN Justified...
>
>
> > How does one tell, in advance to connection, which users need a
> > "real" IP address, and which users need NAT?  At the bare minimum NAT
> > breaks P2P networks, which, in case you hadn't noticed, are becoming
> > more popular.  I will point out that large dial ISP's do already use
> > DHCP, so a user only has an IP assigned for the period of time that
> > the user is logged on.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > At 3:00 PM -0800 1/9/01, Joe DeCosta wrote:
> > >Well, what do you think that the best approach to this would
> be, I think
> a
> > >BIG part of the entire IP space problem is the HUGE market of
> ISP's like
> > >earthlink, Genuity(aka BBN), and the free services that just give any
> schmoe
> > >an IP address, I don't think that this is soemthing that  is viable, we
> even
> > >to a small Extent use NAT/Name based Virtual Hosting for  some of the
> > >domains runing on the secondary T1 in our office.  This all works fine,
> and
> > >uses 1 ip for many things.  Perhaps this is a viable options, but i do
> think
> > >that ARIN should enforce some sort of NAT with providers (aol,
> earthlink,
> > >freebie ISPs et al.) who allow just anybody to have an IP when its not
> > >needed.  from an admin point of view this can be a bit hellish but well
> > >worth the IP space that is being wasted on people that dont
> *NEED* random
> > >inbound traffic.
> > >
> > >
> > >----- Original Message -----
> > >From: "Clayton Lambert" <Clay at exodus.net>
> > >To: "'Joe DeCosta'" <decosta at bayconnect.com>; "'Douglas Cohn'"
> > ><Douglas.Cohn at Virtualscape.com>; <vwp at arin.net>
> > >Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2001 2:17 PM
> > >Subject: RE: ARIN Justified...
> > >
> > >
> > >>  No argument at all on those points either Joe,
> > >>
> > >>  In fact, it seems there is a lot of common ground on this
> topic, maybe
> we
> > >>  should try to identify the specific agreed-upon points and
> > >disagreements...?
> > >>
> > >>  It might be something to work from.
> > >>
> > >>  -Clay
> > >>
> > >>  -----Original Message-----
> > >>  From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of Joe
> > >>  DeCosta
> > >>  Sent: Monday, January 08, 2001 6:44 PM
> > >>  To: Clayton Lambert; 'Douglas Cohn'; vwp at arin.net
> > >>  Subject: Re: ARIN Justified...
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>  agreed, but with all of the home users, shouldn't some of the major
> ISP's
> > >be
> > >>  considering NAT for DSL/ISDN and Dialup users? i mean, it's
> an idea, i
> > >don't
> > >>  know how well it would be accepted, i also think that AOL should be
> forced
> > >>  to use NAT.........its rediclous to see how many IP blocks they own,
> but
> > >>  dialup/isdn/dsl NAT i think could be a suggestion to ISP's no??
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>  ----- Original Message -----
> > >>  From: "Clayton Lambert" <Clay at exodus.net>
> > >>  To: "'Douglas Cohn'" <Douglas.Cohn at Virtualscape.com>; <vwp at arin.net>
> > >>  Sent: Monday, January 08, 2001 4:59 PM
> > >>  Subject: RE: ARIN Justified...
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>  > IPv6 is not the panacea you seem to think it is...
> > >>  >
> > >>  > With a mentality like that, we'd burn thru IPv6 in 10 years or
> less...
> > >>  >
> > >>  > -Clay
> > >>  >
> > >>  > -----Original Message-----
> > >>  > From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of
> Douglas
> > >>  > Cohn
> > >>  > Sent: Friday, January 05, 2001 6:59 AM
> > >>  > To: vwp at arin.net
> > >>  > Subject: FW: ARIN Justified...
> > >>  >
> > >>  >
> > >>  > I forwarded your email to the list for you
> > >>  >
> > >>  > -----Original Message-----
> > >>  > From: Allen Ahoffman [mailto:ahoffman at announce.com]
> > >>  > Sent: Friday, July 10, 2893 6:44 PM
> > >>  > To: Douglas Cohn
> > >>  > Subject: Re: ARIN Justified...
> > >>  >
> > >>  >
> > >>  > OK let me interject a question into this discussion:
> > >>  >
> > >>  > Why are we requiring a /19 or in some cases /20 of space before
> being
> > >>  > allowed to get our own allocation?
> > >>  > I realize management is an issue, but a $2500/year it encourages
> small
> > >>  > users to build up to that point.
> > >>  >
> > >>  > We get users who don't want us to have iI space from
> other vendors,
> so
> > >>  > we
> > >>  > get pressure for more iP usage and pressure for less.
> > >>  >
> > >>  > For example, in converting from one provider to another I have had
> > >>  > difficult time getting replacment iP space in less than 8 months
> now,
> > >>  > but
> > >>  > was making efforts to not purchase the /19.  I thik we
> might bge by
> > >  > > without it but the minimum size creates pressure to fill IP(s).
> > >>  > I do agree that users seem to want IP(s) without reason,
> seems like
> IPV6
> > >>  > might look more appealing every day?
> > >>  >
> > >>  >
> > >>  > [Charset
> > >>  > iso-8859-1 unsupported,
> > >>  > filtering to ASCII...] > I must get my two cents in here as well.
> > >>  > >
> > >>  > > I feel Clayton has the right track.
> > >>  > >
> > >>  > > I manage IP allocation as well for dedicated and colocated
> clients.
> > >>  > Our
> > >>  > > policy used to state each server was issued 16 IPs.  We
> provision
> with
> > >>  > 1
> > >>  > > IP only.  If a client asks for the rest I also require the need
> for
> > >>  > the
> > >>  > > IPs.
> > >>  > > Too often they want them for testing or only because
> they saw that
> > >>  > they
> > >>  > > get 16 IPs with a server.  They must supply the domain names and
> > >>  > reasons
> > >>  > > why they cannot use IPless hosting.  While I will not
> force IPless
> > >>  > > hosting on clients I push it and train it's use for free.
> > >>  > >
> > >>  > > We now state that you get a single IP with each dedicated server
> and
> > >>  > > additional IPs are billed on a monthly basis.  This
> helps a lot to
> > >>  > > defray usage.  While it is a revenue stream that is not it's
> purpose
> > >>  > > whatsoever.
> > >>  > >
> > >>  > > In Shared hosting though the issues are clearly Search
> engines and
> SSL
> > >>  > > as far as I know.
> > >>  > >
> > >>  > > Most people understand why we watch our address space and
> appreciate
> > >>  > it.
> > >>  > >
> > >>  > > Douglas Cohn
> > >>  > > Manager NY Engineering
> > >>  > > Hostcentric, Inc.
> > >>  > >
> > >>  > >
> > >>  > >
> > >>  > > -----Original Message-----
> > >>  > > From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of
> > >>  > Stephen
> > >>  > > Elliott
> > >>  > > Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 4:47 PM
> > >>  > > To: Clayton Lambert; Virtual IP List
> > >>  > > Subject: Re: ARIN Justified...
> > >>  > >
> > >>  > >
> > >>  > > :-)  The reason I mentioned Exodus is because we are a
> customer of
> > >>  > > Exodus, and in my opinion, the policy is too
> restrictive.  And the
> > >>  > > statement was directed at the fact that Exodus hosts many
> companies
> > >>  > that
> > >>  > > are in the business of hosting websites, not Exodus as
> a company.
> As
> > >>  > I
> > >>  > > have stated in earlier postings, simply clamping down and
> restricting
> > >>  > > virtual web hosting is not the answer.  Any list of
> justifications, no
> > >>  > > matter how much thought went into it, will not cover every
> possible
> > >>  > > reason for needing the IP's.  Documentation is a great
> thing, just
> the
> > >>  > > fact that someone has to sit down and write out a list
> of machines
> > >>  > that
> > >>  > > need IP's will deter most people from requesting extra IP's.
> > >>  > > -Stephen
> > >>  > >
> > >>  > > Clayton Lambert wrote:
> > >>  > > >
> > >>  > > > Do you have ANY idea of what you are saying?  Sorry for
> appearing
> > >>  > > brash,
> > >>  > > > but...I run the IP maintenance organization at Exodus, and I
> would
> > >>  > > easily
> > >>  > > > stack our allocation policy up against anybody's.
> > >>  > > >
> > >>  > > > You have no idea what you are talking about in regard
> to larger
> > >>  > > companies.
> > >>  > > > Exodus consumes a very modest amount of address space
> given our
> size
> > >>  > > and
> > >>  > > > presence on the Internet.  There are much smaller
> competitors of
> > >>  > ours
> > >>  > > that
> > >>  > > > consume larger amounts of IP space.
> > >>  > > >
> > >>  > > > Exodus is already pioneering the efficiency of use
> ideology that
> I
> > >>  > > would
> > >>  > > > like to see ARIN adopt (a strong HTTP1.1 stance on ARIN's part
> is a
> > >>  > > good
> > >>  > > > start).  We currently require extensive supporting
> documentation
> for
> > >>  > > IP
> > >>  > > > requests from all our Customers.  A Customer has to show a
> > >>  > documented
> > >>  > > need
> > >>  > > > for their usage request and we file all these
> requests and refer
> to
> > >>  > > past
> > >>  > > > requests and detail as additional requests for address space
> occur.
> > >>  > > This
> > >>  > > > method gives us a very clear and honest indication of
> IP address
> > >>  > usage
> > >>  > > > growth. This allows us to support our Customers' IP addressing
> needs
> > >>  > > in a
> > >>  > > > very accurate and efficient way.  The end result is less
> consumption
> > >>  > > of IPv4
> > >>  > > > space across the board.
> > >>  > > >
> > >>  > > > Clayton Lambert
> > >>  > > > Exodus Communications
> > >>  > > >
> > >>  > > > -----Original Message-----
> > >>  > > > From: owner-vwp at arin.net
> [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of
> > >  > > > Stephen
> > >>  > > > Elliott
> > >>  > > > Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 12:20 PM
> > >>  > > > To: Virtual IP List
> > >>  > > > Subject: RE: ARIN Justified...
> > >>  > > >
> > >>  > > >         The big guys that you refer to are generally
> not in the
> web
> > >>  > > hosting
> > >>  > > > business and therefore are outside of the scope of this
> > >>  > conversation.
> > >>  > > > The real concern is the big guys like Exodus and UUNet.  Since
> IPv6
> > >>  > is
> > >>  > > > not a viable option for general consumption yet, we need to
> > >>  > > concentrate
> > >>  > > > on conserving the existing IPv4 space.  As far as
> search engines
> go,
> > >>  > > if
> > >>  > > > enough sites start using HTTP1.1 software virtual
> servers, they
> will
> > >>  > > be
> > >>  > > > forced to upgrade their spiders to support it.  I
> would suggest
> that
> > >>  > > one
> > >>  > > > of the main issues at hand is billing.  Billing for
> web hosting
> > >>  > > > companies that is.  Most companies bundle bandwidth with their
> > >>  > hosting
> > >>  > > > packages, and current billing packages utilize destination IP
> > >>  > address
> > >>  > > > information to gather this information.  If there is not a way
> to
> > >>  > get
> > >>  > > > this information without drastic changes to both billing
> software
> > >>  > and
> > >>  > > in
> > >>  > > > some cases hardware, there will be very strong
> opposition to any
> > >>  > > changes
> > >>  > > > in the way IP addresses are given out.
> > >>  > > > -Stephen
> > >>  > > >
> > >>  > > > --
> > >>  > > > Stephen Elliott                 Harrison & Troxell
> > >>  > > > Systems & Networking Manager    2 Faneuil Hall Marketplace
> > >>  > > > Systems & Networking Group      Boston, Ma 02109
> > >>  > > > (617)227-0494 Phone             (617)720-3918 Fax
> > >>  > >
> > >>  > > --
> > >>  > > Stephen Elliott                 Harrison & Troxell
> > >>  > > Systems & Networking Manager    2 Faneuil Hall Marketplace
> > >>  > > Systems & Networking Group      Boston, Ma 02109
> > >>  > > (617)227-0494 Phone             (617)720-3918 Fax
> > >>  > >
> > >>  >
> > >>  >
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> >
> > --
> >
> > Justin W. Newton
> > Senior Director, Networking and Telecommunications
> > NetZero, Inc.
> >
> >
>



From Clay at exodus.net  Tue Jan  9 21:18:56 2001
From: Clay at exodus.net (Clayton Lambert)
Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2001 18:18:56 -0800
Subject: ARIN Justified...
In-Reply-To: <8E937B8C67213B41BB5C87E2C6FCC223012AB701@red-msg-29.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
Message-ID: <200101100219.SAA26025@exoserv.exodus.net>

There are multiple solutions to the multitude of situations...NAT isn't for
everybody...DHCP isn't for everybody...RFC-1918 IP's aren't for
everybody...nailed up public IP's are for everybody either!

It boils down to the fact that the maintainer needs to have the jurisdiction
to review the IP allocation/assignment request and determine the need.  ARIN
should own the escalation from there and the documentation requirement
should be enforced at the maintainer level, i.e.; an escalation should never
make it to ARIN without having first been documented and addressed at the
maintainer level... this should limit the amount of escalations to ARIN.
Additionally, the maintainer should handle the escalation to ARIN, NOT the
Customer requesting the escalation.  This would ensure a smaller amount of
people are funneling the process to ARIN...This should keep them from
getting overloaded.  Obviously, if a Customer feels they are getting the
run-around from the maintainer, they should contact ARIN.


-Clay

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of David
Whipple
Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2001 5:41 PM
To: 'Joe DeCosta'; Clayton Lambert; 'Douglas Cohn'; vwp at arin.net; Justin
W. Newton
Subject: RE: ARIN Justified...


Well, I don't really want to start a religious war, but NAT does break the
end to end model of IP.  Don't get me wrong, NAT is great technology, I use
it at home to do my LAN, but I can't do things like IPsec at home because of
it.  So we should be very careful to adequate things that break the
recommended IAB(IETF) architecture criteria.

Thanks.
David Whipple.

-----Original Message-----
From: Joe DeCosta [mailto:decosta at bayconnect.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2001 8:30 PM
To: Clayton Lambert; 'Douglas Cohn'; vwp at arin.net; Justin W. Newton
Subject: Re: ARIN Justified...


Well, they get a NAT address by defualt, and if they complain that they need
a real one, a real one is assigned.  but who is going to run a server of
anykind of 56k analog dialup?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Justin W. Newton" <justin at gid.net>
To: "Joe DeCosta" <decosta at bayconnect.com>; "Clayton Lambert"
<Clay at exodus.net>; "'Douglas Cohn'" <Douglas.Cohn at Virtualscape.com>;
<vwp at arin.net>
Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2001 5:22 PM
Subject: Re: ARIN Justified...


> How does one tell, in advance to connection, which users need a
> "real" IP address, and which users need NAT?  At the bare minimum NAT
> breaks P2P networks, which, in case you hadn't noticed, are becoming
> more popular.  I will point out that large dial ISP's do already use
> DHCP, so a user only has an IP assigned for the period of time that
> the user is logged on.
>
>
>
>
> At 3:00 PM -0800 1/9/01, Joe DeCosta wrote:
> >Well, what do you think that the best approach to this would be, I think
a
> >BIG part of the entire IP space problem is the HUGE market of ISP's like
> >earthlink, Genuity(aka BBN), and the free services that just give any
schmoe
> >an IP address, I don't think that this is soemthing that  is viable, we
even
> >to a small Extent use NAT/Name based Virtual Hosting for  some of the
> >domains runing on the secondary T1 in our office.  This all works fine,
and
> >uses 1 ip for many things.  Perhaps this is a viable options, but i do
think
> >that ARIN should enforce some sort of NAT with providers (aol, earthlink,
> >freebie ISPs et al.) who allow just anybody to have an IP when its not
> >needed.  from an admin point of view this can be a bit hellish but well
> >worth the IP space that is being wasted on people that dont *NEED* random
> >inbound traffic.
> >
> >
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "Clayton Lambert" <Clay at exodus.net>
> >To: "'Joe DeCosta'" <decosta at bayconnect.com>; "'Douglas Cohn'"
> ><Douglas.Cohn at Virtualscape.com>; <vwp at arin.net>
> >Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2001 2:17 PM
> >Subject: RE: ARIN Justified...
> >
> >
> >>  No argument at all on those points either Joe,
> >>
> >>  In fact, it seems there is a lot of common ground on this topic, maybe
we
> >>  should try to identify the specific agreed-upon points and
> >disagreements...?
> >>
> >>  It might be something to work from.
> >>
> >>  -Clay
> >>
> >>  -----Original Message-----
> >>  From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of Joe
> >>  DeCosta
> >>  Sent: Monday, January 08, 2001 6:44 PM
> >>  To: Clayton Lambert; 'Douglas Cohn'; vwp at arin.net
> >>  Subject: Re: ARIN Justified...
> >>
> >>
> >>  agreed, but with all of the home users, shouldn't some of the major
ISP's
> >be
> >>  considering NAT for DSL/ISDN and Dialup users? i mean, it's an idea, i
> >don't
> >>  know how well it would be accepted, i also think that AOL should be
forced
> >>  to use NAT.........its rediclous to see how many IP blocks they own,
but
> >>  dialup/isdn/dsl NAT i think could be a suggestion to ISP's no??
> >>
> >>
> >>  ----- Original Message -----
> >>  From: "Clayton Lambert" <Clay at exodus.net>
> >>  To: "'Douglas Cohn'" <Douglas.Cohn at Virtualscape.com>; <vwp at arin.net>
> >>  Sent: Monday, January 08, 2001 4:59 PM
> >>  Subject: RE: ARIN Justified...
> >>
> >>
> >>  > IPv6 is not the panacea you seem to think it is...
> >>  >
> >>  > With a mentality like that, we'd burn thru IPv6 in 10 years or
less...
> >>  >
> >>  > -Clay
> >>  >
> >>  > -----Original Message-----
> >>  > From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of
Douglas
> >>  > Cohn
> >>  > Sent: Friday, January 05, 2001 6:59 AM
> >>  > To: vwp at arin.net
> >>  > Subject: FW: ARIN Justified...
> >>  >
> >>  >
> >>  > I forwarded your email to the list for you
> >>  >
> >>  > -----Original Message-----
> >>  > From: Allen Ahoffman [mailto:ahoffman at announce.com]
> >>  > Sent: Friday, July 10, 2893 6:44 PM
> >>  > To: Douglas Cohn
> >>  > Subject: Re: ARIN Justified...
> >>  >
> >>  >
> >>  > OK let me interject a question into this discussion:
> >>  >
> >>  > Why are we requiring a /19 or in some cases /20 of space before
being
> >>  > allowed to get our own allocation?
> >>  > I realize management is an issue, but a $2500/year it encourages
small
> >>  > users to build up to that point.
> >>  >
> >>  > We get users who don't want us to have iI space from other vendors,
so
> >>  > we
> >>  > get pressure for more iP usage and pressure for less.
> >>  >
> >>  > For example, in converting from one provider to another I have had
> >>  > difficult time getting replacment iP space in less than 8 months
now,
> >>  > but
> >>  > was making efforts to not purchase the /19.  I thik we might bge by
> >  > > without it but the minimum size creates pressure to fill IP(s).
> >>  > I do agree that users seem to want IP(s) without reason, seems like
IPV6
> >>  > might look more appealing every day?
> >>  >
> >>  >
> >>  > [Charset
> >>  > iso-8859-1 unsupported,
> >>  > filtering to ASCII...] > I must get my two cents in here as well.
> >>  > >
> >>  > > I feel Clayton has the right track.
> >>  > >
> >>  > > I manage IP allocation as well for dedicated and colocated
clients.
> >>  > Our
> >>  > > policy used to state each server was issued 16 IPs.  We provision
with
> >>  > 1
> >>  > > IP only.  If a client asks for the rest I also require the need
for
> >>  > the
> >>  > > IPs.
> >>  > > Too often they want them for testing or only because they saw that
> >>  > they
> >>  > > get 16 IPs with a server.  They must supply the domain names and
> >>  > reasons
> >>  > > why they cannot use IPless hosting.  While I will not force IPless
> >>  > > hosting on clients I push it and train it's use for free.
> >>  > >
> >>  > > We now state that you get a single IP with each dedicated server
and
> >>  > > additional IPs are billed on a monthly basis.  This helps a lot to
> >>  > > defray usage.  While it is a revenue stream that is not it's
purpose
> >>  > > whatsoever.
> >>  > >
> >>  > > In Shared hosting though the issues are clearly Search engines and
SSL
> >>  > > as far as I know.
> >>  > >
> >>  > > Most people understand why we watch our address space and
appreciate
> >>  > it.
> >>  > >
> >>  > > Douglas Cohn
> >>  > > Manager NY Engineering
> >>  > > Hostcentric, Inc.
> >>  > >
> >>  > >
> >>  > >
> >>  > > -----Original Message-----
> >>  > > From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of
> >>  > Stephen
> >>  > > Elliott
> >>  > > Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 4:47 PM
> >>  > > To: Clayton Lambert; Virtual IP List
> >>  > > Subject: Re: ARIN Justified...
> >>  > >
> >>  > >
> >>  > > :-)  The reason I mentioned Exodus is because we are a customer of
> >>  > > Exodus, and in my opinion, the policy is too restrictive.  And the
> >>  > > statement was directed at the fact that Exodus hosts many
companies
> >>  > that
> >>  > > are in the business of hosting websites, not Exodus as a company.
As
> >>  > I
> >>  > > have stated in earlier postings, simply clamping down and
restricting
> >>  > > virtual web hosting is not the answer.  Any list of
justifications, no
> >>  > > matter how much thought went into it, will not cover every
possible
> >>  > > reason for needing the IP's.  Documentation is a great thing, just
the
> >>  > > fact that someone has to sit down and write out a list of machines
> >>  > that
> >>  > > need IP's will deter most people from requesting extra IP's.
> >>  > > -Stephen
> >>  > >
> >>  > > Clayton Lambert wrote:
> >>  > > >
> >>  > > > Do you have ANY idea of what you are saying?  Sorry for
appearing
> >>  > > brash,
> >>  > > > but...I run the IP maintenance organization at Exodus, and I
would
> >>  > > easily
> >>  > > > stack our allocation policy up against anybody's.
> >>  > > >
> >>  > > > You have no idea what you are talking about in regard to larger
> >>  > > companies.
> >>  > > > Exodus consumes a very modest amount of address space given our
size
> >>  > > and
> >>  > > > presence on the Internet.  There are much smaller competitors of
> >>  > ours
> >>  > > that
> >>  > > > consume larger amounts of IP space.
> >>  > > >
> >>  > > > Exodus is already pioneering the efficiency of use ideology that
I
> >>  > > would
> >>  > > > like to see ARIN adopt (a strong HTTP1.1 stance on ARIN's part
is a
> >>  > > good
> >>  > > > start).  We currently require extensive supporting documentation
for
> >>  > > IP
> >>  > > > requests from all our Customers.  A Customer has to show a
> >>  > documented
> >>  > > need
> >>  > > > for their usage request and we file all these requests and refer
to
> >>  > > past
> >>  > > > requests and detail as additional requests for address space
occur.
> >>  > > This
> >>  > > > method gives us a very clear and honest indication of IP address
> >>  > usage
> >>  > > > growth. This allows us to support our Customers' IP addressing
needs
> >>  > > in a
> >>  > > > very accurate and efficient way.  The end result is less
consumption
> >>  > > of IPv4
> >>  > > > space across the board.
> >>  > > >
> >>  > > > Clayton Lambert
> >>  > > > Exodus Communications
> >>  > > >
> >>  > > > -----Original Message-----
> >>  > > > From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of
> >  > > > Stephen
> >>  > > > Elliott
> >>  > > > Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 12:20 PM
> >>  > > > To: Virtual IP List
> >>  > > > Subject: RE: ARIN Justified...
> >>  > > >
> >>  > > >         The big guys that you refer to are generally not in the
web
> >>  > > hosting
> >>  > > > business and therefore are outside of the scope of this
> >>  > conversation.
> >>  > > > The real concern is the big guys like Exodus and UUNet.  Since
IPv6
> >>  > is
> >>  > > > not a viable option for general consumption yet, we need to
> >>  > > concentrate
> >>  > > > on conserving the existing IPv4 space.  As far as search engines
go,
> >>  > > if
> >>  > > > enough sites start using HTTP1.1 software virtual servers, they
will
> >>  > > be
> >>  > > > forced to upgrade their spiders to support it.  I would suggest
that
> >>  > > one
> >>  > > > of the main issues at hand is billing.  Billing for web hosting
> >>  > > > companies that is.  Most companies bundle bandwidth with their
> >>  > hosting
> >>  > > > packages, and current billing packages utilize destination IP
> >>  > address
> >>  > > > information to gather this information.  If there is not a way
to
> >>  > get
> >>  > > > this information without drastic changes to both billing
software
> >>  > and
> >>  > > in
> >>  > > > some cases hardware, there will be very strong opposition to any
> >>  > > changes
> >>  > > > in the way IP addresses are given out.
> >>  > > > -Stephen
> >>  > > >
> >>  > > > --
> >>  > > > Stephen Elliott                 Harrison & Troxell
> >>  > > > Systems & Networking Manager    2 Faneuil Hall Marketplace
> >>  > > > Systems & Networking Group      Boston, Ma 02109
> >>  > > > (617)227-0494 Phone             (617)720-3918 Fax
> >>  > >
> >>  > > --
> >>  > > Stephen Elliott                 Harrison & Troxell
> >>  > > Systems & Networking Manager    2 Faneuil Hall Marketplace
> >>  > > Systems & Networking Group      Boston, Ma 02109
> >>  > > (617)227-0494 Phone             (617)720-3918 Fax
> >>  > >
> >>  >
> >>  >
> >>
> >>
> >>
>
> --
>
> Justin W. Newton
> Senior Director, Networking and Telecommunications
> NetZero, Inc.
>
>




From Clay at exodus.net  Tue Jan  9 21:34:46 2001
From: Clay at exodus.net (Clayton Lambert)
Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2001 18:34:46 -0800
Subject: ARIN Justified...
In-Reply-To: <NCBBIBIGAKPDLBGFNOHEAELDJFAA.hershey@easystreet.com>
Message-ID: <200101100235.SAA27245@exoserv.exodus.net>

Good points, all...well, most.

As far as justifying IP usage, which is what this discussion is about (it
isn't about pitting ISPs against webhosters),  a standard description of
"efficient use of space" is ONE IP per physical device.  That means that if
a Customer of yours has 100 devices that JUSTIFY public IP address space,
they get a /25 or a /24 (pending their growth projection).  But  if you have
FOUR servers running a thousand websites, you would need to explain why you
need that /22 for FOUR physical devices.
If you have a valid TECHNICAL reason for utilizing more than one IP per
physical device then fine, you get the IP space...If you DON'T have a
technically valid justification for putting 1024 IP addresses on FOUR
servers, then you won't get them.


This makes sense to me. It seems simple actually...Nobody should be trying
to figure out how to conserve IP space in this forum. This forum is for
developing and discussing an effective IP allocation policy. One that will
be enforceable and that will allow maintainers to support ARIN in the goal
of providing IP addresses to the public, in a manner that is effective and
fair to all parties.

Clayton Lambert
Compliance Services Director,
Exodus Communications



-----Original Message-----
From: Chris Hershey [mailto:hershey at easystreet.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2001 6:12 PM
To: 'Joe DeCosta'; Clayton Lambert; 'Douglas Cohn'; vwp at arin.net; Justin
W. Newton
Subject: RE: ARIN Justified...



Look, I don't mean any disrespect, and I'm sure I've got a whole let less
technical experience than most of the people on this list, probably
including yourself, but have you ever worked at an ISP before?  And have you
ever dealt with either the engineering of dial-up or DSL networks, or the
support of dial-up or DSL customers?

Because, from the point of view of somebody that deals with that sort of
thing every day, the notion of giving customers a NAT address and waiting
until they complain to give them a routable one, I have to tell you, is
something the other side of rediculous.  From either an engineering, or a
support point of view alone, let alone the combined effects of both sides of
the equation it would be essentially an impossible proposition.

Also, the issue of NAT not working can have very little to do with whether
or not a server is running over the connection.  But, even with that, yes,
there are a great many dial-up users who do run servers of various kinds,
and they do it over connections ranging from 28.8 (or slower) to high speed
DSL or cable connections.  There are a great many enthusiasts out there who
just play with things and setup their own mail servers, or set up ftp
servers just so they can trade files with their friends.

And, doing anything just for dial-up users doesn't really make sense,
because all of the growth is in broadband.  So the only solutions that would
have any impact, would have to encompass broadband services.  And then
you're dealing with an even more sophisticated consumer, many of whom run
servers of any and all kinds you can imagine.  Whether it be ftp, http, any
number of game servers, messaging, e-mail, and whatever else they can get
thier hands on.

Heck, even without servers there are an uncountable number of applications
and services that would be absolutely unusable in a NAT environment.  At a
minimum very special configuration (over the head of most users) is required
in some applications as basic as ICQ.  Not to mention the more sophisticated
applications such as VPN solutions and allowances that must be made for
persons gaining access to their company networks through firewalls based on
their static routable IP address.

The negative publicity alone for any ISP trying to implement such a plan
would drive away existing an potential customers, and ultimately force them
out of business.  I'd be willing to bet you could lose as much as half your
client base within 30 to 60 days.  You can't even predict all the
applications you might break trying to do such a thing.  And there's no way
you could staff enough people to handle the support burdon.

I wholly encourage the use of NAT wherever possible.  But possible almost
always means in highly controlled environments such as corporate LANs.  It
is not nearly an appropriate solution for general access networks.

The ultimate issue I'd like to see dealt with in all this, is there seem to
be a whole of people commenting within this policy discussion, who really
don't understand how the policy will affect the ISPs that are the gateway to
the Internet.  I don't know what the solution is, but it might help if
peoples signatures included a title or position, or some other description
of what their background is.  I think that all comments are welcome, but the
people making the decisions need to understand how informed (or
ill-informed) those comments are.

I for one, am a junior system administrator and primary hostmaster for
EasyStreet Online Services, Inc. (www.easystreet.com).
--

-Chris Hershey
hershey at easystreet.com


> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of Joe
> DeCosta
> Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2001 5:30 PM
> To: Clayton Lambert; 'Douglas Cohn'; vwp at arin.net; Justin W. Newton
> Subject: Re: ARIN Justified...
>
>
> Well, they get a NAT address by defualt, and if they complain
> that they need
> a real one, a real one is assigned.  but who is going to run a server of
> anykind of 56k analog dialup?
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Justin W. Newton" <justin at gid.net>
> To: "Joe DeCosta" <decosta at bayconnect.com>; "Clayton Lambert"
> <Clay at exodus.net>; "'Douglas Cohn'" <Douglas.Cohn at Virtualscape.com>;
> <vwp at arin.net>
> Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2001 5:22 PM
> Subject: Re: ARIN Justified...
>
>
> > How does one tell, in advance to connection, which users need a
> > "real" IP address, and which users need NAT?  At the bare minimum NAT
> > breaks P2P networks, which, in case you hadn't noticed, are becoming
> > more popular.  I will point out that large dial ISP's do already use
> > DHCP, so a user only has an IP assigned for the period of time that
> > the user is logged on.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > At 3:00 PM -0800 1/9/01, Joe DeCosta wrote:
> > >Well, what do you think that the best approach to this would
> be, I think
> a
> > >BIG part of the entire IP space problem is the HUGE market of
> ISP's like
> > >earthlink, Genuity(aka BBN), and the free services that just give any
> schmoe
> > >an IP address, I don't think that this is soemthing that  is viable, we
> even
> > >to a small Extent use NAT/Name based Virtual Hosting for  some of the
> > >domains runing on the secondary T1 in our office.  This all works fine,
> and
> > >uses 1 ip for many things.  Perhaps this is a viable options, but i do
> think
> > >that ARIN should enforce some sort of NAT with providers (aol,
> earthlink,
> > >freebie ISPs et al.) who allow just anybody to have an IP when its not
> > >needed.  from an admin point of view this can be a bit hellish but well
> > >worth the IP space that is being wasted on people that dont
> *NEED* random
> > >inbound traffic.
> > >
> > >
> > >----- Original Message -----
> > >From: "Clayton Lambert" <Clay at exodus.net>
> > >To: "'Joe DeCosta'" <decosta at bayconnect.com>; "'Douglas Cohn'"
> > ><Douglas.Cohn at Virtualscape.com>; <vwp at arin.net>
> > >Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2001 2:17 PM
> > >Subject: RE: ARIN Justified...
> > >
> > >
> > >>  No argument at all on those points either Joe,
> > >>
> > >>  In fact, it seems there is a lot of common ground on this
> topic, maybe
> we
> > >>  should try to identify the specific agreed-upon points and
> > >disagreements...?
> > >>
> > >>  It might be something to work from.
> > >>
> > >>  -Clay
> > >>
> > >>  -----Original Message-----
> > >>  From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of Joe
> > >>  DeCosta
> > >>  Sent: Monday, January 08, 2001 6:44 PM
> > >>  To: Clayton Lambert; 'Douglas Cohn'; vwp at arin.net
> > >>  Subject: Re: ARIN Justified...
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>  agreed, but with all of the home users, shouldn't some of the major
> ISP's
> > >be
> > >>  considering NAT for DSL/ISDN and Dialup users? i mean, it's
> an idea, i
> > >don't
> > >>  know how well it would be accepted, i also think that AOL should be
> forced
> > >>  to use NAT.........its rediclous to see how many IP blocks they own,
> but
> > >>  dialup/isdn/dsl NAT i think could be a suggestion to ISP's no??
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>  ----- Original Message -----
> > >>  From: "Clayton Lambert" <Clay at exodus.net>
> > >>  To: "'Douglas Cohn'" <Douglas.Cohn at Virtualscape.com>; <vwp at arin.net>
> > >>  Sent: Monday, January 08, 2001 4:59 PM
> > >>  Subject: RE: ARIN Justified...
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>  > IPv6 is not the panacea you seem to think it is...
> > >>  >
> > >>  > With a mentality like that, we'd burn thru IPv6 in 10 years or
> less...
> > >>  >
> > >>  > -Clay
> > >>  >
> > >>  > -----Original Message-----
> > >>  > From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of
> Douglas
> > >>  > Cohn
> > >>  > Sent: Friday, January 05, 2001 6:59 AM
> > >>  > To: vwp at arin.net
> > >>  > Subject: FW: ARIN Justified...
> > >>  >
> > >>  >
> > >>  > I forwarded your email to the list for you
> > >>  >
> > >>  > -----Original Message-----
> > >>  > From: Allen Ahoffman [mailto:ahoffman at announce.com]
> > >>  > Sent: Friday, July 10, 2893 6:44 PM
> > >>  > To: Douglas Cohn
> > >>  > Subject: Re: ARIN Justified...
> > >>  >
> > >>  >
> > >>  > OK let me interject a question into this discussion:
> > >>  >
> > >>  > Why are we requiring a /19 or in some cases /20 of space before
> being
> > >>  > allowed to get our own allocation?
> > >>  > I realize management is an issue, but a $2500/year it encourages
> small
> > >>  > users to build up to that point.
> > >>  >
> > >>  > We get users who don't want us to have iI space from
> other vendors,
> so
> > >>  > we
> > >>  > get pressure for more iP usage and pressure for less.
> > >>  >
> > >>  > For example, in converting from one provider to another I have had
> > >>  > difficult time getting replacment iP space in less than 8 months
> now,
> > >>  > but
> > >>  > was making efforts to not purchase the /19.  I thik we
> might bge by
> > >  > > without it but the minimum size creates pressure to fill IP(s).
> > >>  > I do agree that users seem to want IP(s) without reason,
> seems like
> IPV6
> > >>  > might look more appealing every day?
> > >>  >
> > >>  >
> > >>  > [Charset
> > >>  > iso-8859-1 unsupported,
> > >>  > filtering to ASCII...] > I must get my two cents in here as well.
> > >>  > >
> > >>  > > I feel Clayton has the right track.
> > >>  > >
> > >>  > > I manage IP allocation as well for dedicated and colocated
> clients.
> > >>  > Our
> > >>  > > policy used to state each server was issued 16 IPs.  We
> provision
> with
> > >>  > 1
> > >>  > > IP only.  If a client asks for the rest I also require the need
> for
> > >>  > the
> > >>  > > IPs.
> > >>  > > Too often they want them for testing or only because
> they saw that
> > >>  > they
> > >>  > > get 16 IPs with a server.  They must supply the domain names and
> > >>  > reasons
> > >>  > > why they cannot use IPless hosting.  While I will not
> force IPless
> > >>  > > hosting on clients I push it and train it's use for free.
> > >>  > >
> > >>  > > We now state that you get a single IP with each dedicated server
> and
> > >>  > > additional IPs are billed on a monthly basis.  This
> helps a lot to
> > >>  > > defray usage.  While it is a revenue stream that is not it's
> purpose
> > >>  > > whatsoever.
> > >>  > >
> > >>  > > In Shared hosting though the issues are clearly Search
> engines and
> SSL
> > >>  > > as far as I know.
> > >>  > >
> > >>  > > Most people understand why we watch our address space and
> appreciate
> > >>  > it.
> > >>  > >
> > >>  > > Douglas Cohn
> > >>  > > Manager NY Engineering
> > >>  > > Hostcentric, Inc.
> > >>  > >
> > >>  > >
> > >>  > >
> > >>  > > -----Original Message-----
> > >>  > > From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of
> > >>  > Stephen
> > >>  > > Elliott
> > >>  > > Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 4:47 PM
> > >>  > > To: Clayton Lambert; Virtual IP List
> > >>  > > Subject: Re: ARIN Justified...
> > >>  > >
> > >>  > >
> > >>  > > :-)  The reason I mentioned Exodus is because we are a
> customer of
> > >>  > > Exodus, and in my opinion, the policy is too
> restrictive.  And the
> > >>  > > statement was directed at the fact that Exodus hosts many
> companies
> > >>  > that
> > >>  > > are in the business of hosting websites, not Exodus as
> a company.
> As
> > >>  > I
> > >>  > > have stated in earlier postings, simply clamping down and
> restricting
> > >>  > > virtual web hosting is not the answer.  Any list of
> justifications, no
> > >>  > > matter how much thought went into it, will not cover every
> possible
> > >>  > > reason for needing the IP's.  Documentation is a great
> thing, just
> the
> > >>  > > fact that someone has to sit down and write out a list
> of machines
> > >>  > that
> > >>  > > need IP's will deter most people from requesting extra IP's.
> > >>  > > -Stephen
> > >>  > >
> > >>  > > Clayton Lambert wrote:
> > >>  > > >
> > >>  > > > Do you have ANY idea of what you are saying?  Sorry for
> appearing
> > >>  > > brash,
> > >>  > > > but...I run the IP maintenance organization at Exodus, and I
> would
> > >>  > > easily
> > >>  > > > stack our allocation policy up against anybody's.
> > >>  > > >
> > >>  > > > You have no idea what you are talking about in regard
> to larger
> > >>  > > companies.
> > >>  > > > Exodus consumes a very modest amount of address space
> given our
> size
> > >>  > > and
> > >>  > > > presence on the Internet.  There are much smaller
> competitors of
> > >>  > ours
> > >>  > > that
> > >>  > > > consume larger amounts of IP space.
> > >>  > > >
> > >>  > > > Exodus is already pioneering the efficiency of use
> ideology that
> I
> > >>  > > would
> > >>  > > > like to see ARIN adopt (a strong HTTP1.1 stance on ARIN's part
> is a
> > >>  > > good
> > >>  > > > start).  We currently require extensive supporting
> documentation
> for
> > >>  > > IP
> > >>  > > > requests from all our Customers.  A Customer has to show a
> > >>  > documented
> > >>  > > need
> > >>  > > > for their usage request and we file all these
> requests and refer
> to
> > >>  > > past
> > >>  > > > requests and detail as additional requests for address space
> occur.
> > >>  > > This
> > >>  > > > method gives us a very clear and honest indication of
> IP address
> > >>  > usage
> > >>  > > > growth. This allows us to support our Customers' IP addressing
> needs
> > >>  > > in a
> > >>  > > > very accurate and efficient way.  The end result is less
> consumption
> > >>  > > of IPv4
> > >>  > > > space across the board.
> > >>  > > >
> > >>  > > > Clayton Lambert
> > >>  > > > Exodus Communications
> > >>  > > >
> > >>  > > > -----Original Message-----
> > >>  > > > From: owner-vwp at arin.net
> [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of
> > >  > > > Stephen
> > >>  > > > Elliott
> > >>  > > > Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 12:20 PM
> > >>  > > > To: Virtual IP List
> > >>  > > > Subject: RE: ARIN Justified...
> > >>  > > >
> > >>  > > >         The big guys that you refer to are generally
> not in the
> web
> > >>  > > hosting
> > >>  > > > business and therefore are outside of the scope of this
> > >>  > conversation.
> > >>  > > > The real concern is the big guys like Exodus and UUNet.  Since
> IPv6
> > >>  > is
> > >>  > > > not a viable option for general consumption yet, we need to
> > >>  > > concentrate
> > >>  > > > on conserving the existing IPv4 space.  As far as
> search engines
> go,
> > >>  > > if
> > >>  > > > enough sites start using HTTP1.1 software virtual
> servers, they
> will
> > >>  > > be
> > >>  > > > forced to upgrade their spiders to support it.  I
> would suggest
> that
> > >>  > > one
> > >>  > > > of the main issues at hand is billing.  Billing for
> web hosting
> > >>  > > > companies that is.  Most companies bundle bandwidth with their
> > >>  > hosting
> > >>  > > > packages, and current billing packages utilize destination IP
> > >>  > address
> > >>  > > > information to gather this information.  If there is not a way
> to
> > >>  > get
> > >>  > > > this information without drastic changes to both billing
> software
> > >>  > and
> > >>  > > in
> > >>  > > > some cases hardware, there will be very strong
> opposition to any
> > >>  > > changes
> > >>  > > > in the way IP addresses are given out.
> > >>  > > > -Stephen
> > >>  > > >
> > >>  > > > --
> > >>  > > > Stephen Elliott                 Harrison & Troxell
> > >>  > > > Systems & Networking Manager    2 Faneuil Hall Marketplace
> > >>  > > > Systems & Networking Group      Boston, Ma 02109
> > >>  > > > (617)227-0494 Phone             (617)720-3918 Fax
> > >>  > >
> > >>  > > --
> > >>  > > Stephen Elliott                 Harrison & Troxell
> > >>  > > Systems & Networking Manager    2 Faneuil Hall Marketplace
> > >>  > > Systems & Networking Group      Boston, Ma 02109
> > >>  > > (617)227-0494 Phone             (617)720-3918 Fax
> > >>  > >
> > >>  >
> > >>  >
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> >
> > --
> >
> > Justin W. Newton
> > Senior Director, Networking and Telecommunications
> > NetZero, Inc.
> >
> >
>




From decosta at bayconnect.com  Tue Jan  9 21:39:08 2001
From: decosta at bayconnect.com (Joe DeCosta)
Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2001 18:39:08 -0800
Subject: ARIN Justified...
References: <200101092217.OAA20622@exoserv.exodus.net> <000901c07a8f$e9820c20$cd00000a@andrade.net> <a0500191eb6816966de67@[10.100.162.85]> <002801c07aa4$da0d3de0$cd00000a@andrade.net> <3A5BC3ED.8C0BA309@hilander.com>
Message-ID: <003201c07aae$82247760$cd00000a@andrade.net>

napster is stupid and should not be allowed to be in business.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Alec H. Peterson" <ahp at hilander.com>
To: "Joe DeCosta" <decosta at bayconnect.com>
Cc: "Clayton Lambert" <Clay at exodus.net>; "'Douglas Cohn'"
<Douglas.Cohn at Virtualscape.com>; <vwp at arin.net>; "Justin W. Newton"
<justin at gid.net>
Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2001 6:07 PM
Subject: Re: ARIN Justified...


> Joe DeCosta wrote:
> >
> > Well, they get a NAT address by defualt, and if they complain that they
need
> > a real one, a real one is assigned.  but who is going to run a server of
> > anykind of 56k analog dialup?
>
> I bet there are a lot of people out there using Napster and its ilk over a
> dialup.
>
> 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!"
>



From decosta at bayconnect.com  Tue Jan  9 21:43:00 2001
From: decosta at bayconnect.com (Joe DeCosta)
Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2001 18:43:00 -0800
Subject: ARIN Justified...
References: <NCBBIBIGAKPDLBGFNOHEAELDJFAA.hershey@easystreet.com>
Message-ID: <003e01c07aaf$0cc9ef80$cd00000a@andrade.net>

Uhm, Chris, I happen to WORK for an ISP right now, and do DSL installs on a
regular basis, yes i do know what support is like, and NAT still is the same
thing, clients use a DHCP to get a NONrouteable IP from some server.....so
either way the support stays the same, you can still do all the diagnosis
from pings and such.  Well, all i have to say is this, Enginnering of a
system like this would be hell, but it would be worth it i think because
there are too many people with entire class A's that i am sure NEVER EVER
see the light of day for more than half the IP addresses......... The
enthusiasts that do do these kinds of things can request a static routeable
IP.  It's not that complicated.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris Hershey" <hershey at easystreet.com>
To: "'Joe DeCosta'" <decosta at bayconnect.com>; "Clayton Lambert"
<Clay at exodus.net>; "'Douglas Cohn'" <Douglas.Cohn at Virtualscape.com>;
<vwp at arin.net>; "Justin W. Newton" <justin at gid.net>
Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2001 6:11 PM
Subject: RE: ARIN Justified...


>
> Look, I don't mean any disrespect, and I'm sure I've got a whole let less
> technical experience than most of the people on this list, probably
> including yourself, but have you ever worked at an ISP before?  And have
you
> ever dealt with either the engineering of dial-up or DSL networks, or the
> support of dial-up or DSL customers?
>
> Because, from the point of view of somebody that deals with that sort of
> thing every day, the notion of giving customers a NAT address and waiting
> until they complain to give them a routable one, I have to tell you, is
> something the other side of rediculous.  From either an engineering, or a
> support point of view alone, let alone the combined effects of both sides
of
> the equation it would be essentially an impossible proposition.
>
> Also, the issue of NAT not working can have very little to do with whether
> or not a server is running over the connection.  But, even with that, yes,
> there are a great many dial-up users who do run servers of various kinds,
> and they do it over connections ranging from 28.8 (or slower) to high
speed
> DSL or cable connections.  There are a great many enthusiasts out there
who
> just play with things and setup their own mail servers, or set up ftp
> servers just so they can trade files with their friends.
>
> And, doing anything just for dial-up users doesn't really make sense,
> because all of the growth is in broadband.  So the only solutions that
would
> have any impact, would have to encompass broadband services.  And then
> you're dealing with an even more sophisticated consumer, many of whom run
> servers of any and all kinds you can imagine.  Whether it be ftp, http,
any
> number of game servers, messaging, e-mail, and whatever else they can get
> thier hands on.
>
> Heck, even without servers there are an uncountable number of applications
> and services that would be absolutely unusable in a NAT environment.  At a
> minimum very special configuration (over the head of most users) is
required
> in some applications as basic as ICQ.  Not to mention the more
sophisticated
> applications such as VPN solutions and allowances that must be made for
> persons gaining access to their company networks through firewalls based
on
> their static routable IP address.
>
> The negative publicity alone for any ISP trying to implement such a plan
> would drive away existing an potential customers, and ultimately force
them
> out of business.  I'd be willing to bet you could lose as much as half
your
> client base within 30 to 60 days.  You can't even predict all the
> applications you might break trying to do such a thing.  And there's no
way
> you could staff enough people to handle the support burdon.
>
> I wholly encourage the use of NAT wherever possible.  But possible almost
> always means in highly controlled environments such as corporate LANs.  It
> is not nearly an appropriate solution for general access networks.
>
> The ultimate issue I'd like to see dealt with in all this, is there seem
to
> be a whole of people commenting within this policy discussion, who really
> don't understand how the policy will affect the ISPs that are the gateway
to
> the Internet.  I don't know what the solution is, but it might help if
> peoples signatures included a title or position, or some other description
> of what their background is.  I think that all comments are welcome, but
the
> people making the decisions need to understand how informed (or
> ill-informed) those comments are.
>
> I for one, am a junior system administrator and primary hostmaster for
> EasyStreet Online Services, Inc. (www.easystreet.com).
> --
>
> -Chris Hershey
> hershey at easystreet.com
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of Joe
> > DeCosta
> > Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2001 5:30 PM
> > To: Clayton Lambert; 'Douglas Cohn'; vwp at arin.net; Justin W. Newton
> > Subject: Re: ARIN Justified...
> >
> >
> > Well, they get a NAT address by defualt, and if they complain
> > that they need
> > a real one, a real one is assigned.  but who is going to run a server of
> > anykind of 56k analog dialup?
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Justin W. Newton" <justin at gid.net>
> > To: "Joe DeCosta" <decosta at bayconnect.com>; "Clayton Lambert"
> > <Clay at exodus.net>; "'Douglas Cohn'" <Douglas.Cohn at Virtualscape.com>;
> > <vwp at arin.net>
> > Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2001 5:22 PM
> > Subject: Re: ARIN Justified...
> >
> >
> > > How does one tell, in advance to connection, which users need a
> > > "real" IP address, and which users need NAT?  At the bare minimum NAT
> > > breaks P2P networks, which, in case you hadn't noticed, are becoming
> > > more popular.  I will point out that large dial ISP's do already use
> > > DHCP, so a user only has an IP assigned for the period of time that
> > > the user is logged on.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > At 3:00 PM -0800 1/9/01, Joe DeCosta wrote:
> > > >Well, what do you think that the best approach to this would
> > be, I think
> > a
> > > >BIG part of the entire IP space problem is the HUGE market of
> > ISP's like
> > > >earthlink, Genuity(aka BBN), and the free services that just give any
> > schmoe
> > > >an IP address, I don't think that this is soemthing that  is viable,
we
> > even
> > > >to a small Extent use NAT/Name based Virtual Hosting for  some of the
> > > >domains runing on the secondary T1 in our office.  This all works
fine,
> > and
> > > >uses 1 ip for many things.  Perhaps this is a viable options, but i
do
> > think
> > > >that ARIN should enforce some sort of NAT with providers (aol,
> > earthlink,
> > > >freebie ISPs et al.) who allow just anybody to have an IP when its
not
> > > >needed.  from an admin point of view this can be a bit hellish but
well
> > > >worth the IP space that is being wasted on people that dont
> > *NEED* random
> > > >inbound traffic.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >----- Original Message -----
> > > >From: "Clayton Lambert" <Clay at exodus.net>
> > > >To: "'Joe DeCosta'" <decosta at bayconnect.com>; "'Douglas Cohn'"
> > > ><Douglas.Cohn at Virtualscape.com>; <vwp at arin.net>
> > > >Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2001 2:17 PM
> > > >Subject: RE: ARIN Justified...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >>  No argument at all on those points either Joe,
> > > >>
> > > >>  In fact, it seems there is a lot of common ground on this
> > topic, maybe
> > we
> > > >>  should try to identify the specific agreed-upon points and
> > > >disagreements...?
> > > >>
> > > >>  It might be something to work from.
> > > >>
> > > >>  -Clay
> > > >>
> > > >>  -----Original Message-----
> > > >>  From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of
Joe
> > > >>  DeCosta
> > > >>  Sent: Monday, January 08, 2001 6:44 PM
> > > >>  To: Clayton Lambert; 'Douglas Cohn'; vwp at arin.net
> > > >>  Subject: Re: ARIN Justified...
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>  agreed, but with all of the home users, shouldn't some of the
major
> > ISP's
> > > >be
> > > >>  considering NAT for DSL/ISDN and Dialup users? i mean, it's
> > an idea, i
> > > >don't
> > > >>  know how well it would be accepted, i also think that AOL should
be
> > forced
> > > >>  to use NAT.........its rediclous to see how many IP blocks they
own,
> > but
> > > >>  dialup/isdn/dsl NAT i think could be a suggestion to ISP's no??
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>  ----- Original Message -----
> > > >>  From: "Clayton Lambert" <Clay at exodus.net>
> > > >>  To: "'Douglas Cohn'" <Douglas.Cohn at Virtualscape.com>;
<vwp at arin.net>
> > > >>  Sent: Monday, January 08, 2001 4:59 PM
> > > >>  Subject: RE: ARIN Justified...
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>  > IPv6 is not the panacea you seem to think it is...
> > > >>  >
> > > >>  > With a mentality like that, we'd burn thru IPv6 in 10 years or
> > less...
> > > >>  >
> > > >>  > -Clay
> > > >>  >
> > > >>  > -----Original Message-----
> > > >>  > From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of
> > Douglas
> > > >>  > Cohn
> > > >>  > Sent: Friday, January 05, 2001 6:59 AM
> > > >>  > To: vwp at arin.net
> > > >>  > Subject: FW: ARIN Justified...
> > > >>  >
> > > >>  >
> > > >>  > I forwarded your email to the list for you
> > > >>  >
> > > >>  > -----Original Message-----
> > > >>  > From: Allen Ahoffman [mailto:ahoffman at announce.com]
> > > >>  > Sent: Friday, July 10, 2893 6:44 PM
> > > >>  > To: Douglas Cohn
> > > >>  > Subject: Re: ARIN Justified...
> > > >>  >
> > > >>  >
> > > >>  > OK let me interject a question into this discussion:
> > > >>  >
> > > >>  > Why are we requiring a /19 or in some cases /20 of space before
> > being
> > > >>  > allowed to get our own allocation?
> > > >>  > I realize management is an issue, but a $2500/year it encourages
> > small
> > > >>  > users to build up to that point.
> > > >>  >
> > > >>  > We get users who don't want us to have iI space from
> > other vendors,
> > so
> > > >>  > we
> > > >>  > get pressure for more iP usage and pressure for less.
> > > >>  >
> > > >>  > For example, in converting from one provider to another I have
had
> > > >>  > difficult time getting replacment iP space in less than 8 months
> > now,
> > > >>  > but
> > > >>  > was making efforts to not purchase the /19.  I thik we
> > might bge by
> > > >  > > without it but the minimum size creates pressure to fill IP(s).
> > > >>  > I do agree that users seem to want IP(s) without reason,
> > seems like
> > IPV6
> > > >>  > might look more appealing every day?
> > > >>  >
> > > >>  >
> > > >>  > [Charset
> > > >>  > iso-8859-1 unsupported,
> > > >>  > filtering to ASCII...] > I must get my two cents in here as
well.
> > > >>  > >
> > > >>  > > I feel Clayton has the right track.
> > > >>  > >
> > > >>  > > I manage IP allocation as well for dedicated and colocated
> > clients.
> > > >>  > Our
> > > >>  > > policy used to state each server was issued 16 IPs.  We
> > provision
> > with
> > > >>  > 1
> > > >>  > > IP only.  If a client asks for the rest I also require the
need
> > for
> > > >>  > the
> > > >>  > > IPs.
> > > >>  > > Too often they want them for testing or only because
> > they saw that
> > > >>  > they
> > > >>  > > get 16 IPs with a server.  They must supply the domain names
and
> > > >>  > reasons
> > > >>  > > why they cannot use IPless hosting.  While I will not
> > force IPless
> > > >>  > > hosting on clients I push it and train it's use for free.
> > > >>  > >
> > > >>  > > We now state that you get a single IP with each dedicated
server
> > and
> > > >>  > > additional IPs are billed on a monthly basis.  This
> > helps a lot to
> > > >>  > > defray usage.  While it is a revenue stream that is not it's
> > purpose
> > > >>  > > whatsoever.
> > > >>  > >
> > > >>  > > In Shared hosting though the issues are clearly Search
> > engines and
> > SSL
> > > >>  > > as far as I know.
> > > >>  > >
> > > >>  > > Most people understand why we watch our address space and
> > appreciate
> > > >>  > it.
> > > >>  > >
> > > >>  > > Douglas Cohn
> > > >>  > > Manager NY Engineering
> > > >>  > > Hostcentric, Inc.
> > > >>  > >
> > > >>  > >
> > > >>  > >
> > > >>  > > -----Original Message-----
> > > >>  > > From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf
Of
> > > >>  > Stephen
> > > >>  > > Elliott
> > > >>  > > Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 4:47 PM
> > > >>  > > To: Clayton Lambert; Virtual IP List
> > > >>  > > Subject: Re: ARIN Justified...
> > > >>  > >
> > > >>  > >
> > > >>  > > :-)  The reason I mentioned Exodus is because we are a
> > customer of
> > > >>  > > Exodus, and in my opinion, the policy is too
> > restrictive.  And the
> > > >>  > > statement was directed at the fact that Exodus hosts many
> > companies
> > > >>  > that
> > > >>  > > are in the business of hosting websites, not Exodus as
> > a company.
> > As
> > > >>  > I
> > > >>  > > have stated in earlier postings, simply clamping down and
> > restricting
> > > >>  > > virtual web hosting is not the answer.  Any list of
> > justifications, no
> > > >>  > > matter how much thought went into it, will not cover every
> > possible
> > > >>  > > reason for needing the IP's.  Documentation is a great
> > thing, just
> > the
> > > >>  > > fact that someone has to sit down and write out a list
> > of machines
> > > >>  > that
> > > >>  > > need IP's will deter most people from requesting extra IP's.
> > > >>  > > -Stephen
> > > >>  > >
> > > >>  > > Clayton Lambert wrote:
> > > >>  > > >
> > > >>  > > > Do you have ANY idea of what you are saying?  Sorry for
> > appearing
> > > >>  > > brash,
> > > >>  > > > but...I run the IP maintenance organization at Exodus, and I
> > would
> > > >>  > > easily
> > > >>  > > > stack our allocation policy up against anybody's.
> > > >>  > > >
> > > >>  > > > You have no idea what you are talking about in regard
> > to larger
> > > >>  > > companies.
> > > >>  > > > Exodus consumes a very modest amount of address space
> > given our
> > size
> > > >>  > > and
> > > >>  > > > presence on the Internet.  There are much smaller
> > competitors of
> > > >>  > ours
> > > >>  > > that
> > > >>  > > > consume larger amounts of IP space.
> > > >>  > > >
> > > >>  > > > Exodus is already pioneering the efficiency of use
> > ideology that
> > I
> > > >>  > > would
> > > >>  > > > like to see ARIN adopt (a strong HTTP1.1 stance on ARIN's
part
> > is a
> > > >>  > > good
> > > >>  > > > start).  We currently require extensive supporting
> > documentation
> > for
> > > >>  > > IP
> > > >>  > > > requests from all our Customers.  A Customer has to show a
> > > >>  > documented
> > > >>  > > need
> > > >>  > > > for their usage request and we file all these
> > requests and refer
> > to
> > > >>  > > past
> > > >>  > > > requests and detail as additional requests for address space
> > occur.
> > > >>  > > This
> > > >>  > > > method gives us a very clear and honest indication of
> > IP address
> > > >>  > usage
> > > >>  > > > growth. This allows us to support our Customers' IP
addressing
> > needs
> > > >>  > > in a
> > > >>  > > > very accurate and efficient way.  The end result is less
> > consumption
> > > >>  > > of IPv4
> > > >>  > > > space across the board.
> > > >>  > > >
> > > >>  > > > Clayton Lambert
> > > >>  > > > Exodus Communications
> > > >>  > > >
> > > >>  > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > >>  > > > From: owner-vwp at arin.net
> > [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of
> > > >  > > > Stephen
> > > >>  > > > Elliott
> > > >>  > > > Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 12:20 PM
> > > >>  > > > To: Virtual IP List
> > > >>  > > > Subject: RE: ARIN Justified...
> > > >>  > > >
> > > >>  > > >         The big guys that you refer to are generally
> > not in the
> > web
> > > >>  > > hosting
> > > >>  > > > business and therefore are outside of the scope of this
> > > >>  > conversation.
> > > >>  > > > The real concern is the big guys like Exodus and UUNet.
Since
> > IPv6
> > > >>  > is
> > > >>  > > > not a viable option for general consumption yet, we need to
> > > >>  > > concentrate
> > > >>  > > > on conserving the existing IPv4 space.  As far as
> > search engines
> > go,
> > > >>  > > if
> > > >>  > > > enough sites start using HTTP1.1 software virtual
> > servers, they
> > will
> > > >>  > > be
> > > >>  > > > forced to upgrade their spiders to support it.  I
> > would suggest
> > that
> > > >>  > > one
> > > >>  > > > of the main issues at hand is billing.  Billing for
> > web hosting
> > > >>  > > > companies that is.  Most companies bundle bandwidth with
their
> > > >>  > hosting
> > > >>  > > > packages, and current billing packages utilize destination
IP
> > > >>  > address
> > > >>  > > > information to gather this information.  If there is not a
way
> > to
> > > >>  > get
> > > >>  > > > this information without drastic changes to both billing
> > software
> > > >>  > and
> > > >>  > > in
> > > >>  > > > some cases hardware, there will be very strong
> > opposition to any
> > > >>  > > changes
> > > >>  > > > in the way IP addresses are given out.
> > > >>  > > > -Stephen
> > > >>  > > >
> > > >>  > > > --
> > > >>  > > > Stephen Elliott                 Harrison & Troxell
> > > >>  > > > Systems & Networking Manager    2 Faneuil Hall Marketplace
> > > >>  > > > Systems & Networking Group      Boston, Ma 02109
> > > >>  > > > (617)227-0494 Phone             (617)720-3918 Fax
> > > >>  > >
> > > >>  > > --
> > > >>  > > Stephen Elliott                 Harrison & Troxell
> > > >>  > > Systems & Networking Manager    2 Faneuil Hall Marketplace
> > > >>  > > Systems & Networking Group      Boston, Ma 02109
> > > >>  > > (617)227-0494 Phone             (617)720-3918 Fax
> > > >>  > >
> > > >>  >
> > > >>  >
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> > > Justin W. Newton
> > > Senior Director, Networking and Telecommunications
> > > NetZero, Inc.
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>



From ahp at hilander.com  Tue Jan  9 21:44:28 2001
From: ahp at hilander.com (Alec H. Peterson)
Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 19:44:28 -0700
Subject: ARIN Justified...
References: <200101092217.OAA20622@exoserv.exodus.net> <000901c07a8f$e9820c20$cd00000a@andrade.net> <a0500191eb6816966de67@[10.100.162.85]> <002801c07aa4$da0d3de0$cd00000a@andrade.net> <3A5BC3ED.8C0BA309@hilander.com> <003201c07aae$82247760$cd00000a@andrade.net>
Message-ID: <3A5BCC8C.58F2D6DB@hilander.com>

Joe DeCosta wrote:
> 
> napster is stupid and should not be allowed to be in business.

If that were our criteria, then this would be a very easy task.

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!"


From ahp at hilander.com  Tue Jan  9 21:45:33 2001
From: ahp at hilander.com (Alec H. Peterson)
Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 19:45:33 -0700
Subject: ARIN Justified...
References: <200101100208.SAA24936@exoserv.exodus.net>
Message-ID: <3A5BCCCD.3D82AA67@hilander.com>

Clayton Lambert wrote:
> 
> I think that companies with /8's and multiple unjustified /16's should have
> to provide supporting documentation to keep them.

This is a tough issue that we have often come back to.  Unfortunately, we
have yet to come up with a good answer...

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!"


From Clay at exodus.net  Tue Jan  9 21:49:51 2001
From: Clay at exodus.net (Clayton Lambert)
Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2001 18:49:51 -0800
Subject: ARIN Justified...
In-Reply-To: <3A5BCCCD.3D82AA67@hilander.com>
Message-ID: <200101100250.SAA28329@exoserv.exodus.net>

As a person involved with a company that never had a /8 given to it...I say
it isn't that difficult...They back it up, or they lose it...Point.

Clayton Lambert
Compliance Services Director,
Exodus Communications

-----Original Message-----
From: Alec H. Peterson [mailto:ahp at hilander.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2001 6:46 PM
To: Clayton Lambert
Cc: 'Jim Macknik'; vwp at arin.net
Subject: Re: ARIN Justified...


Clayton Lambert wrote:
>
> I think that companies with /8's and multiple unjustified /16's should
have
> to provide supporting documentation to keep them.

This is a tough issue that we have often come back to.  Unfortunately, we
have yet to come up with a good answer...

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!"




From ahp at hilander.com  Tue Jan  9 21:56:22 2001
From: ahp at hilander.com (Alec H. Peterson)
Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 19:56:22 -0700
Subject: ARIN Justified...
References: <200101100250.SAA28329@exoserv.exodus.net>
Message-ID: <3A5BCF56.536DB35A@hilander.com>

Clayton Lambert wrote:
> 
> As a person involved with a company that never had a /8 given to it...I say
> it isn't that difficult...They back it up, or they lose it...Point.

Certainly coming up with a theoretical process for the job is not a
problem.  Unfortunately, that isn't the only issue at hand.  One of the
fundamental problems is that ARIN has very little practical recourse when it
comes to re-claiming address space.  The only technical thing ARIN can do is
turn of in-addrs, which doesn't accomplish that much.

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!"


From Clay at exodus.net  Tue Jan  9 22:23:16 2001
From: Clay at exodus.net (Clayton Lambert)
Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2001 19:23:16 -0800
Subject: ARIN Justified...
In-Reply-To: <3A5BCF56.536DB35A@hilander.com>
Message-ID: <200101100323.TAA30729@exoserv.exodus.net>

Really?  I think the killing the rev files would be pretty effective, but I
think there are other formal ways to apply a recovery...Like filtering.

-Clay

-----Original Message-----
From: Alec H. Peterson [mailto:ahp at hilander.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2001 6:56 PM
To: Clayton Lambert
Cc: 'Jim Macknik'; vwp at arin.net
Subject: Re: ARIN Justified...


Clayton Lambert wrote:
>
> As a person involved with a company that never had a /8 given to it...I
say
> it isn't that difficult...They back it up, or they lose it...Point.

Certainly coming up with a theoretical process for the job is not a
problem.  Unfortunately, that isn't the only issue at hand.  One of the
fundamental problems is that ARIN has very little practical recourse when it
comes to re-claiming address space.  The only technical thing ARIN can do is
turn of in-addrs, which doesn't accomplish that much.

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!"




From ahp at hilander.com  Tue Jan  9 22:24:51 2001
From: ahp at hilander.com (Alec H. Peterson)
Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 20:24:51 -0700
Subject: ARIN Justified...
References: <200101100323.TAA30729@exoserv.exodus.net>
Message-ID: <3A5BD603.60D5E45B@hilander.com>

Clayton Lambert wrote:
> 
> Really?  I think the killing the rev files would be pretty effective, but I
> think there are other formal ways to apply a recovery...Like filtering.

Who would do the filtering?

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!"


From Clay at exodus.net  Tue Jan  9 22:26:35 2001
From: Clay at exodus.net (Clayton Lambert)
Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2001 19:26:35 -0800
Subject: ARIN Justified...
In-Reply-To: <3A5BD603.60D5E45B@hilander.com>
Message-ID: <200101100327.TAA30934@exoserv.exodus.net>

Plug a clause into the agreement that every maintainer has to sign...Make
everybody else filter them.

-Clay

Keep in mind, I am thinking this up on the fly...  :-)

-----Original Message-----
From: Alec H. Peterson [mailto:ahp at hilander.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2001 7:25 PM
To: Clayton Lambert
Cc: 'Jim Macknik'; vwp at arin.net
Subject: Re: ARIN Justified...


Clayton Lambert wrote:
>
> Really?  I think the killing the rev files would be pretty effective, but
I
> think there are other formal ways to apply a recovery...Like filtering.

Who would do the filtering?

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!"




From ahp at hilander.com  Tue Jan  9 22:50:57 2001
From: ahp at hilander.com (Alec H. Peterson)
Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 20:50:57 -0700
Subject: ARIN Justified...
References: <200101100327.TAA30934@exoserv.exodus.net>
Message-ID: <3A5BDC20.1DA02B85@hilander.com>

Clayton Lambert wrote:
> 
> Plug a clause into the agreement that every maintainer has to sign...Make
> everybody else filter them.

Cute idea, but every lawyer looking at that contract would throw a major
fit.

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!"


From Gilbert.Martin at za.didata.com  Wed Jan 10 01:37:18 2001
From: Gilbert.Martin at za.didata.com (Gilbert Martin @ Learning Solutions)
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 08:37:18 +0200
Subject: ARIN Justified..
Message-ID: <DC7ABD0A8338D311B2010008C79122EE03A52432@zajnbddsexc1.didata.co.za>

Exactly what I said yesterday, wouldn't it be more simple for people not
accessing external networks via the INternet to rather be given a static
address and then if the need arises let them also be able to request a newer
address, the end result will be that only those using ISP's will be using up
address space?


-----Original Message-----
From: Chris Miller [mailto:ctodd at netgate.net]
Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2001 3:09 AM
To: Jim Macknik
Cc: vwp at arin.net
Subject: RE: ARIN Justified..



Sun Microsystems (and others companies I'm sure) has many addresses that
never see the internet, they use most of these strictly for their internal
networks. Surely they could use reserved addresses for many of these
purposes.....

Sun Microsystems, Inc. (NETBLK-SUN4)
   2550 Garcia Avenue
   Mountain View, CA 94043

   Netname: SUN4
   Netblock: 129.144.0.0 - 129.159.255.255

Chris

On Tue, 9 Jan 2001, Jim Macknik wrote:

> This brings up a good point, as well. How will ARIN enforce its policies?
> There are large companies out there that have several Class B or Class A
> ranges all to themselves that they "reserved" years ago. I doubt many of
> these organizations could properly justify this space at this time.
> 
> Will ARIN require them to justify their use and take away the extras,
> requiring huge organizations or ISPs to completely re-allocate their
> addressing? If they don't, how will they be able to justify revoking
denying
> space to others looking to increase their allocation? 
> 
> This isn't an easy one, but it certainly has to be addressed if ARIN is
> concerned about political ramifications of a policy that will affect
whether
> businesses can even *do* business.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joe DeCosta [mailto:decosta at bayconnect.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2001 4:00 PM
> To: Clayton Lambert; 'Douglas Cohn'; vwp at arin.net
> Subject: Re: ARIN Justified...
> 
> 
> Well, what do you think that the best approach to this would be, I think a
> BIG part of the entire IP space problem is the HUGE market of ISP's like
> earthlink, Genuity(aka BBN), and the free services that just give any
schmoe
> an IP address, I don't think that this is soemthing that  is viable, we
even
> to a small Extent use NAT/Name based Virtual Hosting for  some of the
> domains runing on the secondary T1 in our office.  This all works fine,
and
> uses 1 ip for many things.  Perhaps this is a viable options, but i do
think
> that ARIN should enforce some sort of NAT with providers (aol, earthlink,
> freebie ISPs et al.) who allow just anybody to have an IP when its not
> needed.  from an admin point of view this can be a bit hellish but well
> worth the IP space that is being wasted on people that dont *NEED* random
> inbound traffic.
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Clayton Lambert" <Clay at exodus.net>
> To: "'Joe DeCosta'" <decosta at bayconnect.com>; "'Douglas Cohn'"
> <Douglas.Cohn at Virtualscape.com>; <vwp at arin.net>
> Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2001 2:17 PM
> Subject: RE: ARIN Justified...
> 
> 
> > No argument at all on those points either Joe,
> >
> > In fact, it seems there is a lot of common ground on this topic, maybe
we
> > should try to identify the specific agreed-upon points and
> disagreements...?
> >
> > It might be something to work from.
> >
> > -Clay
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of Joe
> > DeCosta
> > Sent: Monday, January 08, 2001 6:44 PM
> > To: Clayton Lambert; 'Douglas Cohn'; vwp at arin.net
> > Subject: Re: ARIN Justified...
> >
> >
> > agreed, but with all of the home users, shouldn't some of the major
ISP's
> be
> > considering NAT for DSL/ISDN and Dialup users? i mean, it's an idea, i
> don't
> > know how well it would be accepted, i also think that AOL should be
forced
> > to use NAT.........its rediclous to see how many IP blocks they own, but
> > dialup/isdn/dsl NAT i think could be a suggestion to ISP's no??
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Clayton Lambert" <Clay at exodus.net>
> > To: "'Douglas Cohn'" <Douglas.Cohn at Virtualscape.com>; <vwp at arin.net>
> > Sent: Monday, January 08, 2001 4:59 PM
> > Subject: RE: ARIN Justified...
> >
> >
> > > IPv6 is not the panacea you seem to think it is...
> > >
> > > With a mentality like that, we'd burn thru IPv6 in 10 years or less...
> > >
> > > -Clay
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of
Douglas
> > > Cohn
> > > Sent: Friday, January 05, 2001 6:59 AM
> > > To: vwp at arin.net
> > > Subject: FW: ARIN Justified...
> > >
> > >
> > > I forwarded your email to the list for you
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Allen Ahoffman [mailto:ahoffman at announce.com]
> > > Sent: Friday, July 10, 2893 6:44 PM
> > > To: Douglas Cohn
> > > Subject: Re: ARIN Justified...
> > >
> > >
> > > OK let me interject a question into this discussion:
> > >
> > > Why are we requiring a /19 or in some cases /20 of space before being
> > > allowed to get our own allocation?
> > > I realize management is an issue, but a $2500/year it encourages small
> > > users to build up to that point.
> > >
> > > We get users who don't want us to have iI space from other vendors, so
> > > we
> > > get pressure for more iP usage and pressure for less.
> > >
> > > For example, in converting from one provider to another I have had
> > > difficult time getting replacment iP space in less than 8 months now,
> > > but
> > > was making efforts to not purchase the /19.  I thik we might bge by
> > > without it but the minimum size creates pressure to fill IP(s).
> > > I do agree that users seem to want IP(s) without reason, seems like
IPV6
> > > might look more appealing every day?
> > >
> > >
> > > [Charset
> > > iso-8859-1 unsupported,
> > > filtering to ASCII...] > I must get my two cents in here as well.
> > > >
> > > > I feel Clayton has the right track.
> > > >
> > > > I manage IP allocation as well for dedicated and colocated clients.
> > > Our
> > > > policy used to state each server was issued 16 IPs.  We provision
with
> > > 1
> > > > IP only.  If a client asks for the rest I also require the need for
> > > the
> > > > IPs.
> > > > Too often they want them for testing or only because they saw that
> > > they
> > > > get 16 IPs with a server.  They must supply the domain names and
> > > reasons
> > > > why they cannot use IPless hosting.  While I will not force IPless
> > > > hosting on clients I push it and train it's use for free.
> > > >
> > > > We now state that you get a single IP with each dedicated server and
> > > > additional IPs are billed on a monthly basis.  This helps a lot to
> > > > defray usage.  While it is a revenue stream that is not it's purpose
> > > > whatsoever.
> > > >
> > > > In Shared hosting though the issues are clearly Search engines and
SSL
> > > > as far as I know.
> > > >
> > > > Most people understand why we watch our address space and appreciate
> > > it.
> > > >
> > > > Douglas Cohn
> > > > Manager NY Engineering
> > > > Hostcentric, Inc.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of
> > > Stephen
> > > > Elliott
> > > > Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 4:47 PM
> > > > To: Clayton Lambert; Virtual IP List
> > > > Subject: Re: ARIN Justified...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > :-)  The reason I mentioned Exodus is because we are a customer of
> > > > Exodus, and in my opinion, the policy is too restrictive.  And the
> > > > statement was directed at the fact that Exodus hosts many companies
> > > that
> > > > are in the business of hosting websites, not Exodus as a company.
As
> > > I
> > > > have stated in earlier postings, simply clamping down and
restricting
> > > > virtual web hosting is not the answer.  Any list of justifications,
no
> > > > matter how much thought went into it, will not cover every possible
> > > > reason for needing the IP's.  Documentation is a great thing, just
the
> > > > fact that someone has to sit down and write out a list of machines
> > > that
> > > > need IP's will deter most people from requesting extra IP's.
> > > > -Stephen
> > > >
> > > > Clayton Lambert wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Do you have ANY idea of what you are saying?  Sorry for appearing
> > > > brash,
> > > > > but...I run the IP maintenance organization at Exodus, and I would
> > > > easily
> > > > > stack our allocation policy up against anybody's.
> > > > >
> > > > > You have no idea what you are talking about in regard to larger
> > > > companies.
> > > > > Exodus consumes a very modest amount of address space given our
size
> > > > and
> > > > > presence on the Internet.  There are much smaller competitors of
> > > ours
> > > > that
> > > > > consume larger amounts of IP space.
> > > > >
> > > > > Exodus is already pioneering the efficiency of use ideology that I
> > > > would
> > > > > like to see ARIN adopt (a strong HTTP1.1 stance on ARIN's part is
a
> > > > good
> > > > > start).  We currently require extensive supporting documentation
for
> > > > IP
> > > > > requests from all our Customers.  A Customer has to show a
> > > documented
> > > > need
> > > > > for their usage request and we file all these requests and refer
to
> > > > past
> > > > > requests and detail as additional requests for address space
occur.
> > > > This
> > > > > method gives us a very clear and honest indication of IP address
> > > usage
> > > > > growth. This allows us to support our Customers' IP addressing
needs
> > > > in a
> > > > > very accurate and efficient way.  The end result is less
consumption
> > > > of IPv4
> > > > > space across the board.
> > > > >
> > > > > Clayton Lambert
> > > > > Exodus Communications
> > > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of
> > > > Stephen
> > > > > Elliott
> > > > > Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 12:20 PM
> > > > > To: Virtual IP List
> > > > > Subject: RE: ARIN Justified...
> > > > >
> > > > >         The big guys that you refer to are generally not in the
web
> > > > hosting
> > > > > business and therefore are outside of the scope of this
> > > conversation.
> > > > > The real concern is the big guys like Exodus and UUNet.  Since
IPv6
> > > is
> > > > > not a viable option for general consumption yet, we need to
> > > > concentrate
> > > > > on conserving the existing IPv4 space.  As far as search engines
go,
> > > > if
> > > > > enough sites start using HTTP1.1 software virtual servers, they
will
> > > > be
> > > > > forced to upgrade their spiders to support it.  I would suggest
that
> > > > one
> > > > > of the main issues at hand is billing.  Billing for web hosting
> > > > > companies that is.  Most companies bundle bandwidth with their
> > > hosting
> > > > > packages, and current billing packages utilize destination IP
> > > address
> > > > > information to gather this information.  If there is not a way to
> > > get
> > > > > this information without drastic changes to both billing software
> > > and
> > > > in
> > > > > some cases hardware, there will be very strong opposition to any
> > > > changes
> > > > > in the way IP addresses are given out.
> > > > > -Stephen
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Stephen Elliott                 Harrison & Troxell
> > > > > Systems & Networking Manager    2 Faneuil Hall Marketplace
> > > > > Systems & Networking Group      Boston, Ma 02109
> > > > > (617)227-0494 Phone             (617)720-3918 Fax
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Stephen Elliott                 Harrison & Troxell
> > > > Systems & Networking Manager    2 Faneuil Hall Marketplace
> > > > Systems & Networking Group      Boston, Ma 02109
> > > > (617)227-0494 Phone             (617)720-3918 Fax
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> 


**********************************************************************

The information in this e-mail is confidential and is legally privileged.
It is intended solely for the addressee.  If this email is not intended for
you, you cannot copy, distribute, or disclose the included information
to any-one

If you are not the intended recipient please delete the mail. Whilst
all reasonable steps have been taken to ensure the accuracy and
integrity of all data transmitted electronically, no liability is accepted
if the data, for whatever reason, is corrupt or does not reach it's
intended destination.
All business is undertaken, subject to our standard trading conditions
which are available on request.

*******************************************************************


From decosta at bayconnect.com  Wed Jan 10 02:40:53 2001
From: decosta at bayconnect.com (Joe DeCosta)
Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 23:40:53 -0800
Subject: ARIN Justified..
References: <DC7ABD0A8338D311B2010008C79122EE03A52432@zajnbddsexc1.didata.co.za>
Message-ID: <3A5C1205.4B7A4801@bayconnect.com>

Could you clairfy why computers on INTERNAL networks would need a fully
routeable STATIC ip address? I don't see why a private computer inside a
corporate network at some secrataries desk needs a fully routeable
static ip. etc etc...



"Gilbert Martin @ Learning Solutions" wrote:
> 
> Exactly what I said yesterday, wouldn't it be more simple for people not
> accessing external networks via the INternet to rather be given a static
> address and then if the need arises let them also be able to request a newer
> address, the end result will be that only those using ISP's will be using up
> address space?
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chris Miller [mailto:ctodd at netgate.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2001 3:09 AM
> To: Jim Macknik
> Cc: vwp at arin.net
> Subject: RE: ARIN Justified..
> 
> Sun Microsystems (and others companies I'm sure) has many addresses that
> never see the internet, they use most of these strictly for their internal
> networks. Surely they could use reserved addresses for many of these
> purposes.....
> 
> Sun Microsystems, Inc. (NETBLK-SUN4)
>    2550 Garcia Avenue
>    Mountain View, CA 94043
> 
>    Netname: SUN4
>    Netblock: 129.144.0.0 - 129.159.255.255
> 
> Chris
> 
> On Tue, 9 Jan 2001, Jim Macknik wrote:
> 
> > This brings up a good point, as well. How will ARIN enforce its policies?
> > There are large companies out there that have several Class B or Class A
> > ranges all to themselves that they "reserved" years ago. I doubt many of
> > these organizations could properly justify this space at this time.
> >
> > Will ARIN require them to justify their use and take away the extras,
> > requiring huge organizations or ISPs to completely re-allocate their
> > addressing? If they don't, how will they be able to justify revoking
> denying
> > space to others looking to increase their allocation?
> >
> > This isn't an easy one, but it certainly has to be addressed if ARIN is
> > concerned about political ramifications of a policy that will affect
> whether
> > businesses can even *do* business.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Joe DeCosta [mailto:decosta at bayconnect.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2001 4:00 PM
> > To: Clayton Lambert; 'Douglas Cohn'; vwp at arin.net
> > Subject: Re: ARIN Justified...
> >
> >
> > Well, what do you think that the best approach to this would be, I think a
> > BIG part of the entire IP space problem is the HUGE market of ISP's like
> > earthlink, Genuity(aka BBN), and the free services that just give any
> schmoe
> > an IP address, I don't think that this is soemthing that  is viable, we
> even
> > to a small Extent use NAT/Name based Virtual Hosting for  some of the
> > domains runing on the secondary T1 in our office.  This all works fine,
> and
> > uses 1 ip for many things.  Perhaps this is a viable options, but i do
> think
> > that ARIN should enforce some sort of NAT with providers (aol, earthlink,
> > freebie ISPs et al.) who allow just anybody to have an IP when its not
> > needed.  from an admin point of view this can be a bit hellish but well
> > worth the IP space that is being wasted on people that dont *NEED* random
> > inbound traffic.
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Clayton Lambert" <Clay at exodus.net>
> > To: "'Joe DeCosta'" <decosta at bayconnect.com>; "'Douglas Cohn'"
> > <Douglas.Cohn at Virtualscape.com>; <vwp at arin.net>
> > Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2001 2:17 PM
> > Subject: RE: ARIN Justified...
> >
> >
> > > No argument at all on those points either Joe,
> > >
> > > In fact, it seems there is a lot of common ground on this topic, maybe
> we
> > > should try to identify the specific agreed-upon points and
> > disagreements...?
> > >
> > > It might be something to work from.
> > >
> > > -Clay
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of Joe
> > > DeCosta
> > > Sent: Monday, January 08, 2001 6:44 PM
> > > To: Clayton Lambert; 'Douglas Cohn'; vwp at arin.net
> > > Subject: Re: ARIN Justified...
> > >
> > >
> > > agreed, but with all of the home users, shouldn't some of the major
> ISP's
> > be
> > > considering NAT for DSL/ISDN and Dialup users? i mean, it's an idea, i
> > don't
> > > know how well it would be accepted, i also think that AOL should be
> forced
> > > to use NAT.........its rediclous to see how many IP blocks they own, but
> > > dialup/isdn/dsl NAT i think could be a suggestion to ISP's no??
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Clayton Lambert" <Clay at exodus.net>
> > > To: "'Douglas Cohn'" <Douglas.Cohn at Virtualscape.com>; <vwp at arin.net>
> > > Sent: Monday, January 08, 2001 4:59 PM
> > > Subject: RE: ARIN Justified...
> > >
> > >
> > > > IPv6 is not the panacea you seem to think it is...
> > > >
> > > > With a mentality like that, we'd burn thru IPv6 in 10 years or less...
> > > >
> > > > -Clay
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of
> Douglas
> > > > Cohn
> > > > Sent: Friday, January 05, 2001 6:59 AM
> > > > To: vwp at arin.net
> > > > Subject: FW: ARIN Justified...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I forwarded your email to the list for you
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Allen Ahoffman [mailto:ahoffman at announce.com]
> > > > Sent: Friday, July 10, 2893 6:44 PM
> > > > To: Douglas Cohn
> > > > Subject: Re: ARIN Justified...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > OK let me interject a question into this discussion:
> > > >
> > > > Why are we requiring a /19 or in some cases /20 of space before being
> > > > allowed to get our own allocation?
> > > > I realize management is an issue, but a $2500/year it encourages small
> > > > users to build up to that point.
> > > >
> > > > We get users who don't want us to have iI space from other vendors, so
> > > > we
> > > > get pressure for more iP usage and pressure for less.
> > > >
> > > > For example, in converting from one provider to another I have had
> > > > difficult time getting replacment iP space in less than 8 months now,
> > > > but
> > > > was making efforts to not purchase the /19.  I thik we might bge by
> > > > without it but the minimum size creates pressure to fill IP(s).
> > > > I do agree that users seem to want IP(s) without reason, seems like
> IPV6
> > > > might look more appealing every day?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > [Charset
> > > > iso-8859-1 unsupported,
> > > > filtering to ASCII...] > I must get my two cents in here as well.
> > > > >
> > > > > I feel Clayton has the right track.
> > > > >
> > > > > I manage IP allocation as well for dedicated and colocated clients.
> > > > Our
> > > > > policy used to state each server was issued 16 IPs.  We provision
> with
> > > > 1
> > > > > IP only.  If a client asks for the rest I also require the need for
> > > > the
> > > > > IPs.
> > > > > Too often they want them for testing or only because they saw that
> > > > they
> > > > > get 16 IPs with a server.  They must supply the domain names and
> > > > reasons
> > > > > why they cannot use IPless hosting.  While I will not force IPless
> > > > > hosting on clients I push it and train it's use for free.
> > > > >
> > > > > We now state that you get a single IP with each dedicated server and
> > > > > additional IPs are billed on a monthly basis.  This helps a lot to
> > > > > defray usage.  While it is a revenue stream that is not it's purpose
> > > > > whatsoever.
> > > > >
> > > > > In Shared hosting though the issues are clearly Search engines and
> SSL
> > > > > as far as I know.
> > > > >
> > > > > Most people understand why we watch our address space and appreciate
> > > > it.
> > > > >
> > > > > Douglas Cohn
> > > > > Manager NY Engineering
> > > > > Hostcentric, Inc.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of
> > > > Stephen
> > > > > Elliott
> > > > > Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 4:47 PM
> > > > > To: Clayton Lambert; Virtual IP List
> > > > > Subject: Re: ARIN Justified...
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > :-)  The reason I mentioned Exodus is because we are a customer of
> > > > > Exodus, and in my opinion, the policy is too restrictive.  And the
> > > > > statement was directed at the fact that Exodus hosts many companies
> > > > that
> > > > > are in the business of hosting websites, not Exodus as a company.
> As
> > > > I
> > > > > have stated in earlier postings, simply clamping down and
> restricting
> > > > > virtual web hosting is not the answer.  Any list of justifications,
> no
> > > > > matter how much thought went into it, will not cover every possible
> > > > > reason for needing the IP's.  Documentation is a great thing, just
> the
> > > > > fact that someone has to sit down and write out a list of machines
> > > > that
> > > > > need IP's will deter most people from requesting extra IP's.
> > > > > -Stephen
> > > > >
> > > > > Clayton Lambert wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Do you have ANY idea of what you are saying?  Sorry for appearing
> > > > > brash,
> > > > > > but...I run the IP maintenance organization at Exodus, and I would
> > > > > easily
> > > > > > stack our allocation policy up against anybody's.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You have no idea what you are talking about in regard to larger
> > > > > companies.
> > > > > > Exodus consumes a very modest amount of address space given our
> size
> > > > > and
> > > > > > presence on the Internet.  There are much smaller competitors of
> > > > ours
> > > > > that
> > > > > > consume larger amounts of IP space.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Exodus is already pioneering the efficiency of use ideology that I
> > > > > would
> > > > > > like to see ARIN adopt (a strong HTTP1.1 stance on ARIN's part is
> a
> > > > > good
> > > > > > start).  We currently require extensive supporting documentation
> for
> > > > > IP
> > > > > > requests from all our Customers.  A Customer has to show a
> > > > documented
> > > > > need
> > > > > > for their usage request and we file all these requests and refer
> to
> > > > > past
> > > > > > requests and detail as additional requests for address space
> occur.
> > > > > This
> > > > > > method gives us a very clear and honest indication of IP address
> > > > usage
> > > > > > growth. This allows us to support our Customers' IP addressing
> needs
> > > > > in a
> > > > > > very accurate and efficient way.  The end result is less
> consumption
> > > > > of IPv4
> > > > > > space across the board.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Clayton Lambert
> > > > > > Exodus Communications
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of
> > > > > Stephen
> > > > > > Elliott
> > > > > > Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 12:20 PM
> > > > > > To: Virtual IP List
> > > > > > Subject: RE: ARIN Justified...
> > > > > >
> > > > > >         The big guys that you refer to are generally not in the
> web
> > > > > hosting
> > > > > > business and therefore are outside of the scope of this
> > > > conversation.
> > > > > > The real concern is the big guys like Exodus and UUNet.  Since
> IPv6
> > > > is
> > > > > > not a viable option for general consumption yet, we need to
> > > > > concentrate
> > > > > > on conserving the existing IPv4 space.  As far as search engines
> go,
> > > > > if
> > > > > > enough sites start using HTTP1.1 software virtual servers, they
> will
> > > > > be
> > > > > > forced to upgrade their spiders to support it.  I would suggest
> that
> > > > > one
> > > > > > of the main issues at hand is billing.  Billing for web hosting
> > > > > > companies that is.  Most companies bundle bandwidth with their
> > > > hosting
> > > > > > packages, and current billing packages utilize destination IP
> > > > address
> > > > > > information to gather this information.  If there is not a way to
> > > > get
> > > > > > this information without drastic changes to both billing software
> > > > and
> > > > > in
> > > > > > some cases hardware, there will be very strong opposition to any
> > > > > changes
> > > > > > in the way IP addresses are given out.
> > > > > > -Stephen
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Stephen Elliott                 Harrison & Troxell
> > > > > > Systems & Networking Manager    2 Faneuil Hall Marketplace
> > > > > > Systems & Networking Group      Boston, Ma 02109
> > > > > > (617)227-0494 Phone             (617)720-3918 Fax
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Stephen Elliott                 Harrison & Troxell
> > > > > Systems & Networking Manager    2 Faneuil Hall Marketplace
> > > > > Systems & Networking Group      Boston, Ma 02109
> > > > > (617)227-0494 Phone             (617)720-3918 Fax
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> 
> **********************************************************************
> 
> The information in this e-mail is confidential and is legally privileged.
> It is intended solely for the addressee.  If this email is not intended for
> you, you cannot copy, distribute, or disclose the included information
> to any-one
> 
> If you are not the intended recipient please delete the mail. Whilst
> all reasonable steps have been taken to ensure the accuracy and
> integrity of all data transmitted electronically, no liability is accepted
> if the data, for whatever reason, is corrupt or does not reach it's
> intended destination.
> All business is undertaken, subject to our standard trading conditions
> which are available on request.
> 
> *******************************************************************


From jmacknik at inflow.com  Wed Jan 10 08:06:08 2001
From: jmacknik at inflow.com (Jim Macknik)
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 06:06:08 -0700
Subject: ARIN Justified...
Message-ID: <D71AE516100FD411BC5A00508B62C411025B01BA@polo.admin.den.inflow.com>

I agree with the essence of what you're saying here. I just wanted to throw
the comments out there, because until now I have not seen any explicit
notice from ARIN stating that those organizations that currently have /8s
and /16s allocated to them will have to justify their use or they will be
revoked. I think this will be important in getting buy-in from the general
population that will be looking to get IPs. ARIN may be looking at nasty
political or legal ramifications if they don't. If there is any sense of
favoritism to companies like SUN (mentioned earlier as having a gastly
number of IPs) or Microsoft, IBM, or Apple for that matter, then other,
newer companies will call foul. They will argue that they are unable to
compete, because they cannot provide their customers with what they
need/want. And in many ways, they will be right.

Is there anything in the new RFC that states that current owners of large
blocks will have to justify their use?

=- Jim Macknik -=

-----Original Message-----
From: Joe DeCosta [mailto:decosta at bayconnect.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2001 6:18 PM
To: Jim Macknik; vwp at arin.net
Subject: Re: ARIN Justified...


ARIN can enforce any policy it wants, remember, they CONTROL the IP traffic
of all of north america etc.  and who gets them, if they make an
administrative decision, it is most likely going to be in the best intrest
of the internet in general.  I doubt that GE needs an entire Class A subnet
etc etc. There are too many IP's issued in such a lax fashion.  Whereas we
are constantly being hounded by our Uplink to justify our small /24 because
they can't get IP's from ARIN hardly at all anymore.  It's not a matter will
arin require them to do it, its will the big TCP/IP stack carriers start
producing IPv6 compatible transport software.. In which case, it alleviates
the problem for now.  An ISP can assign real fully routeable IP's to
customers, but not the average end user who is doing simple web browsing and
e-mail and instant messaging etc.  It's not restricting whether or not a
business can do business, it is restricting how the IP's are controlled, one
day, there is going to come a time where there will be no IP's left at all,
because microsoft has their fingers in their tookuses (as does apple), in
creating a stable IPv6 compatible TCP/IP stack, etc... We're kind running
around in a paradox here....
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Macknik" <jmacknik at inflow.com>
To: <vwp at arin.net>
Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2001 3:35 PM
Subject: RE: ARIN Justified...


> This brings up a good point, as well. How will ARIN enforce its policies?
> There are large companies out there that have several Class B or Class A
> ranges all to themselves that they "reserved" years ago. I doubt many of
> these organizations could properly justify this space at this time.
>
> Will ARIN require them to justify their use and take away the extras,
> requiring huge organizations or ISPs to completely re-allocate their
> addressing? If they don't, how will they be able to justify revoking
denying
> space to others looking to increase their allocation?
>
> This isn't an easy one, but it certainly has to be addressed if ARIN is
> concerned about political ramifications of a policy that will affect
whether
> businesses can even *do* business.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joe DeCosta [mailto:decosta at bayconnect.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2001 4:00 PM
> To: Clayton Lambert; 'Douglas Cohn'; vwp at arin.net
> Subject: Re: ARIN Justified...
>
>
> Well, what do you think that the best approach to this would be, I think a
> BIG part of the entire IP space problem is the HUGE market of ISP's like
> earthlink, Genuity(aka BBN), and the free services that just give any
schmoe
> an IP address, I don't think that this is soemthing that  is viable, we
even
> to a small Extent use NAT/Name based Virtual Hosting for  some of the
> domains runing on the secondary T1 in our office.  This all works fine,
and
> uses 1 ip for many things.  Perhaps this is a viable options, but i do
think
> that ARIN should enforce some sort of NAT with providers (aol, earthlink,
> freebie ISPs et al.) who allow just anybody to have an IP when its not
> needed.  from an admin point of view this can be a bit hellish but well
> worth the IP space that is being wasted on people that dont *NEED* random
> inbound traffic.
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Clayton Lambert" <Clay at exodus.net>
> To: "'Joe DeCosta'" <decosta at bayconnect.com>; "'Douglas Cohn'"
> <Douglas.Cohn at Virtualscape.com>; <vwp at arin.net>
> Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2001 2:17 PM
> Subject: RE: ARIN Justified...
>
>
> > No argument at all on those points either Joe,
> >
> > In fact, it seems there is a lot of common ground on this topic, maybe
we
> > should try to identify the specific agreed-upon points and
> disagreements...?
> >
> > It might be something to work from.
> >
> > -Clay
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of Joe
> > DeCosta
> > Sent: Monday, January 08, 2001 6:44 PM
> > To: Clayton Lambert; 'Douglas Cohn'; vwp at arin.net
> > Subject: Re: ARIN Justified...
> >
> >
> > agreed, but with all of the home users, shouldn't some of the major
ISP's
> be
> > considering NAT for DSL/ISDN and Dialup users? i mean, it's an idea, i
> don't
> > know how well it would be accepted, i also think that AOL should be
forced
> > to use NAT.........its rediclous to see how many IP blocks they own, but
> > dialup/isdn/dsl NAT i think could be a suggestion to ISP's no??
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Clayton Lambert" <Clay at exodus.net>
> > To: "'Douglas Cohn'" <Douglas.Cohn at Virtualscape.com>; <vwp at arin.net>
> > Sent: Monday, January 08, 2001 4:59 PM
> > Subject: RE: ARIN Justified...
> >
> >
> > > IPv6 is not the panacea you seem to think it is...
> > >
> > > With a mentality like that, we'd burn thru IPv6 in 10 years or less...
> > >
> > > -Clay
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of
Douglas
> > > Cohn
> > > Sent: Friday, January 05, 2001 6:59 AM
> > > To: vwp at arin.net
> > > Subject: FW: ARIN Justified...
> > >
> > >
> > > I forwarded your email to the list for you
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Allen Ahoffman [mailto:ahoffman at announce.com]
> > > Sent: Friday, July 10, 2893 6:44 PM
> > > To: Douglas Cohn
> > > Subject: Re: ARIN Justified...
> > >
> > >
> > > OK let me interject a question into this discussion:
> > >
> > > Why are we requiring a /19 or in some cases /20 of space before being
> > > allowed to get our own allocation?
> > > I realize management is an issue, but a $2500/year it encourages small
> > > users to build up to that point.
> > >
> > > We get users who don't want us to have iI space from other vendors, so
> > > we
> > > get pressure for more iP usage and pressure for less.
> > >
> > > For example, in converting from one provider to another I have had
> > > difficult time getting replacment iP space in less than 8 months now,
> > > but
> > > was making efforts to not purchase the /19.  I thik we might bge by
> > > without it but the minimum size creates pressure to fill IP(s).
> > > I do agree that users seem to want IP(s) without reason, seems like
IPV6
> > > might look more appealing every day?
> > >
> > >
> > > [Charset
> > > iso-8859-1 unsupported,
> > > filtering to ASCII...] > I must get my two cents in here as well.
> > > >
> > > > I feel Clayton has the right track.
> > > >
> > > > I manage IP allocation as well for dedicated and colocated clients.
> > > Our
> > > > policy used to state each server was issued 16 IPs.  We provision
with
> > > 1
> > > > IP only.  If a client asks for the rest I also require the need for
> > > the
> > > > IPs.
> > > > Too often they want them for testing or only because they saw that
> > > they
> > > > get 16 IPs with a server.  They must supply the domain names and
> > > reasons
> > > > why they cannot use IPless hosting.  While I will not force IPless
> > > > hosting on clients I push it and train it's use for free.
> > > >
> > > > We now state that you get a single IP with each dedicated server and
> > > > additional IPs are billed on a monthly basis.  This helps a lot to
> > > > defray usage.  While it is a revenue stream that is not it's purpose
> > > > whatsoever.
> > > >
> > > > In Shared hosting though the issues are clearly Search engines and
SSL
> > > > as far as I know.
> > > >
> > > > Most people understand why we watch our address space and appreciate
> > > it.
> > > >
> > > > Douglas Cohn
> > > > Manager NY Engineering
> > > > Hostcentric, Inc.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of
> > > Stephen
> > > > Elliott
> > > > Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 4:47 PM
> > > > To: Clayton Lambert; Virtual IP List
> > > > Subject: Re: ARIN Justified...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > :-)  The reason I mentioned Exodus is because we are a customer of
> > > > Exodus, and in my opinion, the policy is too restrictive.  And the
> > > > statement was directed at the fact that Exodus hosts many companies
> > > that
> > > > are in the business of hosting websites, not Exodus as a company.
As
> > > I
> > > > have stated in earlier postings, simply clamping down and
restricting
> > > > virtual web hosting is not the answer.  Any list of justifications,
no
> > > > matter how much thought went into it, will not cover every possible
> > > > reason for needing the IP's.  Documentation is a great thing, just
the
> > > > fact that someone has to sit down and write out a list of machines
> > > that
> > > > need IP's will deter most people from requesting extra IP's.
> > > > -Stephen
> > > >
> > > > Clayton Lambert wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Do you have ANY idea of what you are saying?  Sorry for appearing
> > > > brash,
> > > > > but...I run the IP maintenance organization at Exodus, and I would
> > > > easily
> > > > > stack our allocation policy up against anybody's.
> > > > >
> > > > > You have no idea what you are talking about in regard to larger
> > > > companies.
> > > > > Exodus consumes a very modest amount of address space given our
size
> > > > and
> > > > > presence on the Internet.  There are much smaller competitors of
> > > ours
> > > > that
> > > > > consume larger amounts of IP space.
> > > > >
> > > > > Exodus is already pioneering the efficiency of use ideology that I
> > > > would
> > > > > like to see ARIN adopt (a strong HTTP1.1 stance on ARIN's part is
a
> > > > good
> > > > > start).  We currently require extensive supporting documentation
for
> > > > IP
> > > > > requests from all our Customers.  A Customer has to show a
> > > documented
> > > > need
> > > > > for their usage request and we file all these requests and refer
to
> > > > past
> > > > > requests and detail as additional requests for address space
occur.
> > > > This
> > > > > method gives us a very clear and honest indication of IP address
> > > usage
> > > > > growth. This allows us to support our Customers' IP addressing
needs
> > > > in a
> > > > > very accurate and efficient way.  The end result is less
consumption
> > > > of IPv4
> > > > > space across the board.
> > > > >
> > > > > Clayton Lambert
> > > > > Exodus Communications
> > > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of
> > > > Stephen
> > > > > Elliott
> > > > > Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 12:20 PM
> > > > > To: Virtual IP List
> > > > > Subject: RE: ARIN Justified...
> > > > >
> > > > >         The big guys that you refer to are generally not in the
web
> > > > hosting
> > > > > business and therefore are outside of the scope of this
> > > conversation.
> > > > > The real concern is the big guys like Exodus and UUNet.  Since
IPv6
> > > is
> > > > > not a viable option for general consumption yet, we need to
> > > > concentrate
> > > > > on conserving the existing IPv4 space.  As far as search engines
go,
> > > > if
> > > > > enough sites start using HTTP1.1 software virtual servers, they
will
> > > > be
> > > > > forced to upgrade their spiders to support it.  I would suggest
that
> > > > one
> > > > > of the main issues at hand is billing.  Billing for web hosting
> > > > > companies that is.  Most companies bundle bandwidth with their
> > > hosting
> > > > > packages, and current billing packages utilize destination IP
> > > address
> > > > > information to gather this information.  If there is not a way to
> > > get
> > > > > this information without drastic changes to both billing software
> > > and
> > > > in
> > > > > some cases hardware, there will be very strong opposition to any
> > > > changes
> > > > > in the way IP addresses are given out.
> > > > > -Stephen
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Stephen Elliott                 Harrison & Troxell
> > > > > Systems & Networking Manager    2 Faneuil Hall Marketplace
> > > > > Systems & Networking Group      Boston, Ma 02109
> > > > > (617)227-0494 Phone             (617)720-3918 Fax
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Stephen Elliott                 Harrison & Troxell
> > > > Systems & Networking Manager    2 Faneuil Hall Marketplace
> > > > Systems & Networking Group      Boston, Ma 02109
> > > > (617)227-0494 Phone             (617)720-3918 Fax
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>


From Gilbert.Martin at za.didata.com  Wed Jan 10 08:08:25 2001
From: Gilbert.Martin at za.didata.com (Gilbert Martin @ Learning Solutions)
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 15:08:25 +0200
Subject: ARIN Justified..
Message-ID: <DC7ABD0A8338D311B2010008C79122EE03A52439@zajnbddsexc1.didata.co.za>

Yes, simply because of the fact that there will be x amount of addresses
given to machines and y amount available for huge web space useres, and even
inside of a corporate network secretaries do use the Internet address space
more, tentavively as soon as they discover Internet explorer they go
ballistic!!!

-----Original Message-----
From: Joe DeCosta [mailto:decosta at bayconnect.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2001 9:41 AM
To: Gilbert Martin @ Learning Solutions
Cc: 'Chris Miller'; Jim Macknik; vwp at arin.net
Subject: Re: ARIN Justified..


Could you clairfy why computers on INTERNAL networks would need a fully
routeable STATIC ip address? I don't see why a private computer inside a
corporate network at some secrataries desk needs a fully routeable
static ip. etc etc...



"Gilbert Martin @ Learning Solutions" wrote:
> 
> Exactly what I said yesterday, wouldn't it be more simple for people not
> accessing external networks via the INternet to rather be given a static
> address and then if the need arises let them also be able to request a
newer
> address, the end result will be that only those using ISP's will be using
up
> address space?
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chris Miller [mailto:ctodd at netgate.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2001 3:09 AM
> To: Jim Macknik
> Cc: vwp at arin.net
> Subject: RE: ARIN Justified..
> 
> Sun Microsystems (and others companies I'm sure) has many addresses that
> never see the internet, they use most of these strictly for their internal
> networks. Surely they could use reserved addresses for many of these
> purposes.....
> 
> Sun Microsystems, Inc. (NETBLK-SUN4)
>    2550 Garcia Avenue
>    Mountain View, CA 94043
> 
>    Netname: SUN4
>    Netblock: 129.144.0.0 - 129.159.255.255
> 
> Chris
> 
> On Tue, 9 Jan 2001, Jim Macknik wrote:
> 
> > This brings up a good point, as well. How will ARIN enforce its
policies?
> > There are large companies out there that have several Class B or Class A
> > ranges all to themselves that they "reserved" years ago. I doubt many of
> > these organizations could properly justify this space at this time.
> >
> > Will ARIN require them to justify their use and take away the extras,
> > requiring huge organizations or ISPs to completely re-allocate their
> > addressing? If they don't, how will they be able to justify revoking
> denying
> > space to others looking to increase their allocation?
> >
> > This isn't an easy one, but it certainly has to be addressed if ARIN is
> > concerned about political ramifications of a policy that will affect
> whether
> > businesses can even *do* business.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Joe DeCosta [mailto:decosta at bayconnect.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2001 4:00 PM
> > To: Clayton Lambert; 'Douglas Cohn'; vwp at arin.net
> > Subject: Re: ARIN Justified...
> >
> >
> > Well, what do you think that the best approach to this would be, I think
a
> > BIG part of the entire IP space problem is the HUGE market of ISP's like
> > earthlink, Genuity(aka BBN), and the free services that just give any
> schmoe
> > an IP address, I don't think that this is soemthing that  is viable, we
> even
> > to a small Extent use NAT/Name based Virtual Hosting for  some of the
> > domains runing on the secondary T1 in our office.  This all works fine,
> and
> > uses 1 ip for many things.  Perhaps this is a viable options, but i do
> think
> > that ARIN should enforce some sort of NAT with providers (aol,
earthlink,
> > freebie ISPs et al.) who allow just anybody to have an IP when its not
> > needed.  from an admin point of view this can be a bit hellish but well
> > worth the IP space that is being wasted on people that dont *NEED*
random
> > inbound traffic.
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Clayton Lambert" <Clay at exodus.net>
> > To: "'Joe DeCosta'" <decosta at bayconnect.com>; "'Douglas Cohn'"
> > <Douglas.Cohn at Virtualscape.com>; <vwp at arin.net>
> > Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2001 2:17 PM
> > Subject: RE: ARIN Justified...
> >
> >
> > > No argument at all on those points either Joe,
> > >
> > > In fact, it seems there is a lot of common ground on this topic, maybe
> we
> > > should try to identify the specific agreed-upon points and
> > disagreements...?
> > >
> > > It might be something to work from.
> > >
> > > -Clay
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of Joe
> > > DeCosta
> > > Sent: Monday, January 08, 2001 6:44 PM
> > > To: Clayton Lambert; 'Douglas Cohn'; vwp at arin.net
> > > Subject: Re: ARIN Justified...
> > >
> > >
> > > agreed, but with all of the home users, shouldn't some of the major
> ISP's
> > be
> > > considering NAT for DSL/ISDN and Dialup users? i mean, it's an idea, i
> > don't
> > > know how well it would be accepted, i also think that AOL should be
> forced
> > > to use NAT.........its rediclous to see how many IP blocks they own,
but
> > > dialup/isdn/dsl NAT i think could be a suggestion to ISP's no??
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Clayton Lambert" <Clay at exodus.net>
> > > To: "'Douglas Cohn'" <Douglas.Cohn at Virtualscape.com>; <vwp at arin.net>
> > > Sent: Monday, January 08, 2001 4:59 PM
> > > Subject: RE: ARIN Justified...
> > >
> > >
> > > > IPv6 is not the panacea you seem to think it is...
> > > >
> > > > With a mentality like that, we'd burn thru IPv6 in 10 years or
less...
> > > >
> > > > -Clay
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of
> Douglas
> > > > Cohn
> > > > Sent: Friday, January 05, 2001 6:59 AM
> > > > To: vwp at arin.net
> > > > Subject: FW: ARIN Justified...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I forwarded your email to the list for you
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Allen Ahoffman [mailto:ahoffman at announce.com]
> > > > Sent: Friday, July 10, 2893 6:44 PM
> > > > To: Douglas Cohn
> > > > Subject: Re: ARIN Justified...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > OK let me interject a question into this discussion:
> > > >
> > > > Why are we requiring a /19 or in some cases /20 of space before
being
> > > > allowed to get our own allocation?
> > > > I realize management is an issue, but a $2500/year it encourages
small
> > > > users to build up to that point.
> > > >
> > > > We get users who don't want us to have iI space from other vendors,
so
> > > > we
> > > > get pressure for more iP usage and pressure for less.
> > > >
> > > > For example, in converting from one provider to another I have had
> > > > difficult time getting replacment iP space in less than 8 months
now,
> > > > but
> > > > was making efforts to not purchase the /19.  I thik we might bge by
> > > > without it but the minimum size creates pressure to fill IP(s).
> > > > I do agree that users seem to want IP(s) without reason, seems like
> IPV6
> > > > might look more appealing every day?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > [Charset
> > > > iso-8859-1 unsupported,
> > > > filtering to ASCII...] > I must get my two cents in here as well.
> > > > >
> > > > > I feel Clayton has the right track.
> > > > >
> > > > > I manage IP allocation as well for dedicated and colocated
clients.
> > > > Our
> > > > > policy used to state each server was issued 16 IPs.  We provision
> with
> > > > 1
> > > > > IP only.  If a client asks for the rest I also require the need
for
> > > > the
> > > > > IPs.
> > > > > Too often they want them for testing or only because they saw that
> > > > they
> > > > > get 16 IPs with a server.  They must supply the domain names and
> > > > reasons
> > > > > why they cannot use IPless hosting.  While I will not force IPless
> > > > > hosting on clients I push it and train it's use for free.
> > > > >
> > > > > We now state that you get a single IP with each dedicated server
and
> > > > > additional IPs are billed on a monthly basis.  This helps a lot to
> > > > > defray usage.  While it is a revenue stream that is not it's
purpose
> > > > > whatsoever.
> > > > >
> > > > > In Shared hosting though the issues are clearly Search engines and
> SSL
> > > > > as far as I know.
> > > > >
> > > > > Most people understand why we watch our address space and
appreciate
> > > > it.
> > > > >
> > > > > Douglas Cohn
> > > > > Manager NY Engineering
> > > > > Hostcentric, Inc.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of
> > > > Stephen
> > > > > Elliott
> > > > > Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 4:47 PM
> > > > > To: Clayton Lambert; Virtual IP List
> > > > > Subject: Re: ARIN Justified...
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > :-)  The reason I mentioned Exodus is because we are a customer of
> > > > > Exodus, and in my opinion, the policy is too restrictive.  And the
> > > > > statement was directed at the fact that Exodus hosts many
companies
> > > > that
> > > > > are in the business of hosting websites, not Exodus as a company.
> As
> > > > I
> > > > > have stated in earlier postings, simply clamping down and
> restricting
> > > > > virtual web hosting is not the answer.  Any list of
justifications,
> no
> > > > > matter how much thought went into it, will not cover every
possible
> > > > > reason for needing the IP's.  Documentation is a great thing, just
> the
> > > > > fact that someone has to sit down and write out a list of machines
> > > > that
> > > > > need IP's will deter most people from requesting extra IP's.
> > > > > -Stephen
> > > > >
> > > > > Clayton Lambert wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Do you have ANY idea of what you are saying?  Sorry for
appearing
> > > > > brash,
> > > > > > but...I run the IP maintenance organization at Exodus, and I
would
> > > > > easily
> > > > > > stack our allocation policy up against anybody's.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You have no idea what you are talking about in regard to larger
> > > > > companies.
> > > > > > Exodus consumes a very modest amount of address space given our
> size
> > > > > and
> > > > > > presence on the Internet.  There are much smaller competitors of
> > > > ours
> > > > > that
> > > > > > consume larger amounts of IP space.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Exodus is already pioneering the efficiency of use ideology that
I
> > > > > would
> > > > > > like to see ARIN adopt (a strong HTTP1.1 stance on ARIN's part
is
> a
> > > > > good
> > > > > > start).  We currently require extensive supporting documentation
> for
> > > > > IP
> > > > > > requests from all our Customers.  A Customer has to show a
> > > > documented
> > > > > need
> > > > > > for their usage request and we file all these requests and refer
> to
> > > > > past
> > > > > > requests and detail as additional requests for address space
> occur.
> > > > > This
> > > > > > method gives us a very clear and honest indication of IP address
> > > > usage
> > > > > > growth. This allows us to support our Customers' IP addressing
> needs
> > > > > in a
> > > > > > very accurate and efficient way.  The end result is less
> consumption
> > > > > of IPv4
> > > > > > space across the board.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Clayton Lambert
> > > > > > Exodus Communications
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of
> > > > > Stephen
> > > > > > Elliott
> > > > > > Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 12:20 PM
> > > > > > To: Virtual IP List
> > > > > > Subject: RE: ARIN Justified...
> > > > > >
> > > > > >         The big guys that you refer to are generally not in the
> web
> > > > > hosting
> > > > > > business and therefore are outside of the scope of this
> > > > conversation.
> > > > > > The real concern is the big guys like Exodus and UUNet.  Since
> IPv6
> > > > is
> > > > > > not a viable option for general consumption yet, we need to
> > > > > concentrate
> > > > > > on conserving the existing IPv4 space.  As far as search engines
> go,
> > > > > if
> > > > > > enough sites start using HTTP1.1 software virtual servers, they
> will
> > > > > be
> > > > > > forced to upgrade their spiders to support it.  I would suggest
> that
> > > > > one
> > > > > > of the main issues at hand is billing.  Billing for web hosting
> > > > > > companies that is.  Most companies bundle bandwidth with their
> > > > hosting
> > > > > > packages, and current billing packages utilize destination IP
> > > > address
> > > > > > information to gather this information.  If there is not a way
to
> > > > get
> > > > > > this information without drastic changes to both billing
software
> > > > and
> > > > > in
> > > > > > some cases hardware, there will be very strong opposition to any
> > > > > changes
> > > > > > in the way IP addresses are given out.
> > > > > > -Stephen
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Stephen Elliott                 Harrison & Troxell
> > > > > > Systems & Networking Manager    2 Faneuil Hall Marketplace
> > > > > > Systems & Networking Group      Boston, Ma 02109
> > > > > > (617)227-0494 Phone             (617)720-3918 Fax
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Stephen Elliott                 Harrison & Troxell
> > > > > Systems & Networking Manager    2 Faneuil Hall Marketplace
> > > > > Systems & Networking Group      Boston, Ma 02109
> > > > > (617)227-0494 Phone             (617)720-3918 Fax
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> 
> **********************************************************************
> 
> The information in this e-mail is confidential and is legally privileged.
> It is intended solely for the addressee.  If this email is not intended
for
> you, you cannot copy, distribute, or disclose the included information
> to any-one
> 
> If you are not the intended recipient please delete the mail. Whilst
> all reasonable steps have been taken to ensure the accuracy and
> integrity of all data transmitted electronically, no liability is accepted
> if the data, for whatever reason, is corrupt or does not reach it's
> intended destination.
> All business is undertaken, subject to our standard trading conditions
> which are available on request.
> 
> *******************************************************************


**********************************************************************

The information in this e-mail is confidential and is legally privileged.
It is intended solely for the addressee.  If this email is not intended for
you, you cannot copy, distribute, or disclose the included information
to any-one

If you are not the intended recipient please delete the mail. Whilst
all reasonable steps have been taken to ensure the accuracy and
integrity of all data transmitted electronically, no liability is accepted
if the data, for whatever reason, is corrupt or does not reach it's
intended destination.
All business is undertaken, subject to our standard trading conditions
which are available on request.

*******************************************************************


From Gilbert.Martin at za.didata.com  Wed Jan 10 08:31:28 2001
From: Gilbert.Martin at za.didata.com (Gilbert Martin @ Learning Solutions)
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 15:31:28 +0200
Subject: ARIN Justified...
Message-ID: <DC7ABD0A8338D311B2010008C79122EE03A5243C@zajnbddsexc1.didata.co.za>

But referrentially big companies do pay for there share of /16s or /8s how
can smaller companies call foul if they don't pay for more?
Our little planet revolves around money.

-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Macknik [mailto:jmacknik at inflow.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2001 3:06 PM
To: 'Joe DeCosta'; vwp at arin.net
Subject: RE: ARIN Justified...


I agree with the essence of what you're saying here. I just wanted to throw
the comments out there, because until now I have not seen any explicit
notice from ARIN stating that those organizations that currently have /8s
and /16s allocated to them will have to justify their use or they will be
revoked. I think this will be important in getting buy-in from the general
population that will be looking to get IPs. ARIN may be looking at nasty
political or legal ramifications if they don't. If there is any sense of
favoritism to companies like SUN (mentioned earlier as having a gastly
number of IPs) or Microsoft, IBM, or Apple for that matter, then other,
newer companies will call foul. They will argue that they are unable to
compete, because they cannot provide their customers with what they
need/want. And in many ways, they will be right.

Is there anything in the new RFC that states that current owners of large
blocks will have to justify their use?

=- Jim Macknik -=

-----Original Message-----
From: Joe DeCosta [mailto:decosta at bayconnect.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2001 6:18 PM
To: Jim Macknik; vwp at arin.net
Subject: Re: ARIN Justified...


ARIN can enforce any policy it wants, remember, they CONTROL the IP traffic
of all of north america etc.  and who gets them, if they make an
administrative decision, it is most likely going to be in the best intrest
of the internet in general.  I doubt that GE needs an entire Class A subnet
etc etc. There are too many IP's issued in such a lax fashion.  Whereas we
are constantly being hounded by our Uplink to justify our small /24 because
they can't get IP's from ARIN hardly at all anymore.  It's not a matter will
arin require them to do it, its will the big TCP/IP stack carriers start
producing IPv6 compatible transport software.. In which case, it alleviates
the problem for now.  An ISP can assign real fully routeable IP's to
customers, but not the average end user who is doing simple web browsing and
e-mail and instant messaging etc.  It's not restricting whether or not a
business can do business, it is restricting how the IP's are controlled, one
day, there is going to come a time where there will be no IP's left at all,
because microsoft has their fingers in their tookuses (as does apple), in
creating a stable IPv6 compatible TCP/IP stack, etc... We're kind running
around in a paradox here....
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Macknik" <jmacknik at inflow.com>
To: <vwp at arin.net>
Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2001 3:35 PM
Subject: RE: ARIN Justified...


> This brings up a good point, as well. How will ARIN enforce its policies?
> There are large companies out there that have several Class B or Class A
> ranges all to themselves that they "reserved" years ago. I doubt many of
> these organizations could properly justify this space at this time.
>
> Will ARIN require them to justify their use and take away the extras,
> requiring huge organizations or ISPs to completely re-allocate their
> addressing? If they don't, how will they be able to justify revoking
denying
> space to others looking to increase their allocation?
>
> This isn't an easy one, but it certainly has to be addressed if ARIN is
> concerned about political ramifications of a policy that will affect
whether
> businesses can even *do* business.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joe DeCosta [mailto:decosta at bayconnect.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2001 4:00 PM
> To: Clayton Lambert; 'Douglas Cohn'; vwp at arin.net
> Subject: Re: ARIN Justified...
>
>
> Well, what do you think that the best approach to this would be, I think a
> BIG part of the entire IP space problem is the HUGE market of ISP's like
> earthlink, Genuity(aka BBN), and the free services that just give any
schmoe
> an IP address, I don't think that this is soemthing that  is viable, we
even
> to a small Extent use NAT/Name based Virtual Hosting for  some of the
> domains runing on the secondary T1 in our office.  This all works fine,
and
> uses 1 ip for many things.  Perhaps this is a viable options, but i do
think
> that ARIN should enforce some sort of NAT with providers (aol, earthlink,
> freebie ISPs et al.) who allow just anybody to have an IP when its not
> needed.  from an admin point of view this can be a bit hellish but well
> worth the IP space that is being wasted on people that dont *NEED* random
> inbound traffic.
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Clayton Lambert" <Clay at exodus.net>
> To: "'Joe DeCosta'" <decosta at bayconnect.com>; "'Douglas Cohn'"
> <Douglas.Cohn at Virtualscape.com>; <vwp at arin.net>
> Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2001 2:17 PM
> Subject: RE: ARIN Justified...
>
>
> > No argument at all on those points either Joe,
> >
> > In fact, it seems there is a lot of common ground on this topic, maybe
we
> > should try to identify the specific agreed-upon points and
> disagreements...?
> >
> > It might be something to work from.
> >
> > -Clay
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of Joe
> > DeCosta
> > Sent: Monday, January 08, 2001 6:44 PM
> > To: Clayton Lambert; 'Douglas Cohn'; vwp at arin.net
> > Subject: Re: ARIN Justified...
> >
> >
> > agreed, but with all of the home users, shouldn't some of the major
ISP's
> be
> > considering NAT for DSL/ISDN and Dialup users? i mean, it's an idea, i
> don't
> > know how well it would be accepted, i also think that AOL should be
forced
> > to use NAT.........its rediclous to see how many IP blocks they own, but
> > dialup/isdn/dsl NAT i think could be a suggestion to ISP's no??
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Clayton Lambert" <Clay at exodus.net>
> > To: "'Douglas Cohn'" <Douglas.Cohn at Virtualscape.com>; <vwp at arin.net>
> > Sent: Monday, January 08, 2001 4:59 PM
> > Subject: RE: ARIN Justified...
> >
> >
> > > IPv6 is not the panacea you seem to think it is...
> > >
> > > With a mentality like that, we'd burn thru IPv6 in 10 years or less...
> > >
> > > -Clay
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of
Douglas
> > > Cohn
> > > Sent: Friday, January 05, 2001 6:59 AM
> > > To: vwp at arin.net
> > > Subject: FW: ARIN Justified...
> > >
> > >
> > > I forwarded your email to the list for you
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Allen Ahoffman [mailto:ahoffman at announce.com]
> > > Sent: Friday, July 10, 2893 6:44 PM
> > > To: Douglas Cohn
> > > Subject: Re: ARIN Justified...
> > >
> > >
> > > OK let me interject a question into this discussion:
> > >
> > > Why are we requiring a /19 or in some cases /20 of space before being
> > > allowed to get our own allocation?
> > > I realize management is an issue, but a $2500/year it encourages small
> > > users to build up to that point.
> > >
> > > We get users who don't want us to have iI space from other vendors, so
> > > we
> > > get pressure for more iP usage and pressure for less.
> > >
> > > For example, in converting from one provider to another I have had
> > > difficult time getting replacment iP space in less than 8 months now,
> > > but
> > > was making efforts to not purchase the /19.  I thik we might bge by
> > > without it but the minimum size creates pressure to fill IP(s).
> > > I do agree that users seem to want IP(s) without reason, seems like
IPV6
> > > might look more appealing every day?
> > >
> > >
> > > [Charset
> > > iso-8859-1 unsupported,
> > > filtering to ASCII...] > I must get my two cents in here as well.
> > > >
> > > > I feel Clayton has the right track.
> > > >
> > > > I manage IP allocation as well for dedicated and colocated clients.
> > > Our
> > > > policy used to state each server was issued 16 IPs.  We provision
with
> > > 1
> > > > IP only.  If a client asks for the rest I also require the need for
> > > the
> > > > IPs.
> > > > Too often they want them for testing or only because they saw that
> > > they
> > > > get 16 IPs with a server.  They must supply the domain names and
> > > reasons
> > > > why they cannot use IPless hosting.  While I will not force IPless
> > > > hosting on clients I push it and train it's use for free.
> > > >
> > > > We now state that you get a single IP with each dedicated server and
> > > > additional IPs are billed on a monthly basis.  This helps a lot to
> > > > defray usage.  While it is a revenue stream that is not it's purpose
> > > > whatsoever.
> > > >
> > > > In Shared hosting though the issues are clearly Search engines and
SSL
> > > > as far as I know.
> > > >
> > > > Most people understand why we watch our address space and appreciate
> > > it.
> > > >
> > > > Douglas Cohn
> > > > Manager NY Engineering
> > > > Hostcentric, Inc.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of
> > > Stephen
> > > > Elliott
> > > > Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 4:47 PM
> > > > To: Clayton Lambert; Virtual IP List
> > > > Subject: Re: ARIN Justified...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > :-)  The reason I mentioned Exodus is because we are a customer of
> > > > Exodus, and in my opinion, the policy is too restrictive.  And the
> > > > statement was directed at the fact that Exodus hosts many companies
> > > that
> > > > are in the business of hosting websites, not Exodus as a company.
As
> > > I
> > > > have stated in earlier postings, simply clamping down and
restricting
> > > > virtual web hosting is not the answer.  Any list of justifications,
no
> > > > matter how much thought went into it, will not cover every possible
> > > > reason for needing the IP's.  Documentation is a great thing, just
the
> > > > fact that someone has to sit down and write out a list of machines
> > > that
> > > > need IP's will deter most people from requesting extra IP's.
> > > > -Stephen
> > > >
> > > > Clayton Lambert wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Do you have ANY idea of what you are saying?  Sorry for appearing
> > > > brash,
> > > > > but...I run the IP maintenance organization at Exodus, and I would
> > > > easily
> > > > > stack our allocation policy up against anybody's.
> > > > >
> > > > > You have no idea what you are talking about in regard to larger
> > > > companies.
> > > > > Exodus consumes a very modest amount of address space given our
size
> > > > and
> > > > > presence on the Internet.  There are much smaller competitors of
> > > ours
> > > > that
> > > > > consume larger amounts of IP space.
> > > > >
> > > > > Exodus is already pioneering the efficiency of use ideology that I
> > > > would
> > > > > like to see ARIN adopt (a strong HTTP1.1 stance on ARIN's part is
a
> > > > good
> > > > > start).  We currently require extensive supporting documentation
for
> > > > IP
> > > > > requests from all our Customers.  A Customer has to show a
> > > documented
> > > > need
> > > > > for their usage request and we file all these requests and refer
to
> > > > past
> > > > > requests and detail as additional requests for address space
occur.
> > > > This
> > > > > method gives us a very clear and honest indication of IP address
> > > usage
> > > > > growth. This allows us to support our Customers' IP addressing
needs
> > > > in a
> > > > > very accurate and efficient way.  The end result is less
consumption
> > > > of IPv4
> > > > > space across the board.
> > > > >
> > > > > Clayton Lambert
> > > > > Exodus Communications
> > > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of
> > > > Stephen
> > > > > Elliott
> > > > > Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 12:20 PM
> > > > > To: Virtual IP List
> > > > > Subject: RE: ARIN Justified...
> > > > >
> > > > >         The big guys that you refer to are generally not in the
web
> > > > hosting
> > > > > business and therefore are outside of the scope of this
> > > conversation.
> > > > > The real concern is the big guys like Exodus and UUNet.  Since
IPv6
> > > is
> > > > > not a viable option for general consumption yet, we need to
> > > > concentrate
> > > > > on conserving the existing IPv4 space.  As far as search engines
go,
> > > > if
> > > > > enough sites start using HTTP1.1 software virtual servers, they
will
> > > > be
> > > > > forced to upgrade their spiders to support it.  I would suggest
that
> > > > one
> > > > > of the main issues at hand is billing.  Billing for web hosting
> > > > > companies that is.  Most companies bundle bandwidth with their
> > > hosting
> > > > > packages, and current billing packages utilize destination IP
> > > address
> > > > > information to gather this information.  If there is not a way to
> > > get
> > > > > this information without drastic changes to both billing software
> > > and
> > > > in
> > > > > some cases hardware, there will be very strong opposition to any
> > > > changes
> > > > > in the way IP addresses are given out.
> > > > > -Stephen
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Stephen Elliott                 Harrison & Troxell
> > > > > Systems & Networking Manager    2 Faneuil Hall Marketplace
> > > > > Systems & Networking Group      Boston, Ma 02109
> > > > > (617)227-0494 Phone             (617)720-3918 Fax
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Stephen Elliott                 Harrison & Troxell
> > > > Systems & Networking Manager    2 Faneuil Hall Marketplace
> > > > Systems & Networking Group      Boston, Ma 02109
> > > > (617)227-0494 Phone             (617)720-3918 Fax
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>


**********************************************************************

The information in this e-mail is confidential and is legally privileged.
It is intended solely for the addressee.  If this email is not intended for
you, you cannot copy, distribute, or disclose the included information
to any-one

If you are not the intended recipient please delete the mail. Whilst
all reasonable steps have been taken to ensure the accuracy and
integrity of all data transmitted electronically, no liability is accepted
if the data, for whatever reason, is corrupt or does not reach it's
intended destination.
All business is undertaken, subject to our standard trading conditions
which are available on request.

*******************************************************************


From Gilbert.Martin at za.didata.com  Wed Jan 10 08:14:45 2001
From: Gilbert.Martin at za.didata.com (Gilbert Martin @ Learning Solutions)
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 15:14:45 +0200
Subject: ARIN Justified..
Message-ID: <DC7ABD0A8338D311B2010008C79122EE03A5243B@zajnbddsexc1.didata.co.za>

What I am saying is the fact that every person with a machine should have
his own number like an Identity Number "Social Security Number" this will
also allow all ISPs, search engines, web hosters and so forth to locate
illegal activity and malicious attacks Give me a few hours and I will send
you a diagrma to explain in alittle more detail what I am saying here...

-----Original Message-----
From: Gilbert Martin @ Learning Solutions 
Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2001 3:08 PM
To: 'Joe DeCosta'; Gilbert Martin @ Learning Solutions
Cc: 'Chris Miller'; Jim Macknik; vwp at arin.net
Subject: RE: ARIN Justified..


Yes, simply because of the fact that there will be x amount of addresses
given to machines and y amount available for huge web space useres, and even
inside of a corporate network secretaries do use the Internet address space
more, tentavively as soon as they discover Internet explorer they go
ballistic!!!

-----Original Message-----
From: Joe DeCosta [mailto:decosta at bayconnect.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2001 9:41 AM
To: Gilbert Martin @ Learning Solutions
Cc: 'Chris Miller'; Jim Macknik; vwp at arin.net
Subject: Re: ARIN Justified..


Could you clairfy why computers on INTERNAL networks would need a fully
routeable STATIC ip address? I don't see why a private computer inside a
corporate network at some secrataries desk needs a fully routeable
static ip. etc etc...



"Gilbert Martin @ Learning Solutions" wrote:
> 
> Exactly what I said yesterday, wouldn't it be more simple for people not
> accessing external networks via the INternet to rather be given a static
> address and then if the need arises let them also be able to request a
newer
> address, the end result will be that only those using ISP's will be using
up
> address space?
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chris Miller [mailto:ctodd at netgate.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2001 3:09 AM
> To: Jim Macknik
> Cc: vwp at arin.net
> Subject: RE: ARIN Justified..
> 
> Sun Microsystems (and others companies I'm sure) has many addresses that
> never see the internet, they use most of these strictly for their internal
> networks. Surely they could use reserved addresses for many of these
> purposes.....
> 
> Sun Microsystems, Inc. (NETBLK-SUN4)
>    2550 Garcia Avenue
>    Mountain View, CA 94043
> 
>    Netname: SUN4
>    Netblock: 129.144.0.0 - 129.159.255.255
> 
> Chris
> 
> On Tue, 9 Jan 2001, Jim Macknik wrote:
> 
> > This brings up a good point, as well. How will ARIN enforce its
policies?
> > There are large companies out there that have several Class B or Class A
> > ranges all to themselves that they "reserved" years ago. I doubt many of
> > these organizations could properly justify this space at this time.
> >
> > Will ARIN require them to justify their use and take away the extras,
> > requiring huge organizations or ISPs to completely re-allocate their
> > addressing? If they don't, how will they be able to justify revoking
> denying
> > space to others looking to increase their allocation?
> >
> > This isn't an easy one, but it certainly has to be addressed if ARIN is
> > concerned about political ramifications of a policy that will affect
> whether
> > businesses can even *do* business.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Joe DeCosta [mailto:decosta at bayconnect.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2001 4:00 PM
> > To: Clayton Lambert; 'Douglas Cohn'; vwp at arin.net
> > Subject: Re: ARIN Justified...
> >
> >
> > Well, what do you think that the best approach to this would be, I think
a
> > BIG part of the entire IP space problem is the HUGE market of ISP's like
> > earthlink, Genuity(aka BBN), and the free services that just give any
> schmoe
> > an IP address, I don't think that this is soemthing that  is viable, we
> even
> > to a small Extent use NAT/Name based Virtual Hosting for  some of the
> > domains runing on the secondary T1 in our office.  This all works fine,
> and
> > uses 1 ip for many things.  Perhaps this is a viable options, but i do
> think
> > that ARIN should enforce some sort of NAT with providers (aol,
earthlink,
> > freebie ISPs et al.) who allow just anybody to have an IP when its not
> > needed.  from an admin point of view this can be a bit hellish but well
> > worth the IP space that is being wasted on people that dont *NEED*
random
> > inbound traffic.
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Clayton Lambert" <Clay at exodus.net>
> > To: "'Joe DeCosta'" <decosta at bayconnect.com>; "'Douglas Cohn'"
> > <Douglas.Cohn at Virtualscape.com>; <vwp at arin.net>
> > Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2001 2:17 PM
> > Subject: RE: ARIN Justified...
> >
> >
> > > No argument at all on those points either Joe,
> > >
> > > In fact, it seems there is a lot of common ground on this topic, maybe
> we
> > > should try to identify the specific agreed-upon points and
> > disagreements...?
> > >
> > > It might be something to work from.
> > >
> > > -Clay
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of Joe
> > > DeCosta
> > > Sent: Monday, January 08, 2001 6:44 PM
> > > To: Clayton Lambert; 'Douglas Cohn'; vwp at arin.net
> > > Subject: Re: ARIN Justified...
> > >
> > >
> > > agreed, but with all of the home users, shouldn't some of the major
> ISP's
> > be
> > > considering NAT for DSL/ISDN and Dialup users? i mean, it's an idea, i
> > don't
> > > know how well it would be accepted, i also think that AOL should be
> forced
> > > to use NAT.........its rediclous to see how many IP blocks they own,
but
> > > dialup/isdn/dsl NAT i think could be a suggestion to ISP's no??
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Clayton Lambert" <Clay at exodus.net>
> > > To: "'Douglas Cohn'" <Douglas.Cohn at Virtualscape.com>; <vwp at arin.net>
> > > Sent: Monday, January 08, 2001 4:59 PM
> > > Subject: RE: ARIN Justified...
> > >
> > >
> > > > IPv6 is not the panacea you seem to think it is...
> > > >
> > > > With a mentality like that, we'd burn thru IPv6 in 10 years or
less...
> > > >
> > > > -Clay
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of
> Douglas
> > > > Cohn
> > > > Sent: Friday, January 05, 2001 6:59 AM
> > > > To: vwp at arin.net
> > > > Subject: FW: ARIN Justified...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I forwarded your email to the list for you
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Allen Ahoffman [mailto:ahoffman at announce.com]
> > > > Sent: Friday, July 10, 2893 6:44 PM
> > > > To: Douglas Cohn
> > > > Subject: Re: ARIN Justified...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > OK let me interject a question into this discussion:
> > > >
> > > > Why are we requiring a /19 or in some cases /20 of space before
being
> > > > allowed to get our own allocation?
> > > > I realize management is an issue, but a $2500/year it encourages
small
> > > > users to build up to that point.
> > > >
> > > > We get users who don't want us to have iI space from other vendors,
so
> > > > we
> > > > get pressure for more iP usage and pressure for less.
> > > >
> > > > For example, in converting from one provider to another I have had
> > > > difficult time getting replacment iP space in less than 8 months
now,
> > > > but
> > > > was making efforts to not purchase the /19.  I thik we might bge by
> > > > without it but the minimum size creates pressure to fill IP(s).
> > > > I do agree that users seem to want IP(s) without reason, seems like
> IPV6
> > > > might look more appealing every day?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > [Charset
> > > > iso-8859-1 unsupported,
> > > > filtering to ASCII...] > I must get my two cents in here as well.
> > > > >
> > > > > I feel Clayton has the right track.
> > > > >
> > > > > I manage IP allocation as well for dedicated and colocated
clients.
> > > > Our
> > > > > policy used to state each server was issued 16 IPs.  We provision
> with
> > > > 1
> > > > > IP only.  If a client asks for the rest I also require the need
for
> > > > the
> > > > > IPs.
> > > > > Too often they want them for testing or only because they saw that
> > > > they
> > > > > get 16 IPs with a server.  They must supply the domain names and
> > > > reasons
> > > > > why they cannot use IPless hosting.  While I will not force IPless
> > > > > hosting on clients I push it and train it's use for free.
> > > > >
> > > > > We now state that you get a single IP with each dedicated server
and
> > > > > additional IPs are billed on a monthly basis.  This helps a lot to
> > > > > defray usage.  While it is a revenue stream that is not it's
purpose
> > > > > whatsoever.
> > > > >
> > > > > In Shared hosting though the issues are clearly Search engines and
> SSL
> > > > > as far as I know.
> > > > >
> > > > > Most people understand why we watch our address space and
appreciate
> > > > it.
> > > > >
> > > > > Douglas Cohn
> > > > > Manager NY Engineering
> > > > > Hostcentric, Inc.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of
> > > > Stephen
> > > > > Elliott
> > > > > Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 4:47 PM
> > > > > To: Clayton Lambert; Virtual IP List
> > > > > Subject: Re: ARIN Justified...
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > :-)  The reason I mentioned Exodus is because we are a customer of
> > > > > Exodus, and in my opinion, the policy is too restrictive.  And the
> > > > > statement was directed at the fact that Exodus hosts many
companies
> > > > that
> > > > > are in the business of hosting websites, not Exodus as a company.
> As
> > > > I
> > > > > have stated in earlier postings, simply clamping down and
> restricting
> > > > > virtual web hosting is not the answer.  Any list of
justifications,
> no
> > > > > matter how much thought went into it, will not cover every
possible
> > > > > reason for needing the IP's.  Documentation is a great thing, just
> the
> > > > > fact that someone has to sit down and write out a list of machines
> > > > that
> > > > > need IP's will deter most people from requesting extra IP's.
> > > > > -Stephen
> > > > >
> > > > > Clayton Lambert wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Do you have ANY idea of what you are saying?  Sorry for
appearing
> > > > > brash,
> > > > > > but...I run the IP maintenance organization at Exodus, and I
would
> > > > > easily
> > > > > > stack our allocation policy up against anybody's.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You have no idea what you are talking about in regard to larger
> > > > > companies.
> > > > > > Exodus consumes a very modest amount of address space given our
> size
> > > > > and
> > > > > > presence on the Internet.  There are much smaller competitors of
> > > > ours
> > > > > that
> > > > > > consume larger amounts of IP space.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Exodus is already pioneering the efficiency of use ideology that
I
> > > > > would
> > > > > > like to see ARIN adopt (a strong HTTP1.1 stance on ARIN's part
is
> a
> > > > > good
> > > > > > start).  We currently require extensive supporting documentation
> for
> > > > > IP
> > > > > > requests from all our Customers.  A Customer has to show a
> > > > documented
> > > > > need
> > > > > > for their usage request and we file all these requests and refer
> to
> > > > > past
> > > > > > requests and detail as additional requests for address space
> occur.
> > > > > This
> > > > > > method gives us a very clear and honest indication of IP address
> > > > usage
> > > > > > growth. This allows us to support our Customers' IP addressing
> needs
> > > > > in a
> > > > > > very accurate and efficient way.  The end result is less
> consumption
> > > > > of IPv4
> > > > > > space across the board.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Clayton Lambert
> > > > > > Exodus Communications
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of
> > > > > Stephen
> > > > > > Elliott
> > > > > > Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 12:20 PM
> > > > > > To: Virtual IP List
> > > > > > Subject: RE: ARIN Justified...
> > > > > >
> > > > > >         The big guys that you refer to are generally not in the
> web
> > > > > hosting
> > > > > > business and therefore are outside of the scope of this
> > > > conversation.
> > > > > > The real concern is the big guys like Exodus and UUNet.  Since
> IPv6
> > > > is
> > > > > > not a viable option for general consumption yet, we need to
> > > > > concentrate
> > > > > > on conserving the existing IPv4 space.  As far as search engines
> go,
> > > > > if
> > > > > > enough sites start using HTTP1.1 software virtual servers, they
> will
> > > > > be
> > > > > > forced to upgrade their spiders to support it.  I would suggest
> that
> > > > > one
> > > > > > of the main issues at hand is billing.  Billing for web hosting
> > > > > > companies that is.  Most companies bundle bandwidth with their
> > > > hosting
> > > > > > packages, and current billing packages utilize destination IP
> > > > address
> > > > > > information to gather this information.  If there is not a way
to
> > > > get
> > > > > > this information without drastic changes to both billing
software
> > > > and
> > > > > in
> > > > > > some cases hardware, there will be very strong opposition to any
> > > > > changes
> > > > > > in the way IP addresses are given out.
> > > > > > -Stephen
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Stephen Elliott                 Harrison & Troxell
> > > > > > Systems & Networking Manager    2 Faneuil Hall Marketplace
> > > > > > Systems & Networking Group      Boston, Ma 02109
> > > > > > (617)227-0494 Phone             (617)720-3918 Fax
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Stephen Elliott                 Harrison & Troxell
> > > > > Systems & Networking Manager    2 Faneuil Hall Marketplace
> > > > > Systems & Networking Group      Boston, Ma 02109
> > > > > (617)227-0494 Phone             (617)720-3918 Fax
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> 
> **********************************************************************
> 
> The information in this e-mail is confidential and is legally privileged.
> It is intended solely for the addressee.  If this email is not intended
for
> you, you cannot copy, distribute, or disclose the included information
> to any-one
> 
> If you are not the intended recipient please delete the mail. Whilst
> all reasonable steps have been taken to ensure the accuracy and
> integrity of all data transmitted electronically, no liability is accepted
> if the data, for whatever reason, is corrupt or does not reach it's
> intended destination.
> All business is undertaken, subject to our standard trading conditions
> which are available on request.
> 
> *******************************************************************


**********************************************************************

The information in this e-mail is confidential and is legally privileged.
It is intended solely for the addressee.  If this email is not intended for
you, you cannot copy, distribute, or disclose the included information
to any-one

If you are not the intended recipient please delete the mail. Whilst
all reasonable steps have been taken to ensure the accuracy and
integrity of all data transmitted electronically, no liability is accepted
if the data, for whatever reason, is corrupt or does not reach it's
intended destination.
All business is undertaken, subject to our standard trading conditions
which are available on request.

*******************************************************************


From bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com  Wed Jan 10 11:17:03 2001
From: bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com (bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com)
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 16:17:03 +0000 (UCT)
Subject: ARIN Justified..
In-Reply-To: <DC7ABD0A8338D311B2010008C79122EE03A5243B@zajnbddsexc1.didata.co.za> from "Gilbert Martin @ Learning Solutions" at Jan 10, 2001 03:14:45 PM
Message-ID: <200101101617.QAA12412@vacation.karoshi.com>


Two things:

	"grandfathered" delegations have been done so for a reason.
	changing the rules after the fact and forcing renumbering
	will bring legal challanges. 

	segregation of endpoint identifiers from topology is a 
	goal devoutly to be wished. unfortunately, in IP they are
	the same... even with v6. Nimrod attempted to fix the issue
	and there are some efforts to try and bring a working solution
	to light.

> What I am saying is the fact that every person with a machine should have
> his own number like an Identity Number "Social Security Number" this will
> also allow all ISPs, search engines, web hosters and so forth to locate
> illegal activity and malicious attacks Give me a few hours and I will send
> you a diagrma to explain in alittle more detail what I am saying here...
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gilbert Martin @ Learning Solutions 
> Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2001 3:08 PM
> To: 'Joe DeCosta'; Gilbert Martin @ Learning Solutions
> Cc: 'Chris Miller'; Jim Macknik; vwp at arin.net
> Subject: RE: ARIN Justified..
> 
> 
> Yes, simply because of the fact that there will be x amount of addresses
> given to machines and y amount available for huge web space useres, and even
> inside of a corporate network secretaries do use the Internet address space
> more, tentavively as soon as they discover Internet explorer they go
> ballistic!!!
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joe DeCosta [mailto:decosta at bayconnect.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2001 9:41 AM
> To: Gilbert Martin @ Learning Solutions
> Cc: 'Chris Miller'; Jim Macknik; vwp at arin.net
> Subject: Re: ARIN Justified..
> 
> 
> Could you clairfy why computers on INTERNAL networks would need a fully
> routeable STATIC ip address? I don't see why a private computer inside a
> corporate network at some secrataries desk needs a fully routeable
> static ip. etc etc...
> 
> 
> 
> "Gilbert Martin @ Learning Solutions" wrote:
> > 
> > Exactly what I said yesterday, wouldn't it be more simple for people not
> > accessing external networks via the INternet to rather be given a static
> > address and then if the need arises let them also be able to request a
> newer
> > address, the end result will be that only those using ISP's will be using
> up
> > address space?
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Chris Miller [mailto:ctodd at netgate.net]
> > Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2001 3:09 AM
> > To: Jim Macknik
> > Cc: vwp at arin.net
> > Subject: RE: ARIN Justified..
> > 
> > Sun Microsystems (and others companies I'm sure) has many addresses that
> > never see the internet, they use most of these strictly for their internal
> > networks. Surely they could use reserved addresses for many of these
> > purposes.....
> > 
> > Sun Microsystems, Inc. (NETBLK-SUN4)
> >    2550 Garcia Avenue
> >    Mountain View, CA 94043
> > 
> >    Netname: SUN4
> >    Netblock: 129.144.0.0 - 129.159.255.255
> > 
> > Chris
> > 
> > On Tue, 9 Jan 2001, Jim Macknik wrote:
> > 
> > > This brings up a good point, as well. How will ARIN enforce its
> policies?
> > > There are large companies out there that have several Class B or Class A
> > > ranges all to themselves that they "reserved" years ago. I doubt many of
> > > these organizations could properly justify this space at this time.
> > >
> > > Will ARIN require them to justify their use and take away the extras,
> > > requiring huge organizations or ISPs to completely re-allocate their
> > > addressing? If they don't, how will they be able to justify revoking
> > denying
> > > space to others looking to increase their allocation?
> > >
> > > This isn't an easy one, but it certainly has to be addressed if ARIN is
> > > concerned about political ramifications of a policy that will affect
> > whether
> > > businesses can even *do* business.
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Joe DeCosta [mailto:decosta at bayconnect.com]
> > > Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2001 4:00 PM
> > > To: Clayton Lambert; 'Douglas Cohn'; vwp at arin.net
> > > Subject: Re: ARIN Justified...
> > >
> > >
> > > Well, what do you think that the best approach to this would be, I think
> a
> > > BIG part of the entire IP space problem is the HUGE market of ISP's like
> > > earthlink, Genuity(aka BBN), and the free services that just give any
> > schmoe
> > > an IP address, I don't think that this is soemthing that  is viable, we
> > even
> > > to a small Extent use NAT/Name based Virtual Hosting for  some of the
> > > domains runing on the secondary T1 in our office.  This all works fine,
> > and
> > > uses 1 ip for many things.  Perhaps this is a viable options, but i do
> > think
> > > that ARIN should enforce some sort of NAT with providers (aol,
> earthlink,
> > > freebie ISPs et al.) who allow just anybody to have an IP when its not
> > > needed.  from an admin point of view this can be a bit hellish but well
> > > worth the IP space that is being wasted on people that dont *NEED*
> random
> > > inbound traffic.
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Clayton Lambert" <Clay at exodus.net>
> > > To: "'Joe DeCosta'" <decosta at bayconnect.com>; "'Douglas Cohn'"
> > > <Douglas.Cohn at Virtualscape.com>; <vwp at arin.net>
> > > Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2001 2:17 PM
> > > Subject: RE: ARIN Justified...
> > >
> > >
> > > > No argument at all on those points either Joe,
> > > >
> > > > In fact, it seems there is a lot of common ground on this topic, maybe
> > we
> > > > should try to identify the specific agreed-upon points and
> > > disagreements...?
> > > >
> > > > It might be something to work from.
> > > >
> > > > -Clay
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of Joe
> > > > DeCosta
> > > > Sent: Monday, January 08, 2001 6:44 PM
> > > > To: Clayton Lambert; 'Douglas Cohn'; vwp at arin.net
> > > > Subject: Re: ARIN Justified...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > agreed, but with all of the home users, shouldn't some of the major
> > ISP's
> > > be
> > > > considering NAT for DSL/ISDN and Dialup users? i mean, it's an idea, i
> > > don't
> > > > know how well it would be accepted, i also think that AOL should be
> > forced
> > > > to use NAT.........its rediclous to see how many IP blocks they own,
> but
> > > > dialup/isdn/dsl NAT i think could be a suggestion to ISP's no??
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: "Clayton Lambert" <Clay at exodus.net>
> > > > To: "'Douglas Cohn'" <Douglas.Cohn at Virtualscape.com>; <vwp at arin.net>
> > > > Sent: Monday, January 08, 2001 4:59 PM
> > > > Subject: RE: ARIN Justified...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > IPv6 is not the panacea you seem to think it is...
> > > > >
> > > > > With a mentality like that, we'd burn thru IPv6 in 10 years or
> less...
> > > > >
> > > > > -Clay
> > > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of
> > Douglas
> > > > > Cohn
> > > > > Sent: Friday, January 05, 2001 6:59 AM
> > > > > To: vwp at arin.net
> > > > > Subject: FW: ARIN Justified...
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I forwarded your email to the list for you
> > > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: Allen Ahoffman [mailto:ahoffman at announce.com]
> > > > > Sent: Friday, July 10, 2893 6:44 PM
> > > > > To: Douglas Cohn
> > > > > Subject: Re: ARIN Justified...
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > OK let me interject a question into this discussion:
> > > > >
> > > > > Why are we requiring a /19 or in some cases /20 of space before
> being
> > > > > allowed to get our own allocation?
> > > > > I realize management is an issue, but a $2500/year it encourages
> small
> > > > > users to build up to that point.
> > > > >
> > > > > We get users who don't want us to have iI space from other vendors,
> so
> > > > > we
> > > > > get pressure for more iP usage and pressure for less.
> > > > >
> > > > > For example, in converting from one provider to another I have had
> > > > > difficult time getting replacment iP space in less than 8 months
> now,
> > > > > but
> > > > > was making efforts to not purchase the /19.  I thik we might bge by
> > > > > without it but the minimum size creates pressure to fill IP(s).
> > > > > I do agree that users seem to want IP(s) without reason, seems like
> > IPV6
> > > > > might look more appealing every day?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > [Charset
> > > > > iso-8859-1 unsupported,
> > > > > filtering to ASCII...] > I must get my two cents in here as well.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I feel Clayton has the right track.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I manage IP allocation as well for dedicated and colocated
> clients.
> > > > > Our
> > > > > > policy used to state each server was issued 16 IPs.  We provision
> > with
> > > > > 1
> > > > > > IP only.  If a client asks for the rest I also require the need
> for
> > > > > the
> > > > > > IPs.
> > > > > > Too often they want them for testing or only because they saw that
> > > > > they
> > > > > > get 16 IPs with a server.  They must supply the domain names and
> > > > > reasons
> > > > > > why they cannot use IPless hosting.  While I will not force IPless
> > > > > > hosting on clients I push it and train it's use for free.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > We now state that you get a single IP with each dedicated server
> and
> > > > > > additional IPs are billed on a monthly basis.  This helps a lot to
> > > > > > defray usage.  While it is a revenue stream that is not it's
> purpose
> > > > > > whatsoever.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In Shared hosting though the issues are clearly Search engines and
> > SSL
> > > > > > as far as I know.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Most people understand why we watch our address space and
> appreciate
> > > > > it.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Douglas Cohn
> > > > > > Manager NY Engineering
> > > > > > Hostcentric, Inc.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of
> > > > > Stephen
> > > > > > Elliott
> > > > > > Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 4:47 PM
> > > > > > To: Clayton Lambert; Virtual IP List
> > > > > > Subject: Re: ARIN Justified...
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > :-)  The reason I mentioned Exodus is because we are a customer of
> > > > > > Exodus, and in my opinion, the policy is too restrictive.  And the
> > > > > > statement was directed at the fact that Exodus hosts many
> companies
> > > > > that
> > > > > > are in the business of hosting websites, not Exodus as a company.
> > As
> > > > > I
> > > > > > have stated in earlier postings, simply clamping down and
> > restricting
> > > > > > virtual web hosting is not the answer.  Any list of
> justifications,
> > no
> > > > > > matter how much thought went into it, will not cover every
> possible
> > > > > > reason for needing the IP's.  Documentation is a great thing, just
> > the
> > > > > > fact that someone has to sit down and write out a list of machines
> > > > > that
> > > > > > need IP's will deter most people from requesting extra IP's.
> > > > > > -Stephen
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Clayton Lambert wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Do you have ANY idea of what you are saying?  Sorry for
> appearing
> > > > > > brash,
> > > > > > > but...I run the IP maintenance organization at Exodus, and I
> would
> > > > > > easily
> > > > > > > stack our allocation policy up against anybody's.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > You have no idea what you are talking about in regard to larger
> > > > > > companies.
> > > > > > > Exodus consumes a very modest amount of address space given our
> > size
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > presence on the Internet.  There are much smaller competitors of
> > > > > ours
> > > > > > that
> > > > > > > consume larger amounts of IP space.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Exodus is already pioneering the efficiency of use ideology that
> I
> > > > > > would
> > > > > > > like to see ARIN adopt (a strong HTTP1.1 stance on ARIN's part
> is
> > a
> > > > > > good
> > > > > > > start).  We currently require extensive supporting documentation
> > for
> > > > > > IP
> > > > > > > requests from all our Customers.  A Customer has to show a
> > > > > documented
> > > > > > need
> > > > > > > for their usage request and we file all these requests and refer
> > to
> > > > > > past
> > > > > > > requests and detail as additional requests for address space
> > occur.
> > > > > > This
> > > > > > > method gives us a very clear and honest indication of IP address
> > > > > usage
> > > > > > > growth. This allows us to support our Customers' IP addressing
> > needs
> > > > > > in a
> > > > > > > very accurate and efficient way.  The end result is less
> > consumption
> > > > > > of IPv4
> > > > > > > space across the board.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Clayton Lambert
> > > > > > > Exodus Communications
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of
> > > > > > Stephen
> > > > > > > Elliott
> > > > > > > Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 12:20 PM
> > > > > > > To: Virtual IP List
> > > > > > > Subject: RE: ARIN Justified...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >         The big guys that you refer to are generally not in the
> > web
> > > > > > hosting
> > > > > > > business and therefore are outside of the scope of this
> > > > > conversation.
> > > > > > > The real concern is the big guys like Exodus and UUNet.  Since
> > IPv6
> > > > > is
> > > > > > > not a viable option for general consumption yet, we need to
> > > > > > concentrate
> > > > > > > on conserving the existing IPv4 space.  As far as search engines
> > go,
> > > > > > if
> > > > > > > enough sites start using HTTP1.1 software virtual servers, they
> > will
> > > > > > be
> > > > > > > forced to upgrade their spiders to support it.  I would suggest
> > that
> > > > > > one
> > > > > > > of the main issues at hand is billing.  Billing for web hosting
> > > > > > > companies that is.  Most companies bundle bandwidth with their
> > > > > hosting
> > > > > > > packages, and current billing packages utilize destination IP
> > > > > address
> > > > > > > information to gather this information.  If there is not a way
> to
> > > > > get
> > > > > > > this information without drastic changes to both billing
> software
> > > > > and
> > > > > > in
> > > > > > > some cases hardware, there will be very strong opposition to any
> > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > in the way IP addresses are given out.
> > > > > > > -Stephen
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > Stephen Elliott                 Harrison & Troxell
> > > > > > > Systems & Networking Manager    2 Faneuil Hall Marketplace
> > > > > > > Systems & Networking Group      Boston, Ma 02109
> > > > > > > (617)227-0494 Phone             (617)720-3918 Fax
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Stephen Elliott                 Harrison & Troxell
> > > > > > Systems & Networking Manager    2 Faneuil Hall Marketplace
> > > > > > Systems & Networking Group      Boston, Ma 02109
> > > > > > (617)227-0494 Phone             (617)720-3918 Fax
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > 
> > **********************************************************************
> > 
> > The information in this e-mail is confidential and is legally privileged.
> > It is intended solely for the addressee.  If this email is not intended
> for
> > you, you cannot copy, distribute, or disclose the included information
> > to any-one
> > 
> > If you are not the intended recipient please delete the mail. Whilst
> > all reasonable steps have been taken to ensure the accuracy and
> > integrity of all data transmitted electronically, no liability is accepted
> > if the data, for whatever reason, is corrupt or does not reach it's
> > intended destination.
> > All business is undertaken, subject to our standard trading conditions
> > which are available on request.
> > 
> > *******************************************************************
> 
> 
> **********************************************************************
> 
> The information in this e-mail is confidential and is legally privileged.
> It is intended solely for the addressee.  If this email is not intended for
> you, you cannot copy, distribute, or disclose the included information
> to any-one
> 
> If you are not the intended recipient please delete the mail. Whilst
> all reasonable steps have been taken to ensure the accuracy and
> integrity of all data transmitted electronically, no liability is accepted
> if the data, for whatever reason, is corrupt or does not reach it's
> intended destination.
> All business is undertaken, subject to our standard trading conditions
> which are available on request.
> 
> *******************************************************************
> 



From justin at gid.net  Wed Jan 10 12:22:05 2001
From: justin at gid.net (Justin W. Newton)
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 09:22:05 -0800
Subject: ARIN Justified...
In-Reply-To: <200101100250.SAA28329@exoserv.exodus.net>
References: <200101100250.SAA28329@exoserv.exodus.net>
Message-ID: <a05001900b6824a831b88@[10.100.162.85]>

The challenge of course is that when they were allocated the space, 
current allocation policies were not in place, nor was a policy 
saying that the rules could be changed later, hence there is serious 
legal question over whether or not the rules can be changed after the 
fact.


At 6:49 PM -0800 1/9/01, Clayton Lambert wrote:
>As a person involved with a company that never had a /8 given to it...I say
>it isn't that difficult...They back it up, or they lose it...Point.
>
>Clayton Lambert
>Compliance Services Director,
>Exodus Communications
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Alec H. Peterson [mailto:ahp at hilander.com]
>Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2001 6:46 PM
>To: Clayton Lambert
>Cc: 'Jim Macknik'; vwp at arin.net
>Subject: Re: ARIN Justified...
>
>
>Clayton Lambert wrote:
>>
>>  I think that companies with /8's and multiple unjustified /16's should
>have
>>  to provide supporting documentation to keep them.
>
>This is a tough issue that we have often come back to.  Unfortunately, we
>have yet to come up with a good answer...
>
>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!"

-- 

Justin W. Newton
Senior Director, Networking and Telecommunications
NetZero, Inc.


From ahp at hilander.com  Wed Jan 10 12:39:25 2001
From: ahp at hilander.com (Alec H. Peterson)
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 10:39:25 -0700
Subject: ARIN Justified...
References: <Pine.LNX.4.20.0101101037100.22841-100000@hypermall.com>
Message-ID: <3A5C9E4D.851169AE@hilander.com>

Jawaid.Bazyar at foreThought.net wrote:
> 
> Right, so you'll have to get them to do it voluntarily. They don't NEED
> the space, so start a campaign to make them look like bad Net Citizens
> unless they give it back. It's politicking, but it will be highly
> effective.

Sound like a great idea.

Who's got the budget for the ads?

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!"


From phillips_jeremy at bah.com  Wed Jan 10 12:46:57 2001
From: phillips_jeremy at bah.com (Phillips Jeremy)
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 12:46:57 -0500
Subject: ARIN Justified...
References: <Pine.LNX.4.20.0101101037100.22841-100000@hypermall.com> <3A5C9E4D.851169AE@hilander.com>
Message-ID: <3A5CA011.1B1E9743@bah.com>

I really don't think that it would work, anyways. Think of the millions $$$
it would cost companies to renumber out of their /8 & /16's into smaller
allocations.

Thanks,

Jeremy Phillips

"Alec H. Peterson" wrote:

> Jawaid.Bazyar at foreThought.net wrote:
> >
> > Right, so you'll have to get them to do it voluntarily. They don't NEED
> > the space, so start a campaign to make them look like bad Net Citizens
> > unless they give it back. It's politicking, but it will be highly
> > effective.
>
> Sound like a great idea.
>
> Who's got the budget for the ads?
>
> 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!"
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: phillips_jeremy.vcf
Type: text/x-vcard
Size: 328 bytes
Desc: Card for Jeremy Phillips
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/vwp/attachments/20010110/df0bbd7a/attachment.vcf>

From bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com  Wed Jan 10 12:40:06 2001
From: bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com (bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com)
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 17:40:06 +0000 (UCT)
Subject: ARIN Justified...
In-Reply-To: <3A5C9E4D.851169AE@hilander.com> from "Alec H. Peterson" at Jan 10, 2001 10:39:25 AM
Message-ID: <200101101740.RAA12501@vacation.karoshi.com>

 Its a crap idea.  They should be allowed to manage their delegations
as LIRs, just like other ISPs. MERIT ought to be allowed, ney encouraged
to segment net 35 to any number of prospective clients. 



> 
> Jawaid.Bazyar at foreThought.net wrote:
> > 
> > Right, so you'll have to get them to do it voluntarily. They don't NEED
> > the space, so start a campaign to make them look like bad Net Citizens
> > unless they give it back. It's politicking, but it will be highly
> > effective.
> 
> Sound like a great idea.
> 
> Who's got the budget for the ads?
> 
> 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!"
> 



From Clay at exodus.net  Wed Jan 10 13:53:44 2001
From: Clay at exodus.net (Clayton Lambert)
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 10:53:44 -0800
Subject: ARIN Justified...
In-Reply-To: <D71AE516100FD411BC5A00508B62C411025B01BA@polo.admin.den.inflow.com>
Message-ID: <200101101854.KAA27460@exoserv.exodus.net>

This is exactly the way that it is now.  Exodus goes to great lengths to
document and justify the IP address allocations that we consume.  It is an
EXTREMELY unbalanced environment to compete in, when others in our industry
have been assigned MULITPLE /8s and /16s in the past...enough such that
almost any amount of IP space can be assigned to their Customers (the same
ones we compete for)...Yet we adhere to strict standards in order to
continue our ability to supply our Customers with IP space.

Interesting angle.  Infact, it makes a strong argument for IP policy
controls that do indeed require justification and supporting documentation.

-Clay

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of Jim
Macknik
Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2001 5:06 AM
To: 'Joe DeCosta'; vwp at arin.net
Subject: RE: ARIN Justified...


I agree with the essence of what you're saying here. I just wanted to throw
the comments out there, because until now I have not seen any explicit
notice from ARIN stating that those organizations that currently have /8s
and /16s allocated to them will have to justify their use or they will be
revoked. I think this will be important in getting buy-in from the general
population that will be looking to get IPs. ARIN may be looking at nasty
political or legal ramifications if they don't. If there is any sense of
favoritism to companies like SUN (mentioned earlier as having a gastly
number of IPs) or Microsoft, IBM, or Apple for that matter, then other,
newer companies will call foul. They will argue that they are unable to
compete, because they cannot provide their customers with what they
need/want. And in many ways, they will be right.

Is there anything in the new RFC that states that current owners of large
blocks will have to justify their use?

=- Jim Macknik -=

-----Original Message-----
From: Joe DeCosta [mailto:decosta at bayconnect.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2001 6:18 PM
To: Jim Macknik; vwp at arin.net
Subject: Re: ARIN Justified...


ARIN can enforce any policy it wants, remember, they CONTROL the IP traffic
of all of north america etc.  and who gets them, if they make an
administrative decision, it is most likely going to be in the best intrest
of the internet in general.  I doubt that GE needs an entire Class A subnet
etc etc. There are too many IP's issued in such a lax fashion.  Whereas we
are constantly being hounded by our Uplink to justify our small /24 because
they can't get IP's from ARIN hardly at all anymore.  It's not a matter will
arin require them to do it, its will the big TCP/IP stack carriers start
producing IPv6 compatible transport software.. In which case, it alleviates
the problem for now.  An ISP can assign real fully routeable IP's to
customers, but not the average end user who is doing simple web browsing and
e-mail and instant messaging etc.  It's not restricting whether or not a
business can do business, it is restricting how the IP's are controlled, one
day, there is going to come a time where there will be no IP's left at all,
because microsoft has their fingers in their tookuses (as does apple), in
creating a stable IPv6 compatible TCP/IP stack, etc... We're kind running
around in a paradox here....
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Macknik" <jmacknik at inflow.com>
To: <vwp at arin.net>
Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2001 3:35 PM
Subject: RE: ARIN Justified...


> This brings up a good point, as well. How will ARIN enforce its policies?
> There are large companies out there that have several Class B or Class A
> ranges all to themselves that they "reserved" years ago. I doubt many of
> these organizations could properly justify this space at this time.
>
> Will ARIN require them to justify their use and take away the extras,
> requiring huge organizations or ISPs to completely re-allocate their
> addressing? If they don't, how will they be able to justify revoking
denying
> space to others looking to increase their allocation?
>
> This isn't an easy one, but it certainly has to be addressed if ARIN is
> concerned about political ramifications of a policy that will affect
whether
> businesses can even *do* business.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joe DeCosta [mailto:decosta at bayconnect.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2001 4:00 PM
> To: Clayton Lambert; 'Douglas Cohn'; vwp at arin.net
> Subject: Re: ARIN Justified...
>
>
> Well, what do you think that the best approach to this would be, I think a
> BIG part of the entire IP space problem is the HUGE market of ISP's like
> earthlink, Genuity(aka BBN), and the free services that just give any
schmoe
> an IP address, I don't think that this is soemthing that  is viable, we
even
> to a small Extent use NAT/Name based Virtual Hosting for  some of the
> domains runing on the secondary T1 in our office.  This all works fine,
and
> uses 1 ip for many things.  Perhaps this is a viable options, but i do
think
> that ARIN should enforce some sort of NAT with providers (aol, earthlink,
> freebie ISPs et al.) who allow just anybody to have an IP when its not
> needed.  from an admin point of view this can be a bit hellish but well
> worth the IP space that is being wasted on people that dont *NEED* random
> inbound traffic.
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Clayton Lambert" <Clay at exodus.net>
> To: "'Joe DeCosta'" <decosta at bayconnect.com>; "'Douglas Cohn'"
> <Douglas.Cohn at Virtualscape.com>; <vwp at arin.net>
> Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2001 2:17 PM
> Subject: RE: ARIN Justified...
>
>
> > No argument at all on those points either Joe,
> >
> > In fact, it seems there is a lot of common ground on this topic, maybe
we
> > should try to identify the specific agreed-upon points and
> disagreements...?
> >
> > It might be something to work from.
> >
> > -Clay
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of Joe
> > DeCosta
> > Sent: Monday, January 08, 2001 6:44 PM
> > To: Clayton Lambert; 'Douglas Cohn'; vwp at arin.net
> > Subject: Re: ARIN Justified...
> >
> >
> > agreed, but with all of the home users, shouldn't some of the major
ISP's
> be
> > considering NAT for DSL/ISDN and Dialup users? i mean, it's an idea, i
> don't
> > know how well it would be accepted, i also think that AOL should be
forced
> > to use NAT.........its rediclous to see how many IP blocks they own, but
> > dialup/isdn/dsl NAT i think could be a suggestion to ISP's no??
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Clayton Lambert" <Clay at exodus.net>
> > To: "'Douglas Cohn'" <Douglas.Cohn at Virtualscape.com>; <vwp at arin.net>
> > Sent: Monday, January 08, 2001 4:59 PM
> > Subject: RE: ARIN Justified...
> >
> >
> > > IPv6 is not the panacea you seem to think it is...
> > >
> > > With a mentality like that, we'd burn thru IPv6 in 10 years or less...
> > >
> > > -Clay
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of
Douglas
> > > Cohn
> > > Sent: Friday, January 05, 2001 6:59 AM
> > > To: vwp at arin.net
> > > Subject: FW: ARIN Justified...
> > >
> > >
> > > I forwarded your email to the list for you
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Allen Ahoffman [mailto:ahoffman at announce.com]
> > > Sent: Friday, July 10, 2893 6:44 PM
> > > To: Douglas Cohn
> > > Subject: Re: ARIN Justified...
> > >
> > >
> > > OK let me interject a question into this discussion:
> > >
> > > Why are we requiring a /19 or in some cases /20 of space before being
> > > allowed to get our own allocation?
> > > I realize management is an issue, but a $2500/year it encourages small
> > > users to build up to that point.
> > >
> > > We get users who don't want us to have iI space from other vendors, so
> > > we
> > > get pressure for more iP usage and pressure for less.
> > >
> > > For example, in converting from one provider to another I have had
> > > difficult time getting replacment iP space in less than 8 months now,
> > > but
> > > was making efforts to not purchase the /19.  I thik we might bge by
> > > without it but the minimum size creates pressure to fill IP(s).
> > > I do agree that users seem to want IP(s) without reason, seems like
IPV6
> > > might look more appealing every day?
> > >
> > >
> > > [Charset
> > > iso-8859-1 unsupported,
> > > filtering to ASCII...] > I must get my two cents in here as well.
> > > >
> > > > I feel Clayton has the right track.
> > > >
> > > > I manage IP allocation as well for dedicated and colocated clients.
> > > Our
> > > > policy used to state each server was issued 16 IPs.  We provision
with
> > > 1
> > > > IP only.  If a client asks for the rest I also require the need for
> > > the
> > > > IPs.
> > > > Too often they want them for testing or only because they saw that
> > > they
> > > > get 16 IPs with a server.  They must supply the domain names and
> > > reasons
> > > > why they cannot use IPless hosting.  While I will not force IPless
> > > > hosting on clients I push it and train it's use for free.
> > > >
> > > > We now state that you get a single IP with each dedicated server and
> > > > additional IPs are billed on a monthly basis.  This helps a lot to
> > > > defray usage.  While it is a revenue stream that is not it's purpose
> > > > whatsoever.
> > > >
> > > > In Shared hosting though the issues are clearly Search engines and
SSL
> > > > as far as I know.
> > > >
> > > > Most people understand why we watch our address space and appreciate
> > > it.
> > > >
> > > > Douglas Cohn
> > > > Manager NY Engineering
> > > > Hostcentric, Inc.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of
> > > Stephen
> > > > Elliott
> > > > Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 4:47 PM
> > > > To: Clayton Lambert; Virtual IP List
> > > > Subject: Re: ARIN Justified...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > :-)  The reason I mentioned Exodus is because we are a customer of
> > > > Exodus, and in my opinion, the policy is too restrictive.  And the
> > > > statement was directed at the fact that Exodus hosts many companies
> > > that
> > > > are in the business of hosting websites, not Exodus as a company.
As
> > > I
> > > > have stated in earlier postings, simply clamping down and
restricting
> > > > virtual web hosting is not the answer.  Any list of justifications,
no
> > > > matter how much thought went into it, will not cover every possible
> > > > reason for needing the IP's.  Documentation is a great thing, just
the
> > > > fact that someone has to sit down and write out a list of machines
> > > that
> > > > need IP's will deter most people from requesting extra IP's.
> > > > -Stephen
> > > >
> > > > Clayton Lambert wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Do you have ANY idea of what you are saying?  Sorry for appearing
> > > > brash,
> > > > > but...I run the IP maintenance organization at Exodus, and I would
> > > > easily
> > > > > stack our allocation policy up against anybody's.
> > > > >
> > > > > You have no idea what you are talking about in regard to larger
> > > > companies.
> > > > > Exodus consumes a very modest amount of address space given our
size
> > > > and
> > > > > presence on the Internet.  There are much smaller competitors of
> > > ours
> > > > that
> > > > > consume larger amounts of IP space.
> > > > >
> > > > > Exodus is already pioneering the efficiency of use ideology that I
> > > > would
> > > > > like to see ARIN adopt (a strong HTTP1.1 stance on ARIN's part is
a
> > > > good
> > > > > start).  We currently require extensive supporting documentation
for
> > > > IP
> > > > > requests from all our Customers.  A Customer has to show a
> > > documented
> > > > need
> > > > > for their usage request and we file all these requests and refer
to
> > > > past
> > > > > requests and detail as additional requests for address space
occur.
> > > > This
> > > > > method gives us a very clear and honest indication of IP address
> > > usage
> > > > > growth. This allows us to support our Customers' IP addressing
needs
> > > > in a
> > > > > very accurate and efficient way.  The end result is less
consumption
> > > > of IPv4
> > > > > space across the board.
> > > > >
> > > > > Clayton Lambert
> > > > > Exodus Communications
> > > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of
> > > > Stephen
> > > > > Elliott
> > > > > Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 12:20 PM
> > > > > To: Virtual IP List
> > > > > Subject: RE: ARIN Justified...
> > > > >
> > > > >         The big guys that you refer to are generally not in the
web
> > > > hosting
> > > > > business and therefore are outside of the scope of this
> > > conversation.
> > > > > The real concern is the big guys like Exodus and UUNet.  Since
IPv6
> > > is
> > > > > not a viable option for general consumption yet, we need to
> > > > concentrate
> > > > > on conserving the existing IPv4 space.  As far as search engines
go,
> > > > if
> > > > > enough sites start using HTTP1.1 software virtual servers, they
will
> > > > be
> > > > > forced to upgrade their spiders to support it.  I would suggest
that
> > > > one
> > > > > of the main issues at hand is billing.  Billing for web hosting
> > > > > companies that is.  Most companies bundle bandwidth with their
> > > hosting
> > > > > packages, and current billing packages utilize destination IP
> > > address
> > > > > information to gather this information.  If there is not a way to
> > > get
> > > > > this information without drastic changes to both billing software
> > > and
> > > > in
> > > > > some cases hardware, there will be very strong opposition to any
> > > > changes
> > > > > in the way IP addresses are given out.
> > > > > -Stephen
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Stephen Elliott                 Harrison & Troxell
> > > > > Systems & Networking Manager    2 Faneuil Hall Marketplace
> > > > > Systems & Networking Group      Boston, Ma 02109
> > > > > (617)227-0494 Phone             (617)720-3918 Fax
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Stephen Elliott                 Harrison & Troxell
> > > > Systems & Networking Manager    2 Faneuil Hall Marketplace
> > > > Systems & Networking Group      Boston, Ma 02109
> > > > (617)227-0494 Phone             (617)720-3918 Fax
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>




From Clay at exodus.net  Wed Jan 10 13:56:14 2001
From: Clay at exodus.net (Clayton Lambert)
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 10:56:14 -0800
Subject: ARIN Justified..
In-Reply-To: <DC7ABD0A8338D311B2010008C79122EE03A5243B@zajnbddsexc1.didata.co.za>
Message-ID: <200101101856.KAA28025@exoserv.exodus.net>

I don't think an "Identity Number 'Social Security Number'" is a good
idea...The threat to privacy is MUCH GREATER that the threat of illegal use
(and the commensurate desire to chase down the 'criminal'.


-Clay

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of Gilbert
Martin @ Learning Solutions
Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2001 5:15 AM
To: 'Joe DeCosta'
Cc: 'Chris Miller'; 'Jim Macknik'; 'vwp at arin.net'
Subject: RE: ARIN Justified..


What I am saying is the fact that every person with a machine should have
his own number like an Identity Number "Social Security Number" this will
also allow all ISPs, search engines, web hosters and so forth to locate
illegal activity and malicious attacks Give me a few hours and I will send
you a diagrma to explain in alittle more detail what I am saying here...

-----Original Message-----
From: Gilbert Martin @ Learning Solutions
Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2001 3:08 PM
To: 'Joe DeCosta'; Gilbert Martin @ Learning Solutions
Cc: 'Chris Miller'; Jim Macknik; vwp at arin.net
Subject: RE: ARIN Justified..


Yes, simply because of the fact that there will be x amount of addresses
given to machines and y amount available for huge web space useres, and even
inside of a corporate network secretaries do use the Internet address space
more, tentavively as soon as they discover Internet explorer they go
ballistic!!!

-----Original Message-----
From: Joe DeCosta [mailto:decosta at bayconnect.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2001 9:41 AM
To: Gilbert Martin @ Learning Solutions
Cc: 'Chris Miller'; Jim Macknik; vwp at arin.net
Subject: Re: ARIN Justified..


Could you clairfy why computers on INTERNAL networks would need a fully
routeable STATIC ip address? I don't see why a private computer inside a
corporate network at some secrataries desk needs a fully routeable
static ip. etc etc...



"Gilbert Martin @ Learning Solutions" wrote:
>
> Exactly what I said yesterday, wouldn't it be more simple for people not
> accessing external networks via the INternet to rather be given a static
> address and then if the need arises let them also be able to request a
newer
> address, the end result will be that only those using ISP's will be using
up
> address space?
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chris Miller [mailto:ctodd at netgate.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2001 3:09 AM
> To: Jim Macknik
> Cc: vwp at arin.net
> Subject: RE: ARIN Justified..
>
> Sun Microsystems (and others companies I'm sure) has many addresses that
> never see the internet, they use most of these strictly for their internal
> networks. Surely they could use reserved addresses for many of these
> purposes.....
>
> Sun Microsystems, Inc. (NETBLK-SUN4)
>    2550 Garcia Avenue
>    Mountain View, CA 94043
>
>    Netname: SUN4
>    Netblock: 129.144.0.0 - 129.159.255.255
>
> Chris
>
> On Tue, 9 Jan 2001, Jim Macknik wrote:
>
> > This brings up a good point, as well. How will ARIN enforce its
policies?
> > There are large companies out there that have several Class B or Class A
> > ranges all to themselves that they "reserved" years ago. I doubt many of
> > these organizations could properly justify this space at this time.
> >
> > Will ARIN require them to justify their use and take away the extras,
> > requiring huge organizations or ISPs to completely re-allocate their
> > addressing? If they don't, how will they be able to justify revoking
> denying
> > space to others looking to increase their allocation?
> >
> > This isn't an easy one, but it certainly has to be addressed if ARIN is
> > concerned about political ramifications of a policy that will affect
> whether
> > businesses can even *do* business.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Joe DeCosta [mailto:decosta at bayconnect.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2001 4:00 PM
> > To: Clayton Lambert; 'Douglas Cohn'; vwp at arin.net
> > Subject: Re: ARIN Justified...
> >
> >
> > Well, what do you think that the best approach to this would be, I think
a
> > BIG part of the entire IP space problem is the HUGE market of ISP's like
> > earthlink, Genuity(aka BBN), and the free services that just give any
> schmoe
> > an IP address, I don't think that this is soemthing that  is viable, we
> even
> > to a small Extent use NAT/Name based Virtual Hosting for  some of the
> > domains runing on the secondary T1 in our office.  This all works fine,
> and
> > uses 1 ip for many things.  Perhaps this is a viable options, but i do
> think
> > that ARIN should enforce some sort of NAT with providers (aol,
earthlink,
> > freebie ISPs et al.) who allow just anybody to have an IP when its not
> > needed.  from an admin point of view this can be a bit hellish but well
> > worth the IP space that is being wasted on people that dont *NEED*
random
> > inbound traffic.
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Clayton Lambert" <Clay at exodus.net>
> > To: "'Joe DeCosta'" <decosta at bayconnect.com>; "'Douglas Cohn'"
> > <Douglas.Cohn at Virtualscape.com>; <vwp at arin.net>
> > Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2001 2:17 PM
> > Subject: RE: ARIN Justified...
> >
> >
> > > No argument at all on those points either Joe,
> > >
> > > In fact, it seems there is a lot of common ground on this topic, maybe
> we
> > > should try to identify the specific agreed-upon points and
> > disagreements...?
> > >
> > > It might be something to work from.
> > >
> > > -Clay
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of Joe
> > > DeCosta
> > > Sent: Monday, January 08, 2001 6:44 PM
> > > To: Clayton Lambert; 'Douglas Cohn'; vwp at arin.net
> > > Subject: Re: ARIN Justified...
> > >
> > >
> > > agreed, but with all of the home users, shouldn't some of the major
> ISP's
> > be
> > > considering NAT for DSL/ISDN and Dialup users? i mean, it's an idea, i
> > don't
> > > know how well it would be accepted, i also think that AOL should be
> forced
> > > to use NAT.........its rediclous to see how many IP blocks they own,
but
> > > dialup/isdn/dsl NAT i think could be a suggestion to ISP's no??
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Clayton Lambert" <Clay at exodus.net>
> > > To: "'Douglas Cohn'" <Douglas.Cohn at Virtualscape.com>; <vwp at arin.net>
> > > Sent: Monday, January 08, 2001 4:59 PM
> > > Subject: RE: ARIN Justified...
> > >
> > >
> > > > IPv6 is not the panacea you seem to think it is...
> > > >
> > > > With a mentality like that, we'd burn thru IPv6 in 10 years or
less...
> > > >
> > > > -Clay
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of
> Douglas
> > > > Cohn
> > > > Sent: Friday, January 05, 2001 6:59 AM
> > > > To: vwp at arin.net
> > > > Subject: FW: ARIN Justified...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I forwarded your email to the list for you
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Allen Ahoffman [mailto:ahoffman at announce.com]
> > > > Sent: Friday, July 10, 2893 6:44 PM
> > > > To: Douglas Cohn
> > > > Subject: Re: ARIN Justified...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > OK let me interject a question into this discussion:
> > > >
> > > > Why are we requiring a /19 or in some cases /20 of space before
being
> > > > allowed to get our own allocation?
> > > > I realize management is an issue, but a $2500/year it encourages
small
> > > > users to build up to that point.
> > > >
> > > > We get users who don't want us to have iI space from other vendors,
so
> > > > we
> > > > get pressure for more iP usage and pressure for less.
> > > >
> > > > For example, in converting from one provider to another I have had
> > > > difficult time getting replacment iP space in less than 8 months
now,
> > > > but
> > > > was making efforts to not purchase the /19.  I thik we might bge by
> > > > without it but the minimum size creates pressure to fill IP(s).
> > > > I do agree that users seem to want IP(s) without reason, seems like
> IPV6
> > > > might look more appealing every day?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > [Charset
> > > > iso-8859-1 unsupported,
> > > > filtering to ASCII...] > I must get my two cents in here as well.
> > > > >
> > > > > I feel Clayton has the right track.
> > > > >
> > > > > I manage IP allocation as well for dedicated and colocated
clients.
> > > > Our
> > > > > policy used to state each server was issued 16 IPs.  We provision
> with
> > > > 1
> > > > > IP only.  If a client asks for the rest I also require the need
for
> > > > the
> > > > > IPs.
> > > > > Too often they want them for testing or only because they saw that
> > > > they
> > > > > get 16 IPs with a server.  They must supply the domain names and
> > > > reasons
> > > > > why they cannot use IPless hosting.  While I will not force IPless
> > > > > hosting on clients I push it and train it's use for free.
> > > > >
> > > > > We now state that you get a single IP with each dedicated server
and
> > > > > additional IPs are billed on a monthly basis.  This helps a lot to
> > > > > defray usage.  While it is a revenue stream that is not it's
purpose
> > > > > whatsoever.
> > > > >
> > > > > In Shared hosting though the issues are clearly Search engines and
> SSL
> > > > > as far as I know.
> > > > >
> > > > > Most people understand why we watch our address space and
appreciate
> > > > it.
> > > > >
> > > > > Douglas Cohn
> > > > > Manager NY Engineering
> > > > > Hostcentric, Inc.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of
> > > > Stephen
> > > > > Elliott
> > > > > Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 4:47 PM
> > > > > To: Clayton Lambert; Virtual IP List
> > > > > Subject: Re: ARIN Justified...
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > :-)  The reason I mentioned Exodus is because we are a customer of
> > > > > Exodus, and in my opinion, the policy is too restrictive.  And the
> > > > > statement was directed at the fact that Exodus hosts many
companies
> > > > that
> > > > > are in the business of hosting websites, not Exodus as a company.
> As
> > > > I
> > > > > have stated in earlier postings, simply clamping down and
> restricting
> > > > > virtual web hosting is not the answer.  Any list of
justifications,
> no
> > > > > matter how much thought went into it, will not cover every
possible
> > > > > reason for needing the IP's.  Documentation is a great thing, just
> the
> > > > > fact that someone has to sit down and write out a list of machines
> > > > that
> > > > > need IP's will deter most people from requesting extra IP's.
> > > > > -Stephen
> > > > >
> > > > > Clayton Lambert wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Do you have ANY idea of what you are saying?  Sorry for
appearing
> > > > > brash,
> > > > > > but...I run the IP maintenance organization at Exodus, and I
would
> > > > > easily
> > > > > > stack our allocation policy up against anybody's.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You have no idea what you are talking about in regard to larger
> > > > > companies.
> > > > > > Exodus consumes a very modest amount of address space given our
> size
> > > > > and
> > > > > > presence on the Internet.  There are much smaller competitors of
> > > > ours
> > > > > that
> > > > > > consume larger amounts of IP space.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Exodus is already pioneering the efficiency of use ideology that
I
> > > > > would
> > > > > > like to see ARIN adopt (a strong HTTP1.1 stance on ARIN's part
is
> a
> > > > > good
> > > > > > start).  We currently require extensive supporting documentation
> for
> > > > > IP
> > > > > > requests from all our Customers.  A Customer has to show a
> > > > documented
> > > > > need
> > > > > > for their usage request and we file all these requests and refer
> to
> > > > > past
> > > > > > requests and detail as additional requests for address space
> occur.
> > > > > This
> > > > > > method gives us a very clear and honest indication of IP address
> > > > usage
> > > > > > growth. This allows us to support our Customers' IP addressing
> needs
> > > > > in a
> > > > > > very accurate and efficient way.  The end result is less
> consumption
> > > > > of IPv4
> > > > > > space across the board.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Clayton Lambert
> > > > > > Exodus Communications
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of
> > > > > Stephen
> > > > > > Elliott
> > > > > > Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 12:20 PM
> > > > > > To: Virtual IP List
> > > > > > Subject: RE: ARIN Justified...
> > > > > >
> > > > > >         The big guys that you refer to are generally not in the
> web
> > > > > hosting
> > > > > > business and therefore are outside of the scope of this
> > > > conversation.
> > > > > > The real concern is the big guys like Exodus and UUNet.  Since
> IPv6
> > > > is
> > > > > > not a viable option for general consumption yet, we need to
> > > > > concentrate
> > > > > > on conserving the existing IPv4 space.  As far as search engines
> go,
> > > > > if
> > > > > > enough sites start using HTTP1.1 software virtual servers, they
> will
> > > > > be
> > > > > > forced to upgrade their spiders to support it.  I would suggest
> that
> > > > > one
> > > > > > of the main issues at hand is billing.  Billing for web hosting
> > > > > > companies that is.  Most companies bundle bandwidth with their
> > > > hosting
> > > > > > packages, and current billing packages utilize destination IP
> > > > address
> > > > > > information to gather this information.  If there is not a way
to
> > > > get
> > > > > > this information without drastic changes to both billing
software
> > > > and
> > > > > in
> > > > > > some cases hardware, there will be very strong opposition to any
> > > > > changes
> > > > > > in the way IP addresses are given out.
> > > > > > -Stephen
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Stephen Elliott                 Harrison & Troxell
> > > > > > Systems & Networking Manager    2 Faneuil Hall Marketplace
> > > > > > Systems & Networking Group      Boston, Ma 02109
> > > > > > (617)227-0494 Phone             (617)720-3918 Fax
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Stephen Elliott                 Harrison & Troxell
> > > > > Systems & Networking Manager    2 Faneuil Hall Marketplace
> > > > > Systems & Networking Group      Boston, Ma 02109
> > > > > (617)227-0494 Phone             (617)720-3918 Fax
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
> **********************************************************************
>
> The information in this e-mail is confidential and is legally privileged.
> It is intended solely for the addressee.  If this email is not intended
for
> you, you cannot copy, distribute, or disclose the included information
> to any-one
>
> If you are not the intended recipient please delete the mail. Whilst
> all reasonable steps have been taken to ensure the accuracy and
> integrity of all data transmitted electronically, no liability is accepted
> if the data, for whatever reason, is corrupt or does not reach it's
> intended destination.
> All business is undertaken, subject to our standard trading conditions
> which are available on request.
>
> *******************************************************************


**********************************************************************

The information in this e-mail is confidential and is legally privileged.
It is intended solely for the addressee.  If this email is not intended for
you, you cannot copy, distribute, or disclose the included information
to any-one

If you are not the intended recipient please delete the mail. Whilst
all reasonable steps have been taken to ensure the accuracy and
integrity of all data transmitted electronically, no liability is accepted
if the data, for whatever reason, is corrupt or does not reach it's
intended destination.
All business is undertaken, subject to our standard trading conditions
which are available on request.

*******************************************************************




From Gilbert.Martin at za.didata.com  Wed Jan 10 14:01:22 2001
From: Gilbert.Martin at za.didata.com (Gilbert Martin @ Learning Solutions)
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 21:01:22 +0200
Subject: ARIN Justified..
Message-ID: <DC7ABD0A8338D311B2010008C79122EE03A52446@zajnbddsexc1.didata.co.za>

I just want to know what form of privacy we are invading???
It cannot be company privacy because the company will be controlling that
privacy, or its ISP or whoever offers it its IP Addresses a 1940 VMS
Mainframe for all I care, What I am saying is that referential Data is safe
in any Internal Network, Any Network is safe it is the ninny network
"Techies" that disrupt company privacy and those going beyond the bounds of
exploration, ARIN should not be concerned with privacy that Devlopers of
OS's can solve you are seemingly sitting with a situation where you're
business in its entirety will be dissapearing within 10 years because people
will develop a newer way and faster to solve this number shortage?
It was just a suggestion and a good one nevertheless, maybe people should
stop looking beyond the point of privacy and start acting decently to save
the rest of us all a lot of trouble!

-----Original Message-----
From: Clayton Lambert [mailto:Clay at exodus.net]
Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2001 8:56 PM
To: 'Gilbert Martin @ Learning Solutions'; 'Joe DeCosta'
Cc: 'Chris Miller'; 'Jim Macknik'; vwp at arin.net
Subject: RE: ARIN Justified..


I don't think an "Identity Number 'Social Security Number'" is a good
idea...The threat to privacy is MUCH GREATER that the threat of illegal use
(and the commensurate desire to chase down the 'criminal'.


-Clay

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of Gilbert
Martin @ Learning Solutions
Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2001 5:15 AM
To: 'Joe DeCosta'
Cc: 'Chris Miller'; 'Jim Macknik'; 'vwp at arin.net'
Subject: RE: ARIN Justified..


What I am saying is the fact that every person with a machine should have
his own number like an Identity Number "Social Security Number" this will
also allow all ISPs, search engines, web hosters and so forth to locate
illegal activity and malicious attacks Give me a few hours and I will send
you a diagrma to explain in alittle more detail what I am saying here...

-----Original Message-----
From: Gilbert Martin @ Learning Solutions
Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2001 3:08 PM
To: 'Joe DeCosta'; Gilbert Martin @ Learning Solutions
Cc: 'Chris Miller'; Jim Macknik; vwp at arin.net
Subject: RE: ARIN Justified..


Yes, simply because of the fact that there will be x amount of addresses
given to machines and y amount available for huge web space useres, and even
inside of a corporate network secretaries do use the Internet address space
more, tentavively as soon as they discover Internet explorer they go
ballistic!!!

-----Original Message-----
From: Joe DeCosta [mailto:decosta at bayconnect.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2001 9:41 AM
To: Gilbert Martin @ Learning Solutions
Cc: 'Chris Miller'; Jim Macknik; vwp at arin.net
Subject: Re: ARIN Justified..


Could you clairfy why computers on INTERNAL networks would need a fully
routeable STATIC ip address? I don't see why a private computer inside a
corporate network at some secrataries desk needs a fully routeable
static ip. etc etc...



"Gilbert Martin @ Learning Solutions" wrote:
>
> Exactly what I said yesterday, wouldn't it be more simple for people not
> accessing external networks via the INternet to rather be given a static
> address and then if the need arises let them also be able to request a
newer
> address, the end result will be that only those using ISP's will be using
up
> address space?
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chris Miller [mailto:ctodd at netgate.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2001 3:09 AM
> To: Jim Macknik
> Cc: vwp at arin.net
> Subject: RE: ARIN Justified..
>
> Sun Microsystems (and others companies I'm sure) has many addresses that
> never see the internet, they use most of these strictly for their internal
> networks. Surely they could use reserved addresses for many of these
> purposes.....
>
> Sun Microsystems, Inc. (NETBLK-SUN4)
>    2550 Garcia Avenue
>    Mountain View, CA 94043
>
>    Netname: SUN4
>    Netblock: 129.144.0.0 - 129.159.255.255
>
> Chris
>
> On Tue, 9 Jan 2001, Jim Macknik wrote:
>
> > This brings up a good point, as well. How will ARIN enforce its
policies?
> > There are large companies out there that have several Class B or Class A
> > ranges all to themselves that they "reserved" years ago. I doubt many of
> > these organizations could properly justify this space at this time.
> >
> > Will ARIN require them to justify their use and take away the extras,
> > requiring huge organizations or ISPs to completely re-allocate their
> > addressing? If they don't, how will they be able to justify revoking
> denying
> > space to others looking to increase their allocation?
> >
> > This isn't an easy one, but it certainly has to be addressed if ARIN is
> > concerned about political ramifications of a policy that will affect
> whether
> > businesses can even *do* business.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Joe DeCosta [mailto:decosta at bayconnect.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2001 4:00 PM
> > To: Clayton Lambert; 'Douglas Cohn'; vwp at arin.net
> > Subject: Re: ARIN Justified...
> >
> >
> > Well, what do you think that the best approach to this would be, I think
a
> > BIG part of the entire IP space problem is the HUGE market of ISP's like
> > earthlink, Genuity(aka BBN), and the free services that just give any
> schmoe
> > an IP address, I don't think that this is soemthing that  is viable, we
> even
> > to a small Extent use NAT/Name based Virtual Hosting for  some of the
> > domains runing on the secondary T1 in our office.  This all works fine,
> and
> > uses 1 ip for many things.  Perhaps this is a viable options, but i do
> think
> > that ARIN should enforce some sort of NAT with providers (aol,
earthlink,
> > freebie ISPs et al.) who allow just anybody to have an IP when its not
> > needed.  from an admin point of view this can be a bit hellish but well
> > worth the IP space that is being wasted on people that dont *NEED*
random
> > inbound traffic.
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Clayton Lambert" <Clay at exodus.net>
> > To: "'Joe DeCosta'" <decosta at bayconnect.com>; "'Douglas Cohn'"
> > <Douglas.Cohn at Virtualscape.com>; <vwp at arin.net>
> > Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2001 2:17 PM
> > Subject: RE: ARIN Justified...
> >
> >
> > > No argument at all on those points either Joe,
> > >
> > > In fact, it seems there is a lot of common ground on this topic, maybe
> we
> > > should try to identify the specific agreed-upon points and
> > disagreements...?
> > >
> > > It might be something to work from.
> > >
> > > -Clay
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of Joe
> > > DeCosta
> > > Sent: Monday, January 08, 2001 6:44 PM
> > > To: Clayton Lambert; 'Douglas Cohn'; vwp at arin.net
> > > Subject: Re: ARIN Justified...
> > >
> > >
> > > agreed, but with all of the home users, shouldn't some of the major
> ISP's
> > be
> > > considering NAT for DSL/ISDN and Dialup users? i mean, it's an idea, i
> > don't
> > > know how well it would be accepted, i also think that AOL should be
> forced
> > > to use NAT.........its rediclous to see how many IP blocks they own,
but
> > > dialup/isdn/dsl NAT i think could be a suggestion to ISP's no??
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Clayton Lambert" <Clay at exodus.net>
> > > To: "'Douglas Cohn'" <Douglas.Cohn at Virtualscape.com>; <vwp at arin.net>
> > > Sent: Monday, January 08, 2001 4:59 PM
> > > Subject: RE: ARIN Justified...
> > >
> > >
> > > > IPv6 is not the panacea you seem to think it is...
> > > >
> > > > With a mentality like that, we'd burn thru IPv6 in 10 years or
less...
> > > >
> > > > -Clay
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of
> Douglas
> > > > Cohn
> > > > Sent: Friday, January 05, 2001 6:59 AM
> > > > To: vwp at arin.net
> > > > Subject: FW: ARIN Justified...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I forwarded your email to the list for you
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Allen Ahoffman [mailto:ahoffman at announce.com]
> > > > Sent: Friday, July 10, 2893 6:44 PM
> > > > To: Douglas Cohn
> > > > Subject: Re: ARIN Justified...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > OK let me interject a question into this discussion:
> > > >
> > > > Why are we requiring a /19 or in some cases /20 of space before
being
> > > > allowed to get our own allocation?
> > > > I realize management is an issue, but a $2500/year it encourages
small
> > > > users to build up to that point.
> > > >
> > > > We get users who don't want us to have iI space from other vendors,
so
> > > > we
> > > > get pressure for more iP usage and pressure for less.
> > > >
> > > > For example, in converting from one provider to another I have had
> > > > difficult time getting replacment iP space in less than 8 months
now,
> > > > but
> > > > was making efforts to not purchase the /19.  I thik we might bge by
> > > > without it but the minimum size creates pressure to fill IP(s).
> > > > I do agree that users seem to want IP(s) without reason, seems like
> IPV6
> > > > might look more appealing every day?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > [Charset
> > > > iso-8859-1 unsupported,
> > > > filtering to ASCII...] > I must get my two cents in here as well.
> > > > >
> > > > > I feel Clayton has the right track.
> > > > >
> > > > > I manage IP allocation as well for dedicated and colocated
clients.
> > > > Our
> > > > > policy used to state each server was issued 16 IPs.  We provision
> with
> > > > 1
> > > > > IP only.  If a client asks for the rest I also require the need
for
> > > > the
> > > > > IPs.
> > > > > Too often they want them for testing or only because they saw that
> > > > they
> > > > > get 16 IPs with a server.  They must supply the domain names and
> > > > reasons
> > > > > why they cannot use IPless hosting.  While I will not force IPless
> > > > > hosting on clients I push it and train it's use for free.
> > > > >
> > > > > We now state that you get a single IP with each dedicated server
and
> > > > > additional IPs are billed on a monthly basis.  This helps a lot to
> > > > > defray usage.  While it is a revenue stream that is not it's
purpose
> > > > > whatsoever.
> > > > >
> > > > > In Shared hosting though the issues are clearly Search engines and
> SSL
> > > > > as far as I know.
> > > > >
> > > > > Most people understand why we watch our address space and
appreciate
> > > > it.
> > > > >
> > > > > Douglas Cohn
> > > > > Manager NY Engineering
> > > > > Hostcentric, Inc.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of
> > > > Stephen
> > > > > Elliott
> > > > > Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 4:47 PM
> > > > > To: Clayton Lambert; Virtual IP List
> > > > > Subject: Re: ARIN Justified...
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > :-)  The reason I mentioned Exodus is because we are a customer of
> > > > > Exodus, and in my opinion, the policy is too restrictive.  And the
> > > > > statement was directed at the fact that Exodus hosts many
companies
> > > > that
> > > > > are in the business of hosting websites, not Exodus as a company.
> As
> > > > I
> > > > > have stated in earlier postings, simply clamping down and
> restricting
> > > > > virtual web hosting is not the answer.  Any list of
justifications,
> no
> > > > > matter how much thought went into it, will not cover every
possible
> > > > > reason for needing the IP's.  Documentation is a great thing, just
> the
> > > > > fact that someone has to sit down and write out a list of machines
> > > > that
> > > > > need IP's will deter most people from requesting extra IP's.
> > > > > -Stephen
> > > > >
> > > > > Clayton Lambert wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Do you have ANY idea of what you are saying?  Sorry for
appearing
> > > > > brash,
> > > > > > but...I run the IP maintenance organization at Exodus, and I
would
> > > > > easily
> > > > > > stack our allocation policy up against anybody's.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You have no idea what you are talking about in regard to larger
> > > > > companies.
> > > > > > Exodus consumes a very modest amount of address space given our
> size
> > > > > and
> > > > > > presence on the Internet.  There are much smaller competitors of
> > > > ours
> > > > > that
> > > > > > consume larger amounts of IP space.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Exodus is already pioneering the efficiency of use ideology that
I
> > > > > would
> > > > > > like to see ARIN adopt (a strong HTTP1.1 stance on ARIN's part
is
> a
> > > > > good
> > > > > > start).  We currently require extensive supporting documentation
> for
> > > > > IP
> > > > > > requests from all our Customers.  A Customer has to show a
> > > > documented
> > > > > need
> > > > > > for their usage request and we file all these requests and refer
> to
> > > > > past
> > > > > > requests and detail as additional requests for address space
> occur.
> > > > > This
> > > > > > method gives us a very clear and honest indication of IP address
> > > > usage
> > > > > > growth. This allows us to support our Customers' IP addressing
> needs
> > > > > in a
> > > > > > very accurate and efficient way.  The end result is less
> consumption
> > > > > of IPv4
> > > > > > space across the board.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Clayton Lambert
> > > > > > Exodus Communications
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of
> > > > > Stephen
> > > > > > Elliott
> > > > > > Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 12:20 PM
> > > > > > To: Virtual IP List
> > > > > > Subject: RE: ARIN Justified...
> > > > > >
> > > > > >         The big guys that you refer to are generally not in the
> web
> > > > > hosting
> > > > > > business and therefore are outside of the scope of this
> > > > conversation.
> > > > > > The real concern is the big guys like Exodus and UUNet.  Since
> IPv6
> > > > is
> > > > > > not a viable option for general consumption yet, we need to
> > > > > concentrate
> > > > > > on conserving the existing IPv4 space.  As far as search engines
> go,
> > > > > if
> > > > > > enough sites start using HTTP1.1 software virtual servers, they
> will
> > > > > be
> > > > > > forced to upgrade their spiders to support it.  I would suggest
> that
> > > > > one
> > > > > > of the main issues at hand is billing.  Billing for web hosting
> > > > > > companies that is.  Most companies bundle bandwidth with their
> > > > hosting
> > > > > > packages, and current billing packages utilize destination IP
> > > > address
> > > > > > information to gather this information.  If there is not a way
to
> > > > get
> > > > > > this information without drastic changes to both billing
software
> > > > and
> > > > > in
> > > > > > some cases hardware, there will be very strong opposition to any
> > > > > changes
> > > > > > in the way IP addresses are given out.
> > > > > > -Stephen
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Stephen Elliott                 Harrison & Troxell
> > > > > > Systems & Networking Manager    2 Faneuil Hall Marketplace
> > > > > > Systems & Networking Group      Boston, Ma 02109
> > > > > > (617)227-0494 Phone             (617)720-3918 Fax
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Stephen Elliott                 Harrison & Troxell
> > > > > Systems & Networking Manager    2 Faneuil Hall Marketplace
> > > > > Systems & Networking Group      Boston, Ma 02109
> > > > > (617)227-0494 Phone             (617)720-3918 Fax
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
> **********************************************************************
>
> The information in this e-mail is confidential and is legally privileged.
> It is intended solely for the addressee.  If this email is not intended
for
> you, you cannot copy, distribute, or disclose the included information
> to any-one
>
> If you are not the intended recipient please delete the mail. Whilst
> all reasonable steps have been taken to ensure the accuracy and
> integrity of all data transmitted electronically, no liability is accepted
> if the data, for whatever reason, is corrupt or does not reach it's
> intended destination.
> All business is undertaken, subject to our standard trading conditions
> which are available on request.
>
> *******************************************************************


**********************************************************************

The information in this e-mail is confidential and is legally privileged.
It is intended solely for the addressee.  If this email is not intended for
you, you cannot copy, distribute, or disclose the included information
to any-one

If you are not the intended recipient please delete the mail. Whilst
all reasonable steps have been taken to ensure the accuracy and
integrity of all data transmitted electronically, no liability is accepted
if the data, for whatever reason, is corrupt or does not reach it's
intended destination.
All business is undertaken, subject to our standard trading conditions
which are available on request.

*******************************************************************



From decosta at bayconnect.com  Wed Jan 10 14:24:53 2001
From: decosta at bayconnect.com (Joe DeCosta)
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 11:24:53 -0800
Subject: ARIN Justified..
References: <DC7ABD0A8338D311B2010008C79122EE03A5243B@zajnbddsexc1.didata.co.za>
Message-ID: <002301c07b3b$053dd880$cd00000a@andrade.net>

yes, they go ballistic, but only in web browsing, do they really have any
direct inbound connections to their computers, or is it all a response to a
request, hence NAT being the perfect solution here.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gilbert Martin @ Learning Solutions" <Gilbert.Martin at za.didata.com>
To: "'Joe DeCosta'" <decosta at bayconnect.com>
Cc: "'Chris Miller'" <ctodd at netgate.net>; "'Jim Macknik'"
<jmacknik at inflow.com>; <vwp at arin.net>
Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2001 5:14 AM
Subject: RE: ARIN Justified..


> What I am saying is the fact that every person with a machine should have
> his own number like an Identity Number "Social Security Number" this will
> also allow all ISPs, search engines, web hosters and so forth to locate
> illegal activity and malicious attacks Give me a few hours and I will send
> you a diagrma to explain in alittle more detail what I am saying here...
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gilbert Martin @ Learning Solutions
> Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2001 3:08 PM
> To: 'Joe DeCosta'; Gilbert Martin @ Learning Solutions
> Cc: 'Chris Miller'; Jim Macknik; vwp at arin.net
> Subject: RE: ARIN Justified..
>
>
> Yes, simply because of the fact that there will be x amount of addresses
> given to machines and y amount available for huge web space useres, and
even
> inside of a corporate network secretaries do use the Internet address
space
> more, tentavively as soon as they discover Internet explorer they go
> ballistic!!!
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joe DeCosta [mailto:decosta at bayconnect.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2001 9:41 AM
> To: Gilbert Martin @ Learning Solutions
> Cc: 'Chris Miller'; Jim Macknik; vwp at arin.net
> Subject: Re: ARIN Justified..
>
>
> Could you clairfy why computers on INTERNAL networks would need a fully
> routeable STATIC ip address? I don't see why a private computer inside a
> corporate network at some secrataries desk needs a fully routeable
> static ip. etc etc...
>
>
>
> "Gilbert Martin @ Learning Solutions" wrote:
> >
> > Exactly what I said yesterday, wouldn't it be more simple for people not
> > accessing external networks via the INternet to rather be given a static
> > address and then if the need arises let them also be able to request a
> newer
> > address, the end result will be that only those using ISP's will be
using
> up
> > address space?
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Chris Miller [mailto:ctodd at netgate.net]
> > Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2001 3:09 AM
> > To: Jim Macknik
> > Cc: vwp at arin.net
> > Subject: RE: ARIN Justified..
> >
> > Sun Microsystems (and others companies I'm sure) has many addresses that
> > never see the internet, they use most of these strictly for their
internal
> > networks. Surely they could use reserved addresses for many of these
> > purposes.....
> >
> > Sun Microsystems, Inc. (NETBLK-SUN4)
> >    2550 Garcia Avenue
> >    Mountain View, CA 94043
> >
> >    Netname: SUN4
> >    Netblock: 129.144.0.0 - 129.159.255.255
> >
> > Chris
> >
> > On Tue, 9 Jan 2001, Jim Macknik wrote:
> >
> > > This brings up a good point, as well. How will ARIN enforce its
> policies?
> > > There are large companies out there that have several Class B or Class
A
> > > ranges all to themselves that they "reserved" years ago. I doubt many
of
> > > these organizations could properly justify this space at this time.
> > >
> > > Will ARIN require them to justify their use and take away the extras,
> > > requiring huge organizations or ISPs to completely re-allocate their
> > > addressing? If they don't, how will they be able to justify revoking
> > denying
> > > space to others looking to increase their allocation?
> > >
> > > This isn't an easy one, but it certainly has to be addressed if ARIN
is
> > > concerned about political ramifications of a policy that will affect
> > whether
> > > businesses can even *do* business.
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Joe DeCosta [mailto:decosta at bayconnect.com]
> > > Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2001 4:00 PM
> > > To: Clayton Lambert; 'Douglas Cohn'; vwp at arin.net
> > > Subject: Re: ARIN Justified...
> > >
> > >
> > > Well, what do you think that the best approach to this would be, I
think
> a
> > > BIG part of the entire IP space problem is the HUGE market of ISP's
like
> > > earthlink, Genuity(aka BBN), and the free services that just give any
> > schmoe
> > > an IP address, I don't think that this is soemthing that  is viable,
we
> > even
> > > to a small Extent use NAT/Name based Virtual Hosting for  some of the
> > > domains runing on the secondary T1 in our office.  This all works
fine,
> > and
> > > uses 1 ip for many things.  Perhaps this is a viable options, but i do
> > think
> > > that ARIN should enforce some sort of NAT with providers (aol,
> earthlink,
> > > freebie ISPs et al.) who allow just anybody to have an IP when its not
> > > needed.  from an admin point of view this can be a bit hellish but
well
> > > worth the IP space that is being wasted on people that dont *NEED*
> random
> > > inbound traffic.
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Clayton Lambert" <Clay at exodus.net>
> > > To: "'Joe DeCosta'" <decosta at bayconnect.com>; "'Douglas Cohn'"
> > > <Douglas.Cohn at Virtualscape.com>; <vwp at arin.net>
> > > Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2001 2:17 PM
> > > Subject: RE: ARIN Justified...
> > >
> > >
> > > > No argument at all on those points either Joe,
> > > >
> > > > In fact, it seems there is a lot of common ground on this topic,
maybe
> > we
> > > > should try to identify the specific agreed-upon points and
> > > disagreements...?
> > > >
> > > > It might be something to work from.
> > > >
> > > > -Clay
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of Joe
> > > > DeCosta
> > > > Sent: Monday, January 08, 2001 6:44 PM
> > > > To: Clayton Lambert; 'Douglas Cohn'; vwp at arin.net
> > > > Subject: Re: ARIN Justified...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > agreed, but with all of the home users, shouldn't some of the major
> > ISP's
> > > be
> > > > considering NAT for DSL/ISDN and Dialup users? i mean, it's an idea,
i
> > > don't
> > > > know how well it would be accepted, i also think that AOL should be
> > forced
> > > > to use NAT.........its rediclous to see how many IP blocks they own,
> but
> > > > dialup/isdn/dsl NAT i think could be a suggestion to ISP's no??
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: "Clayton Lambert" <Clay at exodus.net>
> > > > To: "'Douglas Cohn'" <Douglas.Cohn at Virtualscape.com>; <vwp at arin.net>
> > > > Sent: Monday, January 08, 2001 4:59 PM
> > > > Subject: RE: ARIN Justified...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > IPv6 is not the panacea you seem to think it is...
> > > > >
> > > > > With a mentality like that, we'd burn thru IPv6 in 10 years or
> less...
> > > > >
> > > > > -Clay
> > > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of
> > Douglas
> > > > > Cohn
> > > > > Sent: Friday, January 05, 2001 6:59 AM
> > > > > To: vwp at arin.net
> > > > > Subject: FW: ARIN Justified...
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I forwarded your email to the list for you
> > > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: Allen Ahoffman [mailto:ahoffman at announce.com]
> > > > > Sent: Friday, July 10, 2893 6:44 PM
> > > > > To: Douglas Cohn
> > > > > Subject: Re: ARIN Justified...
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > OK let me interject a question into this discussion:
> > > > >
> > > > > Why are we requiring a /19 or in some cases /20 of space before
> being
> > > > > allowed to get our own allocation?
> > > > > I realize management is an issue, but a $2500/year it encourages
> small
> > > > > users to build up to that point.
> > > > >
> > > > > We get users who don't want us to have iI space from other
vendors,
> so
> > > > > we
> > > > > get pressure for more iP usage and pressure for less.
> > > > >
> > > > > For example, in converting from one provider to another I have had
> > > > > difficult time getting replacment iP space in less than 8 months
> now,
> > > > > but
> > > > > was making efforts to not purchase the /19.  I thik we might bge
by
> > > > > without it but the minimum size creates pressure to fill IP(s).
> > > > > I do agree that users seem to want IP(s) without reason, seems
like
> > IPV6
> > > > > might look more appealing every day?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > [Charset
> > > > > iso-8859-1 unsupported,
> > > > > filtering to ASCII...] > I must get my two cents in here as well.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I feel Clayton has the right track.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I manage IP allocation as well for dedicated and colocated
> clients.
> > > > > Our
> > > > > > policy used to state each server was issued 16 IPs.  We
provision
> > with
> > > > > 1
> > > > > > IP only.  If a client asks for the rest I also require the need
> for
> > > > > the
> > > > > > IPs.
> > > > > > Too often they want them for testing or only because they saw
that
> > > > > they
> > > > > > get 16 IPs with a server.  They must supply the domain names and
> > > > > reasons
> > > > > > why they cannot use IPless hosting.  While I will not force
IPless
> > > > > > hosting on clients I push it and train it's use for free.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > We now state that you get a single IP with each dedicated server
> and
> > > > > > additional IPs are billed on a monthly basis.  This helps a lot
to
> > > > > > defray usage.  While it is a revenue stream that is not it's
> purpose
> > > > > > whatsoever.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In Shared hosting though the issues are clearly Search engines
and
> > SSL
> > > > > > as far as I know.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Most people understand why we watch our address space and
> appreciate
> > > > > it.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Douglas Cohn
> > > > > > Manager NY Engineering
> > > > > > Hostcentric, Inc.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of
> > > > > Stephen
> > > > > > Elliott
> > > > > > Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 4:47 PM
> > > > > > To: Clayton Lambert; Virtual IP List
> > > > > > Subject: Re: ARIN Justified...
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > :-)  The reason I mentioned Exodus is because we are a customer
of
> > > > > > Exodus, and in my opinion, the policy is too restrictive.  And
the
> > > > > > statement was directed at the fact that Exodus hosts many
> companies
> > > > > that
> > > > > > are in the business of hosting websites, not Exodus as a
company.
> > As
> > > > > I
> > > > > > have stated in earlier postings, simply clamping down and
> > restricting
> > > > > > virtual web hosting is not the answer.  Any list of
> justifications,
> > no
> > > > > > matter how much thought went into it, will not cover every
> possible
> > > > > > reason for needing the IP's.  Documentation is a great thing,
just
> > the
> > > > > > fact that someone has to sit down and write out a list of
machines
> > > > > that
> > > > > > need IP's will deter most people from requesting extra IP's.
> > > > > > -Stephen
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Clayton Lambert wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Do you have ANY idea of what you are saying?  Sorry for
> appearing
> > > > > > brash,
> > > > > > > but...I run the IP maintenance organization at Exodus, and I
> would
> > > > > > easily
> > > > > > > stack our allocation policy up against anybody's.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > You have no idea what you are talking about in regard to
larger
> > > > > > companies.
> > > > > > > Exodus consumes a very modest amount of address space given
our
> > size
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > presence on the Internet.  There are much smaller competitors
of
> > > > > ours
> > > > > > that
> > > > > > > consume larger amounts of IP space.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Exodus is already pioneering the efficiency of use ideology
that
> I
> > > > > > would
> > > > > > > like to see ARIN adopt (a strong HTTP1.1 stance on ARIN's part
> is
> > a
> > > > > > good
> > > > > > > start).  We currently require extensive supporting
documentation
> > for
> > > > > > IP
> > > > > > > requests from all our Customers.  A Customer has to show a
> > > > > documented
> > > > > > need
> > > > > > > for their usage request and we file all these requests and
refer
> > to
> > > > > > past
> > > > > > > requests and detail as additional requests for address space
> > occur.
> > > > > > This
> > > > > > > method gives us a very clear and honest indication of IP
address
> > > > > usage
> > > > > > > growth. This allows us to support our Customers' IP addressing
> > needs
> > > > > > in a
> > > > > > > very accurate and efficient way.  The end result is less
> > consumption
> > > > > > of IPv4
> > > > > > > space across the board.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Clayton Lambert
> > > > > > > Exodus Communications
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf
Of
> > > > > > Stephen
> > > > > > > Elliott
> > > > > > > Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 12:20 PM
> > > > > > > To: Virtual IP List
> > > > > > > Subject: RE: ARIN Justified...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >         The big guys that you refer to are generally not in
the
> > web
> > > > > > hosting
> > > > > > > business and therefore are outside of the scope of this
> > > > > conversation.
> > > > > > > The real concern is the big guys like Exodus and UUNet.  Since
> > IPv6
> > > > > is
> > > > > > > not a viable option for general consumption yet, we need to
> > > > > > concentrate
> > > > > > > on conserving the existing IPv4 space.  As far as search
engines
> > go,
> > > > > > if
> > > > > > > enough sites start using HTTP1.1 software virtual servers,
they
> > will
> > > > > > be
> > > > > > > forced to upgrade their spiders to support it.  I would
suggest
> > that
> > > > > > one
> > > > > > > of the main issues at hand is billing.  Billing for web
hosting
> > > > > > > companies that is.  Most companies bundle bandwidth with their
> > > > > hosting
> > > > > > > packages, and current billing packages utilize destination IP
> > > > > address
> > > > > > > information to gather this information.  If there is not a way
> to
> > > > > get
> > > > > > > this information without drastic changes to both billing
> software
> > > > > and
> > > > > > in
> > > > > > > some cases hardware, there will be very strong opposition to
any
> > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > in the way IP addresses are given out.
> > > > > > > -Stephen
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > Stephen Elliott                 Harrison & Troxell
> > > > > > > Systems & Networking Manager    2 Faneuil Hall Marketplace
> > > > > > > Systems & Networking Group      Boston, Ma 02109
> > > > > > > (617)227-0494 Phone             (617)720-3918 Fax
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Stephen Elliott                 Harrison & Troxell
> > > > > > Systems & Networking Manager    2 Faneuil Hall Marketplace
> > > > > > Systems & Networking Group      Boston, Ma 02109
> > > > > > (617)227-0494 Phone             (617)720-3918 Fax
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> > **********************************************************************
> >
> > The information in this e-mail is confidential and is legally
privileged.
> > It is intended solely for the addressee.  If this email is not intended
> for
> > you, you cannot copy, distribute, or disclose the included information
> > to any-one
> >
> > If you are not the intended recipient please delete the mail. Whilst
> > all reasonable steps have been taken to ensure the accuracy and
> > integrity of all data transmitted electronically, no liability is
accepted
> > if the data, for whatever reason, is corrupt or does not reach it's
> > intended destination.
> > All business is undertaken, subject to our standard trading conditions
> > which are available on request.
> >
> > *******************************************************************
>
>
> **********************************************************************
>
> The information in this e-mail is confidential and is legally privileged.
> It is intended solely for the addressee.  If this email is not intended
for
> you, you cannot copy, distribute, or disclose the included information
> to any-one
>
> If you are not the intended recipient please delete the mail. Whilst
> all reasonable steps have been taken to ensure the accuracy and
> integrity of all data transmitted electronically, no liability is accepted
> if the data, for whatever reason, is corrupt or does not reach it's
> intended destination.
> All business is undertaken, subject to our standard trading conditions
> which are available on request.
>
> *******************************************************************
>



From decosta at bayconnect.com  Wed Jan 10 14:39:45 2001
From: decosta at bayconnect.com (Joe DeCosta)
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 11:39:45 -0800
Subject: ARIN Justified...
References: <DC7ABD0A8338D311B2010008C79122EE03A5243C@zajnbddsexc1.didata.co.za>
Message-ID: <003701c07b3d$1ae04220$cd00000a@andrade.net>

why should *ANY* company be allocated ADDRESS space that they dont *NEED*?
Name based hosting+nat (with large dialup ISPs etc) is the answer to our
question...
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gilbert Martin @ Learning Solutions" <Gilbert.Martin at za.didata.com>
To: "'Jim Macknik'" <jmacknik at inflow.com>; "'Joe DeCosta'"
<decosta at bayconnect.com>; <vwp at arin.net>
Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2001 5:31 AM
Subject: RE: ARIN Justified...


> But referrentially big companies do pay for there share of /16s or /8s how
> can smaller companies call foul if they don't pay for more?
> Our little planet revolves around money.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jim Macknik [mailto:jmacknik at inflow.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2001 3:06 PM
> To: 'Joe DeCosta'; vwp at arin.net
> Subject: RE: ARIN Justified...
>
>
> I agree with the essence of what you're saying here. I just wanted to
throw
> the comments out there, because until now I have not seen any explicit
> notice from ARIN stating that those organizations that currently have /8s
> and /16s allocated to them will have to justify their use or they will be
> revoked. I think this will be important in getting buy-in from the general
> population that will be looking to get IPs. ARIN may be looking at nasty
> political or legal ramifications if they don't. If there is any sense of
> favoritism to companies like SUN (mentioned earlier as having a gastly
> number of IPs) or Microsoft, IBM, or Apple for that matter, then other,
> newer companies will call foul. They will argue that they are unable to
> compete, because they cannot provide their customers with what they
> need/want. And in many ways, they will be right.
>
> Is there anything in the new RFC that states that current owners of large
> blocks will have to justify their use?
>
> =- Jim Macknik -=
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joe DeCosta [mailto:decosta at bayconnect.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2001 6:18 PM
> To: Jim Macknik; vwp at arin.net
> Subject: Re: ARIN Justified...
>
>
> ARIN can enforce any policy it wants, remember, they CONTROL the IP
traffic
> of all of north america etc.  and who gets them, if they make an
> administrative decision, it is most likely going to be in the best intrest
> of the internet in general.  I doubt that GE needs an entire Class A
subnet
> etc etc. There are too many IP's issued in such a lax fashion.  Whereas we
> are constantly being hounded by our Uplink to justify our small /24
because
> they can't get IP's from ARIN hardly at all anymore.  It's not a matter
will
> arin require them to do it, its will the big TCP/IP stack carriers start
> producing IPv6 compatible transport software.. In which case, it
alleviates
> the problem for now.  An ISP can assign real fully routeable IP's to
> customers, but not the average end user who is doing simple web browsing
and
> e-mail and instant messaging etc.  It's not restricting whether or not a
> business can do business, it is restricting how the IP's are controlled,
one
> day, there is going to come a time where there will be no IP's left at
all,
> because microsoft has their fingers in their tookuses (as does apple), in
> creating a stable IPv6 compatible TCP/IP stack, etc... We're kind running
> around in a paradox here....
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jim Macknik" <jmacknik at inflow.com>
> To: <vwp at arin.net>
> Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2001 3:35 PM
> Subject: RE: ARIN Justified...
>
>
> > This brings up a good point, as well. How will ARIN enforce its
policies?
> > There are large companies out there that have several Class B or Class A
> > ranges all to themselves that they "reserved" years ago. I doubt many of
> > these organizations could properly justify this space at this time.
> >
> > Will ARIN require them to justify their use and take away the extras,
> > requiring huge organizations or ISPs to completely re-allocate their
> > addressing? If they don't, how will they be able to justify revoking
> denying
> > space to others looking to increase their allocation?
> >
> > This isn't an easy one, but it certainly has to be addressed if ARIN is
> > concerned about political ramifications of a policy that will affect
> whether
> > businesses can even *do* business.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Joe DeCosta [mailto:decosta at bayconnect.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2001 4:00 PM
> > To: Clayton Lambert; 'Douglas Cohn'; vwp at arin.net
> > Subject: Re: ARIN Justified...
> >
> >
> > Well, what do you think that the best approach to this would be, I think
a
> > BIG part of the entire IP space problem is the HUGE market of ISP's like
> > earthlink, Genuity(aka BBN), and the free services that just give any
> schmoe
> > an IP address, I don't think that this is soemthing that  is viable, we
> even
> > to a small Extent use NAT/Name based Virtual Hosting for  some of the
> > domains runing on the secondary T1 in our office.  This all works fine,
> and
> > uses 1 ip for many things.  Perhaps this is a viable options, but i do
> think
> > that ARIN should enforce some sort of NAT with providers (aol,
earthlink,
> > freebie ISPs et al.) who allow just anybody to have an IP when its not
> > needed.  from an admin point of view this can be a bit hellish but well
> > worth the IP space that is being wasted on people that dont *NEED*
random
> > inbound traffic.
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Clayton Lambert" <Clay at exodus.net>
> > To: "'Joe DeCosta'" <decosta at bayconnect.com>; "'Douglas Cohn'"
> > <Douglas.Cohn at Virtualscape.com>; <vwp at arin.net>
> > Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2001 2:17 PM
> > Subject: RE: ARIN Justified...
> >
> >
> > > No argument at all on those points either Joe,
> > >
> > > In fact, it seems there is a lot of common ground on this topic, maybe
> we
> > > should try to identify the specific agreed-upon points and
> > disagreements...?
> > >
> > > It might be something to work from.
> > >
> > > -Clay
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of Joe
> > > DeCosta
> > > Sent: Monday, January 08, 2001 6:44 PM
> > > To: Clayton Lambert; 'Douglas Cohn'; vwp at arin.net
> > > Subject: Re: ARIN Justified...
> > >
> > >
> > > agreed, but with all of the home users, shouldn't some of the major
> ISP's
> > be
> > > considering NAT for DSL/ISDN and Dialup users? i mean, it's an idea, i
> > don't
> > > know how well it would be accepted, i also think that AOL should be
> forced
> > > to use NAT.........its rediclous to see how many IP blocks they own,
but
> > > dialup/isdn/dsl NAT i think could be a suggestion to ISP's no??
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Clayton Lambert" <Clay at exodus.net>
> > > To: "'Douglas Cohn'" <Douglas.Cohn at Virtualscape.com>; <vwp at arin.net>
> > > Sent: Monday, January 08, 2001 4:59 PM
> > > Subject: RE: ARIN Justified...
> > >
> > >
> > > > IPv6 is not the panacea you seem to think it is...
> > > >
> > > > With a mentality like that, we'd burn thru IPv6 in 10 years or
less...
> > > >
> > > > -Clay
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of
> Douglas
> > > > Cohn
> > > > Sent: Friday, January 05, 2001 6:59 AM
> > > > To: vwp at arin.net
> > > > Subject: FW: ARIN Justified...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I forwarded your email to the list for you
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Allen Ahoffman [mailto:ahoffman at announce.com]
> > > > Sent: Friday, July 10, 2893 6:44 PM
> > > > To: Douglas Cohn
> > > > Subject: Re: ARIN Justified...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > OK let me interject a question into this discussion:
> > > >
> > > > Why are we requiring a /19 or in some cases /20 of space before
being
> > > > allowed to get our own allocation?
> > > > I realize management is an issue, but a $2500/year it encourages
small
> > > > users to build up to that point.
> > > >
> > > > We get users who don't want us to have iI space from other vendors,
so
> > > > we
> > > > get pressure for more iP usage and pressure for less.
> > > >
> > > > For example, in converting from one provider to another I have had
> > > > difficult time getting replacment iP space in less than 8 months
now,
> > > > but
> > > > was making efforts to not purchase the /19.  I thik we might bge by
> > > > without it but the minimum size creates pressure to fill IP(s).
> > > > I do agree that users seem to want IP(s) without reason, seems like
> IPV6
> > > > might look more appealing every day?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > [Charset
> > > > iso-8859-1 unsupported,
> > > > filtering to ASCII...] > I must get my two cents in here as well.
> > > > >
> > > > > I feel Clayton has the right track.
> > > > >
> > > > > I manage IP allocation as well for dedicated and colocated
clients.
> > > > Our
> > > > > policy used to state each server was issued 16 IPs.  We provision
> with
> > > > 1
> > > > > IP only.  If a client asks for the rest I also require the need
for
> > > > the
> > > > > IPs.
> > > > > Too often they want them for testing or only because they saw that
> > > > they
> > > > > get 16 IPs with a server.  They must supply the domain names and
> > > > reasons
> > > > > why they cannot use IPless hosting.  While I will not force IPless
> > > > > hosting on clients I push it and train it's use for free.
> > > > >
> > > > > We now state that you get a single IP with each dedicated server
and
> > > > > additional IPs are billed on a monthly basis.  This helps a lot to
> > > > > defray usage.  While it is a revenue stream that is not it's
purpose
> > > > > whatsoever.
> > > > >
> > > > > In Shared hosting though the issues are clearly Search engines and
> SSL
> > > > > as far as I know.
> > > > >
> > > > > Most people understand why we watch our address space and
appreciate
> > > > it.
> > > > >
> > > > > Douglas Cohn
> > > > > Manager NY Engineering
> > > > > Hostcentric, Inc.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of
> > > > Stephen
> > > > > Elliott
> > > > > Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 4:47 PM
> > > > > To: Clayton Lambert; Virtual IP List
> > > > > Subject: Re: ARIN Justified...
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > :-)  The reason I mentioned Exodus is because we are a customer of
> > > > > Exodus, and in my opinion, the policy is too restrictive.  And the
> > > > > statement was directed at the fact that Exodus hosts many
companies
> > > > that
> > > > > are in the business of hosting websites, not Exodus as a company.
> As
> > > > I
> > > > > have stated in earlier postings, simply clamping down and
> restricting
> > > > > virtual web hosting is not the answer.  Any list of
justifications,
> no
> > > > > matter how much thought went into it, will not cover every
possible
> > > > > reason for needing the IP's.  Documentation is a great thing, just
> the
> > > > > fact that someone has to sit down and write out a list of machines
> > > > that
> > > > > need IP's will deter most people from requesting extra IP's.
> > > > > -Stephen
> > > > >
> > > > > Clayton Lambert wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Do you have ANY idea of what you are saying?  Sorry for
appearing
> > > > > brash,
> > > > > > but...I run the IP maintenance organization at Exodus, and I
would
> > > > > easily
> > > > > > stack our allocation policy up against anybody's.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You have no idea what you are talking about in regard to larger
> > > > > companies.
> > > > > > Exodus consumes a very modest amount of address space given our
> size
> > > > > and
> > > > > > presence on the Internet.  There are much smaller competitors of
> > > > ours
> > > > > that
> > > > > > consume larger amounts of IP space.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Exodus is already pioneering the efficiency of use ideology that
I
> > > > > would
> > > > > > like to see ARIN adopt (a strong HTTP1.1 stance on ARIN's part
is
> a
> > > > > good
> > > > > > start).  We currently require extensive supporting documentation
> for
> > > > > IP
> > > > > > requests from all our Customers.  A Customer has to show a
> > > > documented
> > > > > need
> > > > > > for their usage request and we file all these requests and refer
> to
> > > > > past
> > > > > > requests and detail as additional requests for address space
> occur.
> > > > > This
> > > > > > method gives us a very clear and honest indication of IP address
> > > > usage
> > > > > > growth. This allows us to support our Customers' IP addressing
> needs
> > > > > in a
> > > > > > very accurate and efficient way.  The end result is less
> consumption
> > > > > of IPv4
> > > > > > space across the board.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Clayton Lambert
> > > > > > Exodus Communications
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of
> > > > > Stephen
> > > > > > Elliott
> > > > > > Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 12:20 PM
> > > > > > To: Virtual IP List
> > > > > > Subject: RE: ARIN Justified...
> > > > > >
> > > > > >         The big guys that you refer to are generally not in the
> web
> > > > > hosting
> > > > > > business and therefore are outside of the scope of this
> > > > conversation.
> > > > > > The real concern is the big guys like Exodus and UUNet.  Since
> IPv6
> > > > is
> > > > > > not a viable option for general consumption yet, we need to
> > > > > concentrate
> > > > > > on conserving the existing IPv4 space.  As far as search engines
> go,
> > > > > if
> > > > > > enough sites start using HTTP1.1 software virtual servers, they
> will
> > > > > be
> > > > > > forced to upgrade their spiders to support it.  I would suggest
> that
> > > > > one
> > > > > > of the main issues at hand is billing.  Billing for web hosting
> > > > > > companies that is.  Most companies bundle bandwidth with their
> > > > hosting
> > > > > > packages, and current billing packages utilize destination IP
> > > > address
> > > > > > information to gather this information.  If there is not a way
to
> > > > get
> > > > > > this information without drastic changes to both billing
software
> > > > and
> > > > > in
> > > > > > some cases hardware, there will be very strong opposition to any
> > > > > changes
> > > > > > in the way IP addresses are given out.
> > > > > > -Stephen
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Stephen Elliott                 Harrison & Troxell
> > > > > > Systems & Networking Manager    2 Faneuil Hall Marketplace
> > > > > > Systems & Networking Group      Boston, Ma 02109
> > > > > > (617)227-0494 Phone             (617)720-3918 Fax
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Stephen Elliott                 Harrison & Troxell
> > > > > Systems & Networking Manager    2 Faneuil Hall Marketplace
> > > > > Systems & Networking Group      Boston, Ma 02109
> > > > > (617)227-0494 Phone             (617)720-3918 Fax
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
> **********************************************************************
>
> The information in this e-mail is confidential and is legally privileged.
> It is intended solely for the addressee.  If this email is not intended
for
> you, you cannot copy, distribute, or disclose the included information
> to any-one
>
> If you are not the intended recipient please delete the mail. Whilst
> all reasonable steps have been taken to ensure the accuracy and
> integrity of all data transmitted electronically, no liability is accepted
> if the data, for whatever reason, is corrupt or does not reach it's
> intended destination.
> All business is undertaken, subject to our standard trading conditions
> which are available on request.
>
> *******************************************************************
>
>



From decosta at bayconnect.com  Wed Jan 10 14:42:51 2001
From: decosta at bayconnect.com (Joe DeCosta)
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 11:42:51 -0800
Subject: ARIN Justified..
References: <200101101856.KAA28025@exoserv.exodus.net>
Message-ID: <003d01c07b3d$85684ac0$cd00000a@andrade.net>

*looks at clay, and nods* This is so true, if this happens, we can say hello
1984.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Clayton Lambert" <Clay at exodus.net>
To: "'Gilbert Martin @ Learning Solutions'" <Gilbert.Martin at za.didata.com>;
"'Joe DeCosta'" <decosta at bayconnect.com>
Cc: "'Chris Miller'" <ctodd at netgate.net>; "'Jim Macknik'"
<jmacknik at inflow.com>; <vwp at arin.net>
Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2001 10:56 AM
Subject: RE: ARIN Justified..


> I don't think an "Identity Number 'Social Security Number'" is a good
> idea...The threat to privacy is MUCH GREATER that the threat of illegal
use
> (and the commensurate desire to chase down the 'criminal'.
>
>
> -Clay
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of Gilbert
> Martin @ Learning Solutions
> Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2001 5:15 AM
> To: 'Joe DeCosta'
> Cc: 'Chris Miller'; 'Jim Macknik'; 'vwp at arin.net'
> Subject: RE: ARIN Justified..
>
>
> What I am saying is the fact that every person with a machine should have
> his own number like an Identity Number "Social Security Number" this will
> also allow all ISPs, search engines, web hosters and so forth to locate
> illegal activity and malicious attacks Give me a few hours and I will send
> you a diagrma to explain in alittle more detail what I am saying here...
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gilbert Martin @ Learning Solutions
> Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2001 3:08 PM
> To: 'Joe DeCosta'; Gilbert Martin @ Learning Solutions
> Cc: 'Chris Miller'; Jim Macknik; vwp at arin.net
> Subject: RE: ARIN Justified..
>
>
> Yes, simply because of the fact that there will be x amount of addresses
> given to machines and y amount available for huge web space useres, and
even
> inside of a corporate network secretaries do use the Internet address
space
> more, tentavively as soon as they discover Internet explorer they go
> ballistic!!!
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joe DeCosta [mailto:decosta at bayconnect.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2001 9:41 AM
> To: Gilbert Martin @ Learning Solutions
> Cc: 'Chris Miller'; Jim Macknik; vwp at arin.net
> Subject: Re: ARIN Justified..
>
>
> Could you clairfy why computers on INTERNAL networks would need a fully
> routeable STATIC ip address? I don't see why a private computer inside a
> corporate network at some secrataries desk needs a fully routeable
> static ip. etc etc...
>
>
>
> "Gilbert Martin @ Learning Solutions" wrote:
> >
> > Exactly what I said yesterday, wouldn't it be more simple for people not
> > accessing external networks via the INternet to rather be given a static
> > address and then if the need arises let them also be able to request a
> newer
> > address, the end result will be that only those using ISP's will be
using
> up
> > address space?
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Chris Miller [mailto:ctodd at netgate.net]
> > Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2001 3:09 AM
> > To: Jim Macknik
> > Cc: vwp at arin.net
> > Subject: RE: ARIN Justified..
> >
> > Sun Microsystems (and others companies I'm sure) has many addresses that
> > never see the internet, they use most of these strictly for their
internal
> > networks. Surely they could use reserved addresses for many of these
> > purposes.....
> >
> > Sun Microsystems, Inc. (NETBLK-SUN4)
> >    2550 Garcia Avenue
> >    Mountain View, CA 94043
> >
> >    Netname: SUN4
> >    Netblock: 129.144.0.0 - 129.159.255.255
> >
> > Chris
> >
> > On Tue, 9 Jan 2001, Jim Macknik wrote:
> >
> > > This brings up a good point, as well. How will ARIN enforce its
> policies?
> > > There are large companies out there that have several Class B or Class
A
> > > ranges all to themselves that they "reserved" years ago. I doubt many
of
> > > these organizations could properly justify this space at this time.
> > >
> > > Will ARIN require them to justify their use and take away the extras,
> > > requiring huge organizations or ISPs to completely re-allocate their
> > > addressing? If they don't, how will they be able to justify revoking
> > denying
> > > space to others looking to increase their allocation?
> > >
> > > This isn't an easy one, but it certainly has to be addressed if ARIN
is
> > > concerned about political ramifications of a policy that will affect
> > whether
> > > businesses can even *do* business.
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Joe DeCosta [mailto:decosta at bayconnect.com]
> > > Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2001 4:00 PM
> > > To: Clayton Lambert; 'Douglas Cohn'; vwp at arin.net
> > > Subject: Re: ARIN Justified...
> > >
> > >
> > > Well, what do you think that the best approach to this would be, I
think
> a
> > > BIG part of the entire IP space problem is the HUGE market of ISP's
like
> > > earthlink, Genuity(aka BBN), and the free services that just give any
> > schmoe
> > > an IP address, I don't think that this is soemthing that  is viable,
we
> > even
> > > to a small Extent use NAT/Name based Virtual Hosting for  some of the
> > > domains runing on the secondary T1 in our office.  This all works
fine,
> > and
> > > uses 1 ip for many things.  Perhaps this is a viable options, but i do
> > think
> > > that ARIN should enforce some sort of NAT with providers (aol,
> earthlink,
> > > freebie ISPs et al.) who allow just anybody to have an IP when its not
> > > needed.  from an admin point of view this can be a bit hellish but
well
> > > worth the IP space that is being wasted on people that dont *NEED*
> random
> > > inbound traffic.
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Clayton Lambert" <Clay at exodus.net>
> > > To: "'Joe DeCosta'" <decosta at bayconnect.com>; "'Douglas Cohn'"
> > > <Douglas.Cohn at Virtualscape.com>; <vwp at arin.net>
> > > Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2001 2:17 PM
> > > Subject: RE: ARIN Justified...
> > >
> > >
> > > > No argument at all on those points either Joe,
> > > >
> > > > In fact, it seems there is a lot of common ground on this topic,
maybe
> > we
> > > > should try to identify the specific agreed-upon points and
> > > disagreements...?
> > > >
> > > > It might be something to work from.
> > > >
> > > > -Clay
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of Joe
> > > > DeCosta
> > > > Sent: Monday, January 08, 2001 6:44 PM
> > > > To: Clayton Lambert; 'Douglas Cohn'; vwp at arin.net
> > > > Subject: Re: ARIN Justified...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > agreed, but with all of the home users, shouldn't some of the major
> > ISP's
> > > be
> > > > considering NAT for DSL/ISDN and Dialup users? i mean, it's an idea,
i
> > > don't
> > > > know how well it would be accepted, i also think that AOL should be
> > forced
> > > > to use NAT.........its rediclous to see how many IP blocks they own,
> but
> > > > dialup/isdn/dsl NAT i think could be a suggestion to ISP's no??
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: "Clayton Lambert" <Clay at exodus.net>
> > > > To: "'Douglas Cohn'" <Douglas.Cohn at Virtualscape.com>; <vwp at arin.net>
> > > > Sent: Monday, January 08, 2001 4:59 PM
> > > > Subject: RE: ARIN Justified...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > IPv6 is not the panacea you seem to think it is...
> > > > >
> > > > > With a mentality like that, we'd burn thru IPv6 in 10 years or
> less...
> > > > >
> > > > > -Clay
> > > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of
> > Douglas
> > > > > Cohn
> > > > > Sent: Friday, January 05, 2001 6:59 AM
> > > > > To: vwp at arin.net
> > > > > Subject: FW: ARIN Justified...
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I forwarded your email to the list for you
> > > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: Allen Ahoffman [mailto:ahoffman at announce.com]
> > > > > Sent: Friday, July 10, 2893 6:44 PM
> > > > > To: Douglas Cohn
> > > > > Subject: Re: ARIN Justified...
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > OK let me interject a question into this discussion:
> > > > >
> > > > > Why are we requiring a /19 or in some cases /20 of space before
> being
> > > > > allowed to get our own allocation?
> > > > > I realize management is an issue, but a $2500/year it encourages
> small
> > > > > users to build up to that point.
> > > > >
> > > > > We get users who don't want us to have iI space from other
vendors,
> so
> > > > > we
> > > > > get pressure for more iP usage and pressure for less.
> > > > >
> > > > > For example, in converting from one provider to another I have had
> > > > > difficult time getting replacment iP space in less than 8 months
> now,
> > > > > but
> > > > > was making efforts to not purchase the /19.  I thik we might bge
by
> > > > > without it but the minimum size creates pressure to fill IP(s).
> > > > > I do agree that users seem to want IP(s) without reason, seems
like
> > IPV6
> > > > > might look more appealing every day?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > [Charset
> > > > > iso-8859-1 unsupported,
> > > > > filtering to ASCII...] > I must get my two cents in here as well.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I feel Clayton has the right track.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I manage IP allocation as well for dedicated and colocated
> clients.
> > > > > Our
> > > > > > policy used to state each server was issued 16 IPs.  We
provision
> > with
> > > > > 1
> > > > > > IP only.  If a client asks for the rest I also require the need
> for
> > > > > the
> > > > > > IPs.
> > > > > > Too often they want them for testing or only because they saw
that
> > > > > they
> > > > > > get 16 IPs with a server.  They must supply the domain names and
> > > > > reasons
> > > > > > why they cannot use IPless hosting.  While I will not force
IPless
> > > > > > hosting on clients I push it and train it's use for free.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > We now state that you get a single IP with each dedicated server
> and
> > > > > > additional IPs are billed on a monthly basis.  This helps a lot
to
> > > > > > defray usage.  While it is a revenue stream that is not it's
> purpose
> > > > > > whatsoever.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In Shared hosting though the issues are clearly Search engines
and
> > SSL
> > > > > > as far as I know.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Most people understand why we watch our address space and
> appreciate
> > > > > it.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Douglas Cohn
> > > > > > Manager NY Engineering
> > > > > > Hostcentric, Inc.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of
> > > > > Stephen
> > > > > > Elliott
> > > > > > Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 4:47 PM
> > > > > > To: Clayton Lambert; Virtual IP List
> > > > > > Subject: Re: ARIN Justified...
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > :-)  The reason I mentioned Exodus is because we are a customer
of
> > > > > > Exodus, and in my opinion, the policy is too restrictive.  And
the
> > > > > > statement was directed at the fact that Exodus hosts many
> companies
> > > > > that
> > > > > > are in the business of hosting websites, not Exodus as a
company.
> > As
> > > > > I
> > > > > > have stated in earlier postings, simply clamping down and
> > restricting
> > > > > > virtual web hosting is not the answer.  Any list of
> justifications,
> > no
> > > > > > matter how much thought went into it, will not cover every
> possible
> > > > > > reason for needing the IP's.  Documentation is a great thing,
just
> > the
> > > > > > fact that someone has to sit down and write out a list of
machines
> > > > > that
> > > > > > need IP's will deter most people from requesting extra IP's.
> > > > > > -Stephen
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Clayton Lambert wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Do you have ANY idea of what you are saying?  Sorry for
> appearing
> > > > > > brash,
> > > > > > > but...I run the IP maintenance organization at Exodus, and I
> would
> > > > > > easily
> > > > > > > stack our allocation policy up against anybody's.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > You have no idea what you are talking about in regard to
larger
> > > > > > companies.
> > > > > > > Exodus consumes a very modest amount of address space given
our
> > size
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > presence on the Internet.  There are much smaller competitors
of
> > > > > ours
> > > > > > that
> > > > > > > consume larger amounts of IP space.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Exodus is already pioneering the efficiency of use ideology
that
> I
> > > > > > would
> > > > > > > like to see ARIN adopt (a strong HTTP1.1 stance on ARIN's part
> is
> > a
> > > > > > good
> > > > > > > start).  We currently require extensive supporting
documentation
> > for
> > > > > > IP
> > > > > > > requests from all our Customers.  A Customer has to show a
> > > > > documented
> > > > > > need
> > > > > > > for their usage request and we file all these requests and
refer
> > to
> > > > > > past
> > > > > > > requests and detail as additional requests for address space
> > occur.
> > > > > > This
> > > > > > > method gives us a very clear and honest indication of IP
address
> > > > > usage
> > > > > > > growth. This allows us to support our Customers' IP addressing
> > needs
> > > > > > in a
> > > > > > > very accurate and efficient way.  The end result is less
> > consumption
> > > > > > of IPv4
> > > > > > > space across the board.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Clayton Lambert
> > > > > > > Exodus Communications
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf
Of
> > > > > > Stephen
> > > > > > > Elliott
> > > > > > > Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 12:20 PM
> > > > > > > To: Virtual IP List
> > > > > > > Subject: RE: ARIN Justified...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >         The big guys that you refer to are generally not in
the
> > web
> > > > > > hosting
> > > > > > > business and therefore are outside of the scope of this
> > > > > conversation.
> > > > > > > The real concern is the big guys like Exodus and UUNet.  Since
> > IPv6
> > > > > is
> > > > > > > not a viable option for general consumption yet, we need to
> > > > > > concentrate
> > > > > > > on conserving the existing IPv4 space.  As far as search
engines
> > go,
> > > > > > if
> > > > > > > enough sites start using HTTP1.1 software virtual servers,
they
> > will
> > > > > > be
> > > > > > > forced to upgrade their spiders to support it.  I would
suggest
> > that
> > > > > > one
> > > > > > > of the main issues at hand is billing.  Billing for web
hosting
> > > > > > > companies that is.  Most companies bundle bandwidth with their
> > > > > hosting
> > > > > > > packages, and current billing packages utilize destination IP
> > > > > address
> > > > > > > information to gather this information.  If there is not a way
> to
> > > > > get
> > > > > > > this information without drastic changes to both billing
> software
> > > > > and
> > > > > > in
> > > > > > > some cases hardware, there will be very strong opposition to
any
> > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > in the way IP addresses are given out.
> > > > > > > -Stephen
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > Stephen Elliott                 Harrison & Troxell
> > > > > > > Systems & Networking Manager    2 Faneuil Hall Marketplace
> > > > > > > Systems & Networking Group      Boston, Ma 02109
> > > > > > > (617)227-0494 Phone             (617)720-3918 Fax
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Stephen Elliott                 Harrison & Troxell
> > > > > > Systems & Networking Manager    2 Faneuil Hall Marketplace
> > > > > > Systems & Networking Group      Boston, Ma 02109
> > > > > > (617)227-0494 Phone             (617)720-3918 Fax
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> > **********************************************************************
> >
> > The information in this e-mail is confidential and is legally
privileged.
> > It is intended solely for the addressee.  If this email is not intended
> for
> > you, you cannot copy, distribute, or disclose the included information
> > to any-one
> >
> > If you are not the intended recipient please delete the mail. Whilst
> > all reasonable steps have been taken to ensure the accuracy and
> > integrity of all data transmitted electronically, no liability is
accepted
> > if the data, for whatever reason, is corrupt or does not reach it's
> > intended destination.
> > All business is undertaken, subject to our standard trading conditions
> > which are available on request.
> >
> > *******************************************************************
>
>
> **********************************************************************
>
> The information in this e-mail is confidential and is legally privileged.
> It is intended solely for the addressee.  If this email is not intended
for
> you, you cannot copy, distribute, or disclose the included information
> to any-one
>
> If you are not the intended recipient please delete the mail. Whilst
> all reasonable steps have been taken to ensure the accuracy and
> integrity of all data transmitted electronically, no liability is accepted
> if the data, for whatever reason, is corrupt or does not reach it's
> intended destination.
> All business is undertaken, subject to our standard trading conditions
> which are available on request.
>
> *******************************************************************
>
>
>



From Clay at exodus.net  Wed Jan 10 14:43:54 2001
From: Clay at exodus.net (Clayton Lambert)
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 11:43:54 -0800
Subject: ARIN Justified..
In-Reply-To: <200101101617.QAA12412@vacation.karoshi.com>
Message-ID: <200101101944.LAA05520@exoserv.exodus.net>

The primary reason is that it was easy...As there was a lot of address space
available back then.


Clay

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of
bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com
Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2001 8:17 AM
To: Gilbert Martin @ Learning Solutions
Cc: 'Joe DeCosta'; 'Chris Miller'; 'Jim Macknik'; 'vwp at arin.net'
Subject: Re: ARIN Justified..



Two things:

	"grandfathered" delegations have been done so for a reason.
	changing the rules after the fact and forcing renumbering
	will bring legal challanges.

	segregation of endpoint identifiers from topology is a
	goal devoutly to be wished. unfortunately, in IP they are
	the same... even with v6. Nimrod attempted to fix the issue
	and there are some efforts to try and bring a working solution
	to light.

> What I am saying is the fact that every person with a machine should have
> his own number like an Identity Number "Social Security Number" this will
> also allow all ISPs, search engines, web hosters and so forth to locate
> illegal activity and malicious attacks Give me a few hours and I will send
> you a diagrma to explain in alittle more detail what I am saying here...
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gilbert Martin @ Learning Solutions
> Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2001 3:08 PM
> To: 'Joe DeCosta'; Gilbert Martin @ Learning Solutions
> Cc: 'Chris Miller'; Jim Macknik; vwp at arin.net
> Subject: RE: ARIN Justified..
>
>
> Yes, simply because of the fact that there will be x amount of addresses
> given to machines and y amount available for huge web space useres, and
even
> inside of a corporate network secretaries do use the Internet address
space
> more, tentavively as soon as they discover Internet explorer they go
> ballistic!!!
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joe DeCosta [mailto:decosta at bayconnect.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2001 9:41 AM
> To: Gilbert Martin @ Learning Solutions
> Cc: 'Chris Miller'; Jim Macknik; vwp at arin.net
> Subject: Re: ARIN Justified..
>
>
> Could you clairfy why computers on INTERNAL networks would need a fully
> routeable STATIC ip address? I don't see why a private computer inside a
> corporate network at some secrataries desk needs a fully routeable
> static ip. etc etc...
>
>
>
> "Gilbert Martin @ Learning Solutions" wrote:
> >
> > Exactly what I said yesterday, wouldn't it be more simple for people not
> > accessing external networks via the INternet to rather be given a static
> > address and then if the need arises let them also be able to request a
> newer
> > address, the end result will be that only those using ISP's will be
using
> up
> > address space?
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Chris Miller [mailto:ctodd at netgate.net]
> > Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2001 3:09 AM
> > To: Jim Macknik
> > Cc: vwp at arin.net
> > Subject: RE: ARIN Justified..
> >
> > Sun Microsystems (and others companies I'm sure) has many addresses that
> > never see the internet, they use most of these strictly for their
internal
> > networks. Surely they could use reserved addresses for many of these
> > purposes.....
> >
> > Sun Microsystems, Inc. (NETBLK-SUN4)
> >    2550 Garcia Avenue
> >    Mountain View, CA 94043
> >
> >    Netname: SUN4
> >    Netblock: 129.144.0.0 - 129.159.255.255
> >
> > Chris
> >
> > On Tue, 9 Jan 2001, Jim Macknik wrote:
> >
> > > This brings up a good point, as well. How will ARIN enforce its
> policies?
> > > There are large companies out there that have several Class B or Class
A
> > > ranges all to themselves that they "reserved" years ago. I doubt many
of
> > > these organizations could properly justify this space at this time.
> > >
> > > Will ARIN require them to justify their use and take away the extras,
> > > requiring huge organizations or ISPs to completely re-allocate their
> > > addressing? If they don't, how will they be able to justify revoking
> > denying
> > > space to others looking to increase their allocation?
> > >
> > > This isn't an easy one, but it certainly has to be addressed if ARIN
is
> > > concerned about political ramifications of a policy that will affect
> > whether
> > > businesses can even *do* business.
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Joe DeCosta [mailto:decosta at bayconnect.com]
> > > Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2001 4:00 PM
> > > To: Clayton Lambert; 'Douglas Cohn'; vwp at arin.net
> > > Subject: Re: ARIN Justified...
> > >
> > >
> > > Well, what do you think that the best approach to this would be, I
think
> a
> > > BIG part of the entire IP space problem is the HUGE market of ISP's
like
> > > earthlink, Genuity(aka BBN), and the free services that just give any
> > schmoe
> > > an IP address, I don't think that this is soemthing that  is viable,
we
> > even
> > > to a small Extent use NAT/Name based Virtual Hosting for  some of the
> > > domains runing on the secondary T1 in our office.  This all works
fine,
> > and
> > > uses 1 ip for many things.  Perhaps this is a viable options, but i do
> > think
> > > that ARIN should enforce some sort of NAT with providers (aol,
> earthlink,
> > > freebie ISPs et al.) who allow just anybody to have an IP when its not
> > > needed.  from an admin point of view this can be a bit hellish but
well
> > > worth the IP space that is being wasted on people that dont *NEED*
> random
> > > inbound traffic.
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Clayton Lambert" <Clay at exodus.net>
> > > To: "'Joe DeCosta'" <decosta at bayconnect.com>; "'Douglas Cohn'"
> > > <Douglas.Cohn at Virtualscape.com>; <vwp at arin.net>
> > > Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2001 2:17 PM
> > > Subject: RE: ARIN Justified...
> > >
> > >
> > > > No argument at all on those points either Joe,
> > > >
> > > > In fact, it seems there is a lot of common ground on this topic,
maybe
> > we
> > > > should try to identify the specific agreed-upon points and
> > > disagreements...?
> > > >
> > > > It might be something to work from.
> > > >
> > > > -Clay
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of Joe
> > > > DeCosta
> > > > Sent: Monday, January 08, 2001 6:44 PM
> > > > To: Clayton Lambert; 'Douglas Cohn'; vwp at arin.net
> > > > Subject: Re: ARIN Justified...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > agreed, but with all of the home users, shouldn't some of the major
> > ISP's
> > > be
> > > > considering NAT for DSL/ISDN and Dialup users? i mean, it's an idea,
i
> > > don't
> > > > know how well it would be accepted, i also think that AOL should be
> > forced
> > > > to use NAT.........its rediclous to see how many IP blocks they own,
> but
> > > > dialup/isdn/dsl NAT i think could be a suggestion to ISP's no??
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: "Clayton Lambert" <Clay at exodus.net>
> > > > To: "'Douglas Cohn'" <Douglas.Cohn at Virtualscape.com>; <vwp at arin.net>
> > > > Sent: Monday, January 08, 2001 4:59 PM
> > > > Subject: RE: ARIN Justified...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > IPv6 is not the panacea you seem to think it is...
> > > > >
> > > > > With a mentality like that, we'd burn thru IPv6 in 10 years or
> less...
> > > > >
> > > > > -Clay
> > > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of
> > Douglas
> > > > > Cohn
> > > > > Sent: Friday, January 05, 2001 6:59 AM
> > > > > To: vwp at arin.net
> > > > > Subject: FW: ARIN Justified...
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I forwarded your email to the list for you
> > > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: Allen Ahoffman [mailto:ahoffman at announce.com]
> > > > > Sent: Friday, July 10, 2893 6:44 PM
> > > > > To: Douglas Cohn
> > > > > Subject: Re: ARIN Justified...
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > OK let me interject a question into this discussion:
> > > > >
> > > > > Why are we requiring a /19 or in some cases /20 of space before
> being
> > > > > allowed to get our own allocation?
> > > > > I realize management is an issue, but a $2500/year it encourages
> small
> > > > > users to build up to that point.
> > > > >
> > > > > We get users who don't want us to have iI space from other
vendors,
> so
> > > > > we
> > > > > get pressure for more iP usage and pressure for less.
> > > > >
> > > > > For example, in converting from one provider to another I have had
> > > > > difficult time getting replacment iP space in less than 8 months
> now,
> > > > > but
> > > > > was making efforts to not purchase the /19.  I thik we might bge
by
> > > > > without it but the minimum size creates pressure to fill IP(s).
> > > > > I do agree that users seem to want IP(s) without reason, seems
like
> > IPV6
> > > > > might look more appealing every day?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > [Charset
> > > > > iso-8859-1 unsupported,
> > > > > filtering to ASCII...] > I must get my two cents in here as well.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I feel Clayton has the right track.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I manage IP allocation as well for dedicated and colocated
> clients.
> > > > > Our
> > > > > > policy used to state each server was issued 16 IPs.  We
provision
> > with
> > > > > 1
> > > > > > IP only.  If a client asks for the rest I also require the need
> for
> > > > > the
> > > > > > IPs.
> > > > > > Too often they want them for testing or only because they saw
that
> > > > > they
> > > > > > get 16 IPs with a server.  They must supply the domain names and
> > > > > reasons
> > > > > > why they cannot use IPless hosting.  While I will not force
IPless
> > > > > > hosting on clients I push it and train it's use for free.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > We now state that you get a single IP with each dedicated server
> and
> > > > > > additional IPs are billed on a monthly basis.  This helps a lot
to
> > > > > > defray usage.  While it is a revenue stream that is not it's
> purpose
> > > > > > whatsoever.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In Shared hosting though the issues are clearly Search engines
and
> > SSL
> > > > > > as far as I know.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Most people understand why we watch our address space and
> appreciate
> > > > > it.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Douglas Cohn
> > > > > > Manager NY Engineering
> > > > > > Hostcentric, Inc.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of
> > > > > Stephen
> > > > > > Elliott
> > > > > > Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 4:47 PM
> > > > > > To: Clayton Lambert; Virtual IP List
> > > > > > Subject: Re: ARIN Justified...
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > :-)  The reason I mentioned Exodus is because we are a customer
of
> > > > > > Exodus, and in my opinion, the policy is too restrictive.  And
the
> > > > > > statement was directed at the fact that Exodus hosts many
> companies
> > > > > that
> > > > > > are in the business of hosting websites, not Exodus as a
company.
> > As
> > > > > I
> > > > > > have stated in earlier postings, simply clamping down and
> > restricting
> > > > > > virtual web hosting is not the answer.  Any list of
> justifications,
> > no
> > > > > > matter how much thought went into it, will not cover every
> possible
> > > > > > reason for needing the IP's.  Documentation is a great thing,
just
> > the
> > > > > > fact that someone has to sit down and write out a list of
machines
> > > > > that
> > > > > > need IP's will deter most people from requesting extra IP's.
> > > > > > -Stephen
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Clayton Lambert wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Do you have ANY idea of what you are saying?  Sorry for
> appearing
> > > > > > brash,
> > > > > > > but...I run the IP maintenance organization at Exodus, and I
> would
> > > > > > easily
> > > > > > > stack our allocation policy up against anybody's.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > You have no idea what you are talking about in regard to
larger
> > > > > > companies.
> > > > > > > Exodus consumes a very modest amount of address space given
our
> > size
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > presence on the Internet.  There are much smaller competitors
of
> > > > > ours
> > > > > > that
> > > > > > > consume larger amounts of IP space.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Exodus is already pioneering the efficiency of use ideology
that
> I
> > > > > > would
> > > > > > > like to see ARIN adopt (a strong HTTP1.1 stance on ARIN's part
> is
> > a
> > > > > > good
> > > > > > > start).  We currently require extensive supporting
documentation
> > for
> > > > > > IP
> > > > > > > requests from all our Customers.  A Customer has to show a
> > > > > documented
> > > > > > need
> > > > > > > for their usage request and we file all these requests and
refer
> > to
> > > > > > past
> > > > > > > requests and detail as additional requests for address space
> > occur.
> > > > > > This
> > > > > > > method gives us a very clear and honest indication of IP
address
> > > > > usage
> > > > > > > growth. This allows us to support our Customers' IP addressing
> > needs
> > > > > > in a
> > > > > > > very accurate and efficient way.  The end result is less
> > consumption
> > > > > > of IPv4
> > > > > > > space across the board.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Clayton Lambert
> > > > > > > Exodus Communications
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf
Of
> > > > > > Stephen
> > > > > > > Elliott
> > > > > > > Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 12:20 PM
> > > > > > > To: Virtual IP List
> > > > > > > Subject: RE: ARIN Justified...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >         The big guys that you refer to are generally not in
the
> > web
> > > > > > hosting
> > > > > > > business and therefore are outside of the scope of this
> > > > > conversation.
> > > > > > > The real concern is the big guys like Exodus and UUNet.  Since
> > IPv6
> > > > > is
> > > > > > > not a viable option for general consumption yet, we need to
> > > > > > concentrate
> > > > > > > on conserving the existing IPv4 space.  As far as search
engines
> > go,
> > > > > > if
> > > > > > > enough sites start using HTTP1.1 software virtual servers,
they
> > will
> > > > > > be
> > > > > > > forced to upgrade their spiders to support it.  I would
suggest
> > that
> > > > > > one
> > > > > > > of the main issues at hand is billing.  Billing for web
hosting
> > > > > > > companies that is.  Most companies bundle bandwidth with their
> > > > > hosting
> > > > > > > packages, and current billing packages utilize destination IP
> > > > > address
> > > > > > > information to gather this information.  If there is not a way
> to
> > > > > get
> > > > > > > this information without drastic changes to both billing
> software
> > > > > and
> > > > > > in
> > > > > > > some cases hardware, there will be very strong opposition to
any
> > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > in the way IP addresses are given out.
> > > > > > > -Stephen
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > Stephen Elliott                 Harrison & Troxell
> > > > > > > Systems & Networking Manager    2 Faneuil Hall Marketplace
> > > > > > > Systems & Networking Group      Boston, Ma 02109
> > > > > > > (617)227-0494 Phone             (617)720-3918 Fax
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Stephen Elliott                 Harrison & Troxell
> > > > > > Systems & Networking Manager    2 Faneuil Hall Marketplace
> > > > > > Systems & Networking Group      Boston, Ma 02109
> > > > > > (617)227-0494 Phone             (617)720-3918 Fax
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> > **********************************************************************
> >
> > The information in this e-mail is confidential and is legally
privileged.
> > It is intended solely for the addressee.  If this email is not intended
> for
> > you, you cannot copy, distribute, or disclose the included information
> > to any-one
> >
> > If you are not the intended recipient please delete the mail. Whilst
> > all reasonable steps have been taken to ensure the accuracy and
> > integrity of all data transmitted electronically, no liability is
accepted
> > if the data, for whatever reason, is corrupt or does not reach it's
> > intended destination.
> > All business is undertaken, subject to our standard trading conditions
> > which are available on request.
> >
> > *******************************************************************
>
>
> **********************************************************************
>
> The information in this e-mail is confidential and is legally privileged.
> It is intended solely for the addressee.  If this email is not intended
for
> you, you cannot copy, distribute, or disclose the included information
> to any-one
>
> If you are not the intended recipient please delete the mail. Whilst
> all reasonable steps have been taken to ensure the accuracy and
> integrity of all data transmitted electronically, no liability is accepted
> if the data, for whatever reason, is corrupt or does not reach it's
> intended destination.
> All business is undertaken, subject to our standard trading conditions
> which are available on request.
>
> *******************************************************************
>




From Clay at exodus.net  Wed Jan 10 14:47:44 2001
From: Clay at exodus.net (Clayton Lambert)
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 11:47:44 -0800
Subject: ARIN Justified...
In-Reply-To: <a05001900b6824a831b88@[10.100.162.85]>
Message-ID: <200101101948.LAA06431@exoserv.exodus.net>

the rules have been changed before and they can be changed again.  Time has
never been a limiting fact in updating policies or rules..ESPECIALLY if
those rules change due to NECESSITY.  The lawyers can sue all they want, but
if they do there is a risk that we could indeed run out of IP address
space...Then the rules won't account for anything and desperate measures
will override ANY grandfather clause you can think of.

-Clay

-----Original Message-----
From: Justin W. Newton [mailto:justin at gid.net]
Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2001 9:22 AM
To: Clayton Lambert; 'Alec H. Peterson'
Cc: 'Jim Macknik'; vwp at arin.net
Subject: RE: ARIN Justified...


The challenge of course is that when they were allocated the space,
current allocation policies were not in place, nor was a policy
saying that the rules could be changed later, hence there is serious
legal question over whether or not the rules can be changed after the
fact.


At 6:49 PM -0800 1/9/01, Clayton Lambert wrote:
>As a person involved with a company that never had a /8 given to it...I say
>it isn't that difficult...They back it up, or they lose it...Point.
>
>Clayton Lambert
>Compliance Services Director,
>Exodus Communications
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Alec H. Peterson [mailto:ahp at hilander.com]
>Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2001 6:46 PM
>To: Clayton Lambert
>Cc: 'Jim Macknik'; vwp at arin.net
>Subject: Re: ARIN Justified...
>
>
>Clayton Lambert wrote:
>>
>>  I think that companies with /8's and multiple unjustified /16's should
>have
>>  to provide supporting documentation to keep them.
>
>This is a tough issue that we have often come back to.  Unfortunately, we
>have yet to come up with a good answer...
>
>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!"

--

Justin W. Newton
Senior Director, Networking and Telecommunications
NetZero, Inc.




From cscott at gaslightmedia.com  Wed Jan 10 14:47:54 2001
From: cscott at gaslightmedia.com (Charles Scott)
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 14:47:54 -0500 (EST)
Subject: ARIN Justified..
In-Reply-To: <200101101617.QAA12412@vacation.karoshi.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.04.10101101433570.3019-100000@harbor.gaslightmedia.com>


On Wed, 10 Jan 2001 bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com wrote:

> 	"grandfathered" delegations have been done so for a reason.
> 	changing the rules after the fact and forcing renumbering
> 	will bring legal challanges. 

  This is a good point, but the same can be said of existing allocations
when trying to justify additional address space. In otherwords, if a
hosting service has currently deployed IP based hosting, which was
necessary/reasonable/acceptable in the past, it would seem to be unfair to
refuse additional address space until those conform to a new policy
(which may require significant time and expense).
  Still, I belive that everyone has an interest in extending the life of
IPv4 address space, particularly in many cases companies with historic
large allocations, and should therefore be compliant with efforts to
reclaim any large unused address space. But the question of what is more
reasonable, to reclaim "unused" address space or force improved efficency
of address space currently providing valuable service, seems to be a
no-brainer.x

Chuck Scott
Gaslight Media







From Clay at exodus.net  Wed Jan 10 14:50:49 2001
From: Clay at exodus.net (Clayton Lambert)
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 11:50:49 -0800
Subject: ARIN Justified...
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.20.0101101037100.22841-100000@hypermall.com>
Message-ID: <200101101951.LAA07157@exoserv.exodus.net>

Not a bad idea, I wonder how to be most effective with it.

-Clay

-----Original Message-----
From: Jawaid.Bazyar at forethought.net
[mailto:Jawaid.Bazyar at forethought.net]
Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2001 9:38 AM
To: Justin W. Newton
Cc: Clayton Lambert; 'Alec H. Peterson'; 'Jim Macknik'; vwp at arin.net
Subject: RE: ARIN Justified...



Right, so you'll have to get them to do it voluntarily. They don't NEED
the space, so start a campaign to make them look like bad Net Citizens
unless they give it back. It's politicking, but it will be highly
effective.

On Wed, 10 Jan 2001, Justin W. Newton wrote:

> The challenge of course is that when they were allocated the space,
> current allocation policies were not in place, nor was a policy
> saying that the rules could be changed later, hence there is serious
> legal question over whether or not the rules can be changed after the
> fact.

--
 Jawaid Bazyar                 |   Affordable WWW & Internet Solutions
 foreThought.net               |   for Small Business
 jawaid.bazyar at foreThought.net |   910 16th Street, #1220  (303) 228-0070
 --The Future is Now!--        |   Denver, CO 80202        (303) 228-0077
fax




From Clay at exodus.net  Wed Jan 10 14:51:53 2001
From: Clay at exodus.net (Clayton Lambert)
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 11:51:53 -0800
Subject: ARIN Justified...
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.20.0101101037100.22841-100000@hypermall.com>
Message-ID: <200101101952.LAA07435@exoserv.exodus.net>

This particular thread does not address the primary topic.

There should be a comprehensive and flexible policy regarding the efficient
use of IP address space.

-Clay

-----Original Message-----
From: Jawaid.Bazyar at forethought.net
[mailto:Jawaid.Bazyar at forethought.net]
Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2001 9:38 AM
To: Justin W. Newton
Cc: Clayton Lambert; 'Alec H. Peterson'; 'Jim Macknik'; vwp at arin.net
Subject: RE: ARIN Justified...



Right, so you'll have to get them to do it voluntarily. They don't NEED
the space, so start a campaign to make them look like bad Net Citizens
unless they give it back. It's politicking, but it will be highly
effective.

On Wed, 10 Jan 2001, Justin W. Newton wrote:

> The challenge of course is that when they were allocated the space,
> current allocation policies were not in place, nor was a policy
> saying that the rules could be changed later, hence there is serious
> legal question over whether or not the rules can be changed after the
> fact.

--
 Jawaid Bazyar                 |   Affordable WWW & Internet Solutions
 foreThought.net               |   for Small Business
 jawaid.bazyar at foreThought.net |   910 16th Street, #1220  (303) 228-0070
 --The Future is Now!--        |   Denver, CO 80202        (303) 228-0077
fax




From Clay at exodus.net  Wed Jan 10 14:52:58 2001
From: Clay at exodus.net (Clayton Lambert)
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 11:52:58 -0800
Subject: ARIN Justified...
In-Reply-To: <3A5C9E4D.851169AE@hilander.com>
Message-ID: <200101101953.LAA07691@exoserv.exodus.net>

Clinton still has a few days left...and he doesn't mind blowing the public's
money..Maybe we can get him to be our posterboy?  ;-)

-Clay

-----Original Message-----
From: Alec H. Peterson [mailto:ahp at hilander.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2001 9:39 AM
To: Jawaid.Bazyar at foreThought.net
Cc: Justin W. Newton; Clayton Lambert; 'Jim Macknik'; vwp at arin.net
Subject: Re: ARIN Justified...


Jawaid.Bazyar at foreThought.net wrote:
>
> Right, so you'll have to get them to do it voluntarily. They don't NEED
> the space, so start a campaign to make them look like bad Net Citizens
> unless they give it back. It's politicking, but it will be highly
> effective.

Sound like a great idea.

Who's got the budget for the ads?

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!"




From Clay at exodus.net  Wed Jan 10 14:58:32 2001
From: Clay at exodus.net (Clayton Lambert)
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 11:58:32 -0800
Subject: ARIN Justified...
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.20.0101101116450.22841-100000@hypermall.com>
Message-ID: <200101101959.LAA08735@exoserv.exodus.net>

seems pretty simple.

-Clay

-----Original Message-----
From: Jawaid.Bazyar at forethought.net
[mailto:Jawaid.Bazyar at forethought.net]
Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2001 10:18 AM
To: Alec H. Peterson
Cc: Jawaid.Bazyar at forethought.net; Justin W. Newton; Clayton Lambert;
'Jim Macknik'; vwp at arin.net
Subject: Re: ARIN Justified...


On Wed, 10 Jan 2001, Alec H. Peterson wrote:

> Jawaid.Bazyar at foreThought.net wrote:
> >
> > Right, so you'll have to get them to do it voluntarily. They don't NEED
> > the space, so start a campaign to make them look like bad Net Citizens
> > unless they give it back. It's politicking, but it will be highly
> > effective.
>
> Sound like a great idea.
>
> Who's got the budget for the ads?

What ads? Use the press :)

As to renumbering, they wouldn't have to renumber their entire
organizations. Surely inside Apple's /8, for example, there are vast
tracts of completely unused space. Simply break up the single
allocation, assign chunks that are used to Apple, unused chunks back to
ARIN, and go from there.

--
 Jawaid Bazyar                 |   Affordable WWW & Internet Solutions
 foreThought.net               |   for Small Business
 jawaid.bazyar at foreThought.net |   910 16th Street, #1220  (303) 228-0070
 --The Future is Now!--        |   Denver, CO 80202        (303) 228-0077
fax




From Clay at exodus.net  Wed Jan 10 15:08:41 2001
From: Clay at exodus.net (Clayton Lambert)
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 12:08:41 -0800
Subject: ARIN Justified..
In-Reply-To: <DC7ABD0A8338D311B2010008C79122EE03A52446@zajnbddsexc1.didata.co.za>
Message-ID: <200101102009.MAA10717@exoserv.exodus.net>

the perspective that you submitted was from the point of accountability for
the purpose of identification, in fact here is what you said:

"every person with a machine should have his own number like an Identity
Number "Social Security Number" this will also allow all ISPs, search
engines, web hosters and so forth to locate illegal activity and malicious
attacks"

So, when you say "ARIN should not be concerned with privacy"  you are
talking out of both sides of your mouth.

I am not specifically concerned about privacy with regard to this forum but
you brought it up and I decided to respond.

The point here is:  Set up a policy that says: hey, backup your request (for
IPs) with info that supports the need. A technical exception is okay, and
the Maintainer is the local court...ARIN is the appellate court.

-Clay

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of Gilbert
Martin @ Learning Solutions
Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2001 11:01 AM
To: 'Clayton Lambert'; Gilbert Martin @ Learning Solutions; 'Joe
DeCosta'
Cc: 'Chris Miller'; 'Jim Macknik'; vwp at arin.net
Subject: RE: ARIN Justified..


I just want to know what form of privacy we are invading???
It cannot be company privacy because the company will be controlling that
privacy, or its ISP or whoever offers it its IP Addresses a 1940 VMS
Mainframe for all I care, What I am saying is that referential Data is safe
in any Internal Network, Any Network is safe it is the ninny network
"Techies" that disrupt company privacy and those going beyond the bounds of
exploration, ARIN should not be concerned with privacy that Devlopers of
OS's can solve you are seemingly sitting with a situation where you're
business in its entirety will be dissapearing within 10 years because people
will develop a newer way and faster to solve this number shortage?
It was just a suggestion and a good one nevertheless, maybe people should
stop looking beyond the point of privacy and start acting decently to save
the rest of us all a lot of trouble!

-----Original Message-----
From: Clayton Lambert [mailto:Clay at exodus.net]
Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2001 8:56 PM
To: 'Gilbert Martin @ Learning Solutions'; 'Joe DeCosta'
Cc: 'Chris Miller'; 'Jim Macknik'; vwp at arin.net
Subject: RE: ARIN Justified..


I don't think an "Identity Number 'Social Security Number'" is a good
idea...The threat to privacy is MUCH GREATER that the threat of illegal use
(and the commensurate desire to chase down the 'criminal'.


-Clay

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of Gilbert
Martin @ Learning Solutions
Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2001 5:15 AM
To: 'Joe DeCosta'
Cc: 'Chris Miller'; 'Jim Macknik'; 'vwp at arin.net'
Subject: RE: ARIN Justified..


What I am saying is the fact that every person with a machine should have
his own number like an Identity Number "Social Security Number" this will
also allow all ISPs, search engines, web hosters and so forth to locate
illegal activity and malicious attacks Give me a few hours and I will send
you a diagrma to explain in alittle more detail what I am saying here...

-----Original Message-----
From: Gilbert Martin @ Learning Solutions
Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2001 3:08 PM
To: 'Joe DeCosta'; Gilbert Martin @ Learning Solutions
Cc: 'Chris Miller'; Jim Macknik; vwp at arin.net
Subject: RE: ARIN Justified..


Yes, simply because of the fact that there will be x amount of addresses
given to machines and y amount available for huge web space useres, and even
inside of a corporate network secretaries do use the Internet address space
more, tentavively as soon as they discover Internet explorer they go
ballistic!!!

-----Original Message-----
From: Joe DeCosta [mailto:decosta at bayconnect.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2001 9:41 AM
To: Gilbert Martin @ Learning Solutions
Cc: 'Chris Miller'; Jim Macknik; vwp at arin.net
Subject: Re: ARIN Justified..


Could you clairfy why computers on INTERNAL networks would need a fully
routeable STATIC ip address? I don't see why a private computer inside a
corporate network at some secrataries desk needs a fully routeable
static ip. etc etc...



"Gilbert Martin @ Learning Solutions" wrote:
>
> Exactly what I said yesterday, wouldn't it be more simple for people not
> accessing external networks via the INternet to rather be given a static
> address and then if the need arises let them also be able to request a
newer
> address, the end result will be that only those using ISP's will be using
up
> address space?
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chris Miller [mailto:ctodd at netgate.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2001 3:09 AM
> To: Jim Macknik
> Cc: vwp at arin.net
> Subject: RE: ARIN Justified..
>
> Sun Microsystems (and others companies I'm sure) has many addresses that
> never see the internet, they use most of these strictly for their internal
> networks. Surely they could use reserved addresses for many of these
> purposes.....
>
> Sun Microsystems, Inc. (NETBLK-SUN4)
>    2550 Garcia Avenue
>    Mountain View, CA 94043
>
>    Netname: SUN4
>    Netblock: 129.144.0.0 - 129.159.255.255
>
> Chris
>
> On Tue, 9 Jan 2001, Jim Macknik wrote:
>
> > This brings up a good point, as well. How will ARIN enforce its
policies?
> > There are large companies out there that have several Class B or Class A
> > ranges all to themselves that they "reserved" years ago. I doubt many of
> > these organizations could properly justify this space at this time.
> >
> > Will ARIN require them to justify their use and take away the extras,
> > requiring huge organizations or ISPs to completely re-allocate their
> > addressing? If they don't, how will they be able to justify revoking
> denying
> > space to others looking to increase their allocation?
> >
> > This isn't an easy one, but it certainly has to be addressed if ARIN is
> > concerned about political ramifications of a policy that will affect
> whether
> > businesses can even *do* business.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Joe DeCosta [mailto:decosta at bayconnect.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2001 4:00 PM
> > To: Clayton Lambert; 'Douglas Cohn'; vwp at arin.net
> > Subject: Re: ARIN Justified...
> >
> >
> > Well, what do you think that the best approach to this would be, I think
a
> > BIG part of the entire IP space problem is the HUGE market of ISP's like
> > earthlink, Genuity(aka BBN), and the free services that just give any
> schmoe
> > an IP address, I don't think that this is soemthing that  is viable, we
> even
> > to a small Extent use NAT/Name based Virtual Hosting for  some of the
> > domains runing on the secondary T1 in our office.  This all works fine,
> and
> > uses 1 ip for many things.  Perhaps this is a viable options, but i do
> think
> > that ARIN should enforce some sort of NAT with providers (aol,
earthlink,
> > freebie ISPs et al.) who allow just anybody to have an IP when its not
> > needed.  from an admin point of view this can be a bit hellish but well
> > worth the IP space that is being wasted on people that dont *NEED*
random
> > inbound traffic.
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Clayton Lambert" <Clay at exodus.net>
> > To: "'Joe DeCosta'" <decosta at bayconnect.com>; "'Douglas Cohn'"
> > <Douglas.Cohn at Virtualscape.com>; <vwp at arin.net>
> > Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2001 2:17 PM
> > Subject: RE: ARIN Justified...
> >
> >
> > > No argument at all on those points either Joe,
> > >
> > > In fact, it seems there is a lot of common ground on this topic, maybe
> we
> > > should try to identify the specific agreed-upon points and
> > disagreements...?
> > >
> > > It might be something to work from.
> > >
> > > -Clay
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of Joe
> > > DeCosta
> > > Sent: Monday, January 08, 2001 6:44 PM
> > > To: Clayton Lambert; 'Douglas Cohn'; vwp at arin.net
> > > Subject: Re: ARIN Justified...
> > >
> > >
> > > agreed, but with all of the home users, shouldn't some of the major
> ISP's
> > be
> > > considering NAT for DSL/ISDN and Dialup users? i mean, it's an idea, i
> > don't
> > > know how well it would be accepted, i also think that AOL should be
> forced
> > > to use NAT.........its rediclous to see how many IP blocks they own,
but
> > > dialup/isdn/dsl NAT i think could be a suggestion to ISP's no??
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Clayton Lambert" <Clay at exodus.net>
> > > To: "'Douglas Cohn'" <Douglas.Cohn at Virtualscape.com>; <vwp at arin.net>
> > > Sent: Monday, January 08, 2001 4:59 PM
> > > Subject: RE: ARIN Justified...
> > >
> > >
> > > > IPv6 is not the panacea you seem to think it is...
> > > >
> > > > With a mentality like that, we'd burn thru IPv6 in 10 years or
less...
> > > >
> > > > -Clay
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of
> Douglas
> > > > Cohn
> > > > Sent: Friday, January 05, 2001 6:59 AM
> > > > To: vwp at arin.net
> > > > Subject: FW: ARIN Justified...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I forwarded your email to the list for you
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Allen Ahoffman [mailto:ahoffman at announce.com]
> > > > Sent: Friday, July 10, 2893 6:44 PM
> > > > To: Douglas Cohn
> > > > Subject: Re: ARIN Justified...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > OK let me interject a question into this discussion:
> > > >
> > > > Why are we requiring a /19 or in some cases /20 of space before
being
> > > > allowed to get our own allocation?
> > > > I realize management is an issue, but a $2500/year it encourages
small
> > > > users to build up to that point.
> > > >
> > > > We get users who don't want us to have iI space from other vendors,
so
> > > > we
> > > > get pressure for more iP usage and pressure for less.
> > > >
> > > > For example, in converting from one provider to another I have had
> > > > difficult time getting replacment iP space in less than 8 months
now,
> > > > but
> > > > was making efforts to not purchase the /19.  I thik we might bge by
> > > > without it but the minimum size creates pressure to fill IP(s).
> > > > I do agree that users seem to want IP(s) without reason, seems like
> IPV6
> > > > might look more appealing every day?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > [Charset
> > > > iso-8859-1 unsupported,
> > > > filtering to ASCII...] > I must get my two cents in here as well.
> > > > >
> > > > > I feel Clayton has the right track.
> > > > >
> > > > > I manage IP allocation as well for dedicated and colocated
clients.
> > > > Our
> > > > > policy used to state each server was issued 16 IPs.  We provision
> with
> > > > 1
> > > > > IP only.  If a client asks for the rest I also require the need
for
> > > > the
> > > > > IPs.
> > > > > Too often they want them for testing or only because they saw that
> > > > they
> > > > > get 16 IPs with a server.  They must supply the domain names and
> > > > reasons
> > > > > why they cannot use IPless hosting.  While I will not force IPless
> > > > > hosting on clients I push it and train it's use for free.
> > > > >
> > > > > We now state that you get a single IP with each dedicated server
and
> > > > > additional IPs are billed on a monthly basis.  This helps a lot to
> > > > > defray usage.  While it is a revenue stream that is not it's
purpose
> > > > > whatsoever.
> > > > >
> > > > > In Shared hosting though the issues are clearly Search engines and
> SSL
> > > > > as far as I know.
> > > > >
> > > > > Most people understand why we watch our address space and
appreciate
> > > > it.
> > > > >
> > > > > Douglas Cohn
> > > > > Manager NY Engineering
> > > > > Hostcentric, Inc.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of
> > > > Stephen
> > > > > Elliott
> > > > > Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 4:47 PM
> > > > > To: Clayton Lambert; Virtual IP List
> > > > > Subject: Re: ARIN Justified...
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > :-)  The reason I mentioned Exodus is because we are a customer of
> > > > > Exodus, and in my opinion, the policy is too restrictive.  And the
> > > > > statement was directed at the fact that Exodus hosts many
companies
> > > > that
> > > > > are in the business of hosting websites, not Exodus as a company.
> As
> > > > I
> > > > > have stated in earlier postings, simply clamping down and
> restricting
> > > > > virtual web hosting is not the answer.  Any list of
justifications,
> no
> > > > > matter how much thought went into it, will not cover every
possible
> > > > > reason for needing the IP's.  Documentation is a great thing, just
> the
> > > > > fact that someone has to sit down and write out a list of machines
> > > > that
> > > > > need IP's will deter most people from requesting extra IP's.
> > > > > -Stephen
> > > > >
> > > > > Clayton Lambert wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Do you have ANY idea of what you are saying?  Sorry for
appearing
> > > > > brash,
> > > > > > but...I run the IP maintenance organization at Exodus, and I
would
> > > > > easily
> > > > > > stack our allocation policy up against anybody's.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You have no idea what you are talking about in regard to larger
> > > > > companies.
> > > > > > Exodus consumes a very modest amount of address space given our
> size
> > > > > and
> > > > > > presence on the Internet.  There are much smaller competitors of
> > > > ours
> > > > > that
> > > > > > consume larger amounts of IP space.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Exodus is already pioneering the efficiency of use ideology that
I
> > > > > would
> > > > > > like to see ARIN adopt (a strong HTTP1.1 stance on ARIN's part
is
> a
> > > > > good
> > > > > > start).  We currently require extensive supporting documentation
> for
> > > > > IP
> > > > > > requests from all our Customers.  A Customer has to show a
> > > > documented
> > > > > need
> > > > > > for their usage request and we file all these requests and refer
> to
> > > > > past
> > > > > > requests and detail as additional requests for address space
> occur.
> > > > > This
> > > > > > method gives us a very clear and honest indication of IP address
> > > > usage
> > > > > > growth. This allows us to support our Customers' IP addressing
> needs
> > > > > in a
> > > > > > very accurate and efficient way.  The end result is less
> consumption
> > > > > of IPv4
> > > > > > space across the board.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Clayton Lambert
> > > > > > Exodus Communications
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of
> > > > > Stephen
> > > > > > Elliott
> > > > > > Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 12:20 PM
> > > > > > To: Virtual IP List
> > > > > > Subject: RE: ARIN Justified...
> > > > > >
> > > > > >         The big guys that you refer to are generally not in the
> web
> > > > > hosting
> > > > > > business and therefore are outside of the scope of this
> > > > conversation.
> > > > > > The real concern is the big guys like Exodus and UUNet.  Since
> IPv6
> > > > is
> > > > > > not a viable option for general consumption yet, we need to
> > > > > concentrate
> > > > > > on conserving the existing IPv4 space.  As far as search engines
> go,
> > > > > if
> > > > > > enough sites start using HTTP1.1 software virtual servers, they
> will
> > > > > be
> > > > > > forced to upgrade their spiders to support it.  I would suggest
> that
> > > > > one
> > > > > > of the main issues at hand is billing.  Billing for web hosting
> > > > > > companies that is.  Most companies bundle bandwidth with their
> > > > hosting
> > > > > > packages, and current billing packages utilize destination IP
> > > > address
> > > > > > information to gather this information.  If there is not a way
to
> > > > get
> > > > > > this information without drastic changes to both billing
software
> > > > and
> > > > > in
> > > > > > some cases hardware, there will be very strong opposition to any
> > > > > changes
> > > > > > in the way IP addresses are given out.
> > > > > > -Stephen
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Stephen Elliott                 Harrison & Troxell
> > > > > > Systems & Networking Manager    2 Faneuil Hall Marketplace
> > > > > > Systems & Networking Group      Boston, Ma 02109
> > > > > > (617)227-0494 Phone             (617)720-3918 Fax
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Stephen Elliott                 Harrison & Troxell
> > > > > Systems & Networking Manager    2 Faneuil Hall Marketplace
> > > > > Systems & Networking Group      Boston, Ma 02109
> > > > > (617)227-0494 Phone             (617)720-3918 Fax
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
> **********************************************************************
>
> The information in this e-mail is confidential and is legally privileged.
> It is intended solely for the addressee.  If this email is not intended
for
> you, you cannot copy, distribute, or disclose the included information
> to any-one
>
> If you are not the intended recipient please delete the mail. Whilst
> all reasonable steps have been taken to ensure the accuracy and
> integrity of all data transmitted electronically, no liability is accepted
> if the data, for whatever reason, is corrupt or does not reach it's
> intended destination.
> All business is undertaken, subject to our standard trading conditions
> which are available on request.
>
> *******************************************************************


**********************************************************************

The information in this e-mail is confidential and is legally privileged.
It is intended solely for the addressee.  If this email is not intended for
you, you cannot copy, distribute, or disclose the included information
to any-one

If you are not the intended recipient please delete the mail. Whilst
all reasonable steps have been taken to ensure the accuracy and
integrity of all data transmitted electronically, no liability is accepted
if the data, for whatever reason, is corrupt or does not reach it's
intended destination.
All business is undertaken, subject to our standard trading conditions
which are available on request.

*******************************************************************




From Clay at exodus.net  Wed Jan 10 15:18:08 2001
From: Clay at exodus.net (Clayton Lambert)
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 12:18:08 -0800
Subject: ARIN Justified..
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.04.10101101433570.3019-100000@harbor.gaslightmedia.com>
Message-ID: <200101102018.MAA12657@exoserv.exodus.net>

requiring past allocations to adhere to a new policy is not what was
discussed. Recovering vast amounts of previously allocated (and UNUSED) IP
address space is an entirely DIFFERENT subject.

I would not suggest applying new policies to existing USAGE.  Remember,
recovering unused IP space from /8s that are floating around out there is
not the same as establishing a clearly defined, efficiency focused IP
address usage policy that allows for exceptions but does require technical
reasons (in the form of documentation) for not adhering to that policy.  It
should be clear in stating that policy and business model are NOT
justification (as they are not technical reasons).  On the same line, I
think a technical justification exceptions should be protocol-based, not
vendor based.


-Clay


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of Charles
Scott
Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2001 11:48 AM
To: bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com
Cc: Gilbert Martin @ Learning Solutions; 'Joe DeCosta'; 'Chris Miller';
'Jim Macknik'; 'vwp at arin.net'
Subject: Re: ARIN Justified..



On Wed, 10 Jan 2001 bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com wrote:

> 	"grandfathered" delegations have been done so for a reason.
> 	changing the rules after the fact and forcing renumbering
> 	will bring legal challanges.

  This is a good point, but the same can be said of existing allocations
when trying to justify additional address space. In otherwords, if a
hosting service has currently deployed IP based hosting, which was
necessary/reasonable/acceptable in the past, it would seem to be unfair to
refuse additional address space until those conform to a new policy
(which may require significant time and expense).
  Still, I belive that everyone has an interest in extending the life of
IPv4 address space, particularly in many cases companies with historic
large allocations, and should therefore be compliant with efforts to
reclaim any large unused address space. But the question of what is more
reasonable, to reclaim "unused" address space or force improved efficency
of address space currently providing valuable service, seems to be a
no-brainer.x

Chuck Scott
Gaslight Media







From bve at quadrix.com  Wed Jan 10 18:02:05 2001
From: bve at quadrix.com (Bill Van Emburg)
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 18:02:05 -0500
Subject: ARIN Justified...
References: <200101082220.RAA19683@rs1.arin.net>
Message-ID: <3A5CE9ED.69A8FA23@quadrix.com>

Simon wrote:
> 
> We have servers with over 5-10 million hits and parse logs daily at night. It takes about 2 hours to parse the logs per
> machine. Mostly due to resolving IPs. To get just the bandwidth, 10 million hits log file can be parsed in matter of
> minutes. So, you just need better tools ;-) As for other traffic such as FTP, there is a log file which can be parsed, too.
> We actually do this for anonymous FTP. I don't know who charges for POP/SMTP traffic, but same method can be
> implied here to calculate the bandwidth, too. It's matter of having right tools for the job. They are out there or you can
> have a programmer write custom set for your needs. Keep in mind, I'm referring to virtual web hosting, not dedicated.
> 

Attempting to parse all those different log files and consolidate the
info is certainly not elegant, nor a particularly great use of CPU, and
again, it does not tell you the actual bandwidth usage, merely the
application-level data.  It gets worse, when you consider that each of
our shared hosting customers has their own, separate web server, ftp
server, etc. running.  Even in shared hosting, each of our customers has
their own distinct server processes.  This very quickly becomes a
logistical nightmare, as well as a larger problem to parse.  Finally,
we're talking about more than double the hits you are describing.  It is
distinctly possible that the tool problems we're having are still
related to sheer volume.

Something I didn't mention before: we also have to measure streaming
media bandwidth consumption.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm not aware
of a way to do that from log files, for any existing streaming server.
-- 

				     -- Bill Van Emburg
				     	Quadrix Solutions, Inc.
Phone: 732-235-2335, x206		(mailto:bve at quadrix.com)
Fax:   732-235-2336			(http://quadrix.com)
		The eBusiness Solutions Company


From Clay at exodus.net  Wed Jan 10 19:50:55 2001
From: Clay at exodus.net (Clayton Lambert)
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 16:50:55 -0800
Subject: ARIN Justified...
In-Reply-To: <3A5CF634.152A1CF@quadrix.com>
Message-ID: <200101110051.QAA00840@exoserv.exodus.net>

I think there is some virtue here:

-----Original Message-----
From: Bill Van Emburg [mailto:bve at quadrix.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2001 3:54 PM
To: Clayton Lambert
Subject: Re: ARIN Justified...


Clayton Lambert wrote:
>
> IPv6 is not the panacea you seem to think it is...
>
> With a mentality like that, we'd burn thru IPv6 in 10 years or less...
>

I think I missed something here....

Wasn't Allen proposing that the /20 minimum allocation encourages
organizations to attempt to justify larger space than they really need?
I believe he was suggesting that allocations like /22 or /24 would
discourage IP waste, since people could get their direct allocation,
bypassing some of the issues he speaks of with an upstream provider.

....I think /20s are better than /19's for minimums...And as far as process
overhead ....(due to larger routing tables and such)

I don't believe that this is feasible, given the nature of routing and
current HW capabilities (not to mention the capacity of the ARIN
organization), but I really wouldn't know the answer to that
question....

....I think this brings up a good point:  The IP policy should differ
allocation requests to the maintainer, and escalations should go to ARIN, as
in the IP policy recommendation I posted earlier.

Do you really think there is danger of blowing through the IPv6
allocation?  Even the IETF proposal, although I think it went a bit too
far, would have a hard time pressing through the entire IPv6 space, and
would have plenty of room left if a policy change were enacted after
initial allocations were made....

....If we take the attitude of "hey, we could never possibly burn up all the
IPv6 space" then...Yup, I bet we burn thru it in less than 25 years.
I still think IPv6 is a bad idea anyway...I think we proved the
inept-ability (yes, I invented that word, but it fits) of Classfull
addressing in the early days of the net...didn't we?
...Of course, thats a different topic  ;-)

-Clay




From simon at optinet.com  Wed Jan 10 19:59:27 2001
From: simon at optinet.com (Simon)
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 19:59:27 -0500
Subject: ARIN Justified...
In-Reply-To: <3A5CE9ED.69A8FA23@quadrix.com>
Message-ID: <200101110055.TAA14505@rs1.arin.net>

FYI, you can't run two separate apache daemons on the same port without two unique IPs.

-Simon

On Wed, 10 Jan 2001 18:02:05 -0500, Bill Van Emburg wrote:

>Simon wrote:
>> 
>> We have servers with over 5-10 million hits and parse logs daily at night. It takes about 2 hours to parse the logs per
>> machine. Mostly due to resolving IPs. To get just the bandwidth, 10 million hits log file can be parsed in matter of
>> minutes. So, you just need better tools ;-) As for other traffic such as FTP, there is a log file which can be parsed, too.
>> We actually do this for anonymous FTP. I don't know who charges for POP/SMTP traffic, but same method can be
>> implied here to calculate the bandwidth, too. It's matter of having right tools for the job. They are out there or you can
>> have a programmer write custom set for your needs. Keep in mind, I'm referring to virtual web hosting, not dedicated.
>> 
>
>Attempting to parse all those different log files and consolidate the
>info is certainly not elegant, nor a particularly great use of CPU, and
>again, it does not tell you the actual bandwidth usage, merely the
>application-level data.  It gets worse, when you consider that each of
>our shared hosting customers has their own, separate web server, ftp
>server, etc. running.  Even in shared hosting, each of our customers has
>their own distinct server processes.  This very quickly becomes a
>logistical nightmare, as well as a larger problem to parse.  Finally,
>we're talking about more than double the hits you are describing.  It is
>distinctly possible that the tool problems we're having are still
>related to sheer volume.
>
>Something I didn't mention before: we also have to measure streaming
>media bandwidth consumption.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm not aware
>of a way to do that from log files, for any existing streaming server.
>-- 
>
>				     -- Bill Van Emburg
>				     	Quadrix Solutions, Inc.
>Phone: 732-235-2335, x206		(mailto:bve at quadrix.com)
>Fax:   732-235-2336			(http://quadrix.com)
>		The eBusiness Solutions Company
>





From Clay at exodus.net  Wed Jan 10 20:04:26 2001
From: Clay at exodus.net (Clayton Lambert)
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 17:04:26 -0800
Subject: ARIN Justified...
In-Reply-To: <DC7ABD0A8338D311B2010008C79122EE03A5243C@zajnbddsexc1.didata.co.za>
Message-ID: <200101110105.RAA02666@exoserv.exodus.net>

They don't pay much more at all.  Look at the ration of IP
address:maintainer fee

The argument doesn't hold water.  Big allocations are cheaper per IP than
small allocations.

And BTW, I run a huge number of maintainers and not a small amount of
overall IP addresses...Exodus doesn't mind paying, but it isn't cheap in
comparison to the $20K annual for the /8's that are out there...



-Clay




-----Original Message-----
From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of Gilbert
Martin @ Learning Solutions
Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2001 5:31 AM
To: 'Jim Macknik'; 'Joe DeCosta'; vwp at arin.net
Subject: RE: ARIN Justified...


But referrentially big companies do pay for there share of /16s or /8s how
can smaller companies call foul if they don't pay for more?
Our little planet revolves around money.

-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Macknik [mailto:jmacknik at inflow.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2001 3:06 PM
To: 'Joe DeCosta'; vwp at arin.net
Subject: RE: ARIN Justified...


I agree with the essence of what you're saying here. I just wanted to throw
the comments out there, because until now I have not seen any explicit
notice from ARIN stating that those organizations that currently have /8s
and /16s allocated to them will have to justify their use or they will be
revoked. I think this will be important in getting buy-in from the general
population that will be looking to get IPs. ARIN may be looking at nasty
political or legal ramifications if they don't. If there is any sense of
favoritism to companies like SUN (mentioned earlier as having a gastly
number of IPs) or Microsoft, IBM, or Apple for that matter, then other,
newer companies will call foul. They will argue that they are unable to
compete, because they cannot provide their customers with what they
need/want. And in many ways, they will be right.

Is there anything in the new RFC that states that current owners of large
blocks will have to justify their use?

=- Jim Macknik -=

-----Original Message-----
From: Joe DeCosta [mailto:decosta at bayconnect.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2001 6:18 PM
To: Jim Macknik; vwp at arin.net
Subject: Re: ARIN Justified...


ARIN can enforce any policy it wants, remember, they CONTROL the IP traffic
of all of north america etc.  and who gets them, if they make an
administrative decision, it is most likely going to be in the best intrest
of the internet in general.  I doubt that GE needs an entire Class A subnet
etc etc. There are too many IP's issued in such a lax fashion.  Whereas we
are constantly being hounded by our Uplink to justify our small /24 because
they can't get IP's from ARIN hardly at all anymore.  It's not a matter will
arin require them to do it, its will the big TCP/IP stack carriers start
producing IPv6 compatible transport software.. In which case, it alleviates
the problem for now.  An ISP can assign real fully routeable IP's to
customers, but not the average end user who is doing simple web browsing and
e-mail and instant messaging etc.  It's not restricting whether or not a
business can do business, it is restricting how the IP's are controlled, one
day, there is going to come a time where there will be no IP's left at all,
because microsoft has their fingers in their tookuses (as does apple), in
creating a stable IPv6 compatible TCP/IP stack, etc... We're kind running
around in a paradox here....
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Macknik" <jmacknik at inflow.com>
To: <vwp at arin.net>
Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2001 3:35 PM
Subject: RE: ARIN Justified...


> This brings up a good point, as well. How will ARIN enforce its policies?
> There are large companies out there that have several Class B or Class A
> ranges all to themselves that they "reserved" years ago. I doubt many of
> these organizations could properly justify this space at this time.
>
> Will ARIN require them to justify their use and take away the extras,
> requiring huge organizations or ISPs to completely re-allocate their
> addressing? If they don't, how will they be able to justify revoking
denying
> space to others looking to increase their allocation?
>
> This isn't an easy one, but it certainly has to be addressed if ARIN is
> concerned about political ramifications of a policy that will affect
whether
> businesses can even *do* business.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joe DeCosta [mailto:decosta at bayconnect.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2001 4:00 PM
> To: Clayton Lambert; 'Douglas Cohn'; vwp at arin.net
> Subject: Re: ARIN Justified...
>
>
> Well, what do you think that the best approach to this would be, I think a
> BIG part of the entire IP space problem is the HUGE market of ISP's like
> earthlink, Genuity(aka BBN), and the free services that just give any
schmoe
> an IP address, I don't think that this is soemthing that  is viable, we
even
> to a small Extent use NAT/Name based Virtual Hosting for  some of the
> domains runing on the secondary T1 in our office.  This all works fine,
and
> uses 1 ip for many things.  Perhaps this is a viable options, but i do
think
> that ARIN should enforce some sort of NAT with providers (aol, earthlink,
> freebie ISPs et al.) who allow just anybody to have an IP when its not
> needed.  from an admin point of view this can be a bit hellish but well
> worth the IP space that is being wasted on people that dont *NEED* random
> inbound traffic.
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Clayton Lambert" <Clay at exodus.net>
> To: "'Joe DeCosta'" <decosta at bayconnect.com>; "'Douglas Cohn'"
> <Douglas.Cohn at Virtualscape.com>; <vwp at arin.net>
> Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2001 2:17 PM
> Subject: RE: ARIN Justified...
>
>
> > No argument at all on those points either Joe,
> >
> > In fact, it seems there is a lot of common ground on this topic, maybe
we
> > should try to identify the specific agreed-upon points and
> disagreements...?
> >
> > It might be something to work from.
> >
> > -Clay
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of Joe
> > DeCosta
> > Sent: Monday, January 08, 2001 6:44 PM
> > To: Clayton Lambert; 'Douglas Cohn'; vwp at arin.net
> > Subject: Re: ARIN Justified...
> >
> >
> > agreed, but with all of the home users, shouldn't some of the major
ISP's
> be
> > considering NAT for DSL/ISDN and Dialup users? i mean, it's an idea, i
> don't
> > know how well it would be accepted, i also think that AOL should be
forced
> > to use NAT.........its rediclous to see how many IP blocks they own, but
> > dialup/isdn/dsl NAT i think could be a suggestion to ISP's no??
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Clayton Lambert" <Clay at exodus.net>
> > To: "'Douglas Cohn'" <Douglas.Cohn at Virtualscape.com>; <vwp at arin.net>
> > Sent: Monday, January 08, 2001 4:59 PM
> > Subject: RE: ARIN Justified...
> >
> >
> > > IPv6 is not the panacea you seem to think it is...
> > >
> > > With a mentality like that, we'd burn thru IPv6 in 10 years or less...
> > >
> > > -Clay
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of
Douglas
> > > Cohn
> > > Sent: Friday, January 05, 2001 6:59 AM
> > > To: vwp at arin.net
> > > Subject: FW: ARIN Justified...
> > >
> > >
> > > I forwarded your email to the list for you
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Allen Ahoffman [mailto:ahoffman at announce.com]
> > > Sent: Friday, July 10, 2893 6:44 PM
> > > To: Douglas Cohn
> > > Subject: Re: ARIN Justified...
> > >
> > >
> > > OK let me interject a question into this discussion:
> > >
> > > Why are we requiring a /19 or in some cases /20 of space before being
> > > allowed to get our own allocation?
> > > I realize management is an issue, but a $2500/year it encourages small
> > > users to build up to that point.
> > >
> > > We get users who don't want us to have iI space from other vendors, so
> > > we
> > > get pressure for more iP usage and pressure for less.
> > >
> > > For example, in converting from one provider to another I have had
> > > difficult time getting replacment iP space in less than 8 months now,
> > > but
> > > was making efforts to not purchase the /19.  I thik we might bge by
> > > without it but the minimum size creates pressure to fill IP(s).
> > > I do agree that users seem to want IP(s) without reason, seems like
IPV6
> > > might look more appealing every day?
> > >
> > >
> > > [Charset
> > > iso-8859-1 unsupported,
> > > filtering to ASCII...] > I must get my two cents in here as well.
> > > >
> > > > I feel Clayton has the right track.
> > > >
> > > > I manage IP allocation as well for dedicated and colocated clients.
> > > Our
> > > > policy used to state each server was issued 16 IPs.  We provision
with
> > > 1
> > > > IP only.  If a client asks for the rest I also require the need for
> > > the
> > > > IPs.
> > > > Too often they want them for testing or only because they saw that
> > > they
> > > > get 16 IPs with a server.  They must supply the domain names and
> > > reasons
> > > > why they cannot use IPless hosting.  While I will not force IPless
> > > > hosting on clients I push it and train it's use for free.
> > > >
> > > > We now state that you get a single IP with each dedicated server and
> > > > additional IPs are billed on a monthly basis.  This helps a lot to
> > > > defray usage.  While it is a revenue stream that is not it's purpose
> > > > whatsoever.
> > > >
> > > > In Shared hosting though the issues are clearly Search engines and
SSL
> > > > as far as I know.
> > > >
> > > > Most people understand why we watch our address space and appreciate
> > > it.
> > > >
> > > > Douglas Cohn
> > > > Manager NY Engineering
> > > > Hostcentric, Inc.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of
> > > Stephen
> > > > Elliott
> > > > Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 4:47 PM
> > > > To: Clayton Lambert; Virtual IP List
> > > > Subject: Re: ARIN Justified...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > :-)  The reason I mentioned Exodus is because we are a customer of
> > > > Exodus, and in my opinion, the policy is too restrictive.  And the
> > > > statement was directed at the fact that Exodus hosts many companies
> > > that
> > > > are in the business of hosting websites, not Exodus as a company.
As
> > > I
> > > > have stated in earlier postings, simply clamping down and
restricting
> > > > virtual web hosting is not the answer.  Any list of justifications,
no
> > > > matter how much thought went into it, will not cover every possible
> > > > reason for needing the IP's.  Documentation is a great thing, just
the
> > > > fact that someone has to sit down and write out a list of machines
> > > that
> > > > need IP's will deter most people from requesting extra IP's.
> > > > -Stephen
> > > >
> > > > Clayton Lambert wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Do you have ANY idea of what you are saying?  Sorry for appearing
> > > > brash,
> > > > > but...I run the IP maintenance organization at Exodus, and I would
> > > > easily
> > > > > stack our allocation policy up against anybody's.
> > > > >
> > > > > You have no idea what you are talking about in regard to larger
> > > > companies.
> > > > > Exodus consumes a very modest amount of address space given our
size
> > > > and
> > > > > presence on the Internet.  There are much smaller competitors of
> > > ours
> > > > that
> > > > > consume larger amounts of IP space.
> > > > >
> > > > > Exodus is already pioneering the efficiency of use ideology that I
> > > > would
> > > > > like to see ARIN adopt (a strong HTTP1.1 stance on ARIN's part is
a
> > > > good
> > > > > start).  We currently require extensive supporting documentation
for
> > > > IP
> > > > > requests from all our Customers.  A Customer has to show a
> > > documented
> > > > need
> > > > > for their usage request and we file all these requests and refer
to
> > > > past
> > > > > requests and detail as additional requests for address space
occur.
> > > > This
> > > > > method gives us a very clear and honest indication of IP address
> > > usage
> > > > > growth. This allows us to support our Customers' IP addressing
needs
> > > > in a
> > > > > very accurate and efficient way.  The end result is less
consumption
> > > > of IPv4
> > > > > space across the board.
> > > > >
> > > > > Clayton Lambert
> > > > > Exodus Communications
> > > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of
> > > > Stephen
> > > > > Elliott
> > > > > Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 12:20 PM
> > > > > To: Virtual IP List
> > > > > Subject: RE: ARIN Justified...
> > > > >
> > > > >         The big guys that you refer to are generally not in the
web
> > > > hosting
> > > > > business and therefore are outside of the scope of this
> > > conversation.
> > > > > The real concern is the big guys like Exodus and UUNet.  Since
IPv6
> > > is
> > > > > not a viable option for general consumption yet, we need to
> > > > concentrate
> > > > > on conserving the existing IPv4 space.  As far as search engines
go,
> > > > if
> > > > > enough sites start using HTTP1.1 software virtual servers, they
will
> > > > be
> > > > > forced to upgrade their spiders to support it.  I would suggest
that
> > > > one
> > > > > of the main issues at hand is billing.  Billing for web hosting
> > > > > companies that is.  Most companies bundle bandwidth with their
> > > hosting
> > > > > packages, and current billing packages utilize destination IP
> > > address
> > > > > information to gather this information.  If there is not a way to
> > > get
> > > > > this information without drastic changes to both billing software
> > > and
> > > > in
> > > > > some cases hardware, there will be very strong opposition to any
> > > > changes
> > > > > in the way IP addresses are given out.
> > > > > -Stephen
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Stephen Elliott                 Harrison & Troxell
> > > > > Systems & Networking Manager    2 Faneuil Hall Marketplace
> > > > > Systems & Networking Group      Boston, Ma 02109
> > > > > (617)227-0494 Phone             (617)720-3918 Fax
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Stephen Elliott                 Harrison & Troxell
> > > > Systems & Networking Manager    2 Faneuil Hall Marketplace
> > > > Systems & Networking Group      Boston, Ma 02109
> > > > (617)227-0494 Phone             (617)720-3918 Fax
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>


**********************************************************************

The information in this e-mail is confidential and is legally privileged.
It is intended solely for the addressee.  If this email is not intended for
you, you cannot copy, distribute, or disclose the included information
to any-one

If you are not the intended recipient please delete the mail. Whilst
all reasonable steps have been taken to ensure the accuracy and
integrity of all data transmitted electronically, no liability is accepted
if the data, for whatever reason, is corrupt or does not reach it's
intended destination.
All business is undertaken, subject to our standard trading conditions
which are available on request.

*******************************************************************




From Clay at exodus.net  Wed Jan 10 20:06:30 2001
From: Clay at exodus.net (Clayton Lambert)
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 17:06:30 -0800
Subject: ARIN Justified...
In-Reply-To: <200101110055.TAA14505@rs1.arin.net>
Message-ID: <200101110107.RAA02890@exoserv.exodus.net>

There isn't a huge advangate to running multiple daemons on the same
box...there is only X amount of proc available regardless of the amount of
daemons you run...Additionally, there is a per-daemon overhead hit (in proc)
that you don't have to deal with when you run single daemons per server.

-Clay

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of Simon
Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2001 4:59 PM
To: Virtual IP List
Subject: Re: ARIN Justified...


FYI, you can't run two separate apache daemons on the same port without two
unique IPs.

-Simon

On Wed, 10 Jan 2001 18:02:05 -0500, Bill Van Emburg wrote:

>Simon wrote:
>>
>> We have servers with over 5-10 million hits and parse logs daily at
night. It takes about 2 hours to parse the logs per
>> machine. Mostly due to resolving IPs. To get just the bandwidth, 10
million hits log file can be parsed in matter of
>> minutes. So, you just need better tools ;-) As for other traffic such as
FTP, there is a log file which can be parsed, too.
>> We actually do this for anonymous FTP. I don't know who charges for
POP/SMTP traffic, but same method can be
>> implied here to calculate the bandwidth, too. It's matter of having right
tools for the job. They are out there or you can
>> have a programmer write custom set for your needs. Keep in mind, I'm
referring to virtual web hosting, not dedicated.
>>
>
>Attempting to parse all those different log files and consolidate the
>info is certainly not elegant, nor a particularly great use of CPU, and
>again, it does not tell you the actual bandwidth usage, merely the
>application-level data.  It gets worse, when you consider that each of
>our shared hosting customers has their own, separate web server, ftp
>server, etc. running.  Even in shared hosting, each of our customers has
>their own distinct server processes.  This very quickly becomes a
>logistical nightmare, as well as a larger problem to parse.  Finally,
>we're talking about more than double the hits you are describing.  It is
>distinctly possible that the tool problems we're having are still
>related to sheer volume.
>
>Something I didn't mention before: we also have to measure streaming
>media bandwidth consumption.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm not aware
>of a way to do that from log files, for any existing streaming server.
>--
>
>				     -- Bill Van Emburg
>				     	Quadrix Solutions, Inc.
>Phone: 732-235-2335, x206		(mailto:bve at quadrix.com)
>Fax:   732-235-2336			(http://quadrix.com)
>		The eBusiness Solutions Company
>





From simon at optinet.com  Wed Jan 10 20:16:34 2001
From: simon at optinet.com (Simon)
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 20:16:34 -0500
Subject: ARIN Justified...
In-Reply-To: <200101110107.RAA02890@exoserv.exodus.net>
Message-ID: <200101110112.UAA29135@rs1.arin.net>

Are you a system admin? how well do you understand how things work on unix system? anyways, the more RAM you 
have the bigger your process table can have. The more CPUs you have, the more processes you can run at the same 
time. The advantage of running separate daemons per customer is 1) security and 2) freedom. I don't know where you 
got the extra overhead from. Current apache is not threaded and does preforking. In either case, you will have overhead 
unless you have enough preforked processes.

-Simon

On Wed, 10 Jan 2001 17:06:30 -0800, Clayton Lambert wrote:

>There isn't a huge advangate to running multiple daemons on the same
>box...there is only X amount of proc available regardless of the amount of
>daemons you run...Additionally, there is a per-daemon overhead hit (in proc)
>that you don't have to deal with when you run single daemons per server.
>
>-Clay
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of Simon
>Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2001 4:59 PM
>To: Virtual IP List
>Subject: Re: ARIN Justified...
>
>
>FYI, you can't run two separate apache daemons on the same port without two
>unique IPs.
>
>-Simon
>
>On Wed, 10 Jan 2001 18:02:05 -0500, Bill Van Emburg wrote:
>
>>Simon wrote:
>>>
>>> We have servers with over 5-10 million hits and parse logs daily at
>night. It takes about 2 hours to parse the logs per
>>> machine. Mostly due to resolving IPs. To get just the bandwidth, 10
>million hits log file can be parsed in matter of
>>> minutes. So, you just need better tools ;-) As for other traffic such as
>FTP, there is a log file which can be parsed, too.
>>> We actually do this for anonymous FTP. I don't know who charges for
>POP/SMTP traffic, but same method can be
>>> implied here to calculate the bandwidth, too. It's matter of having right
>tools for the job. They are out there or you can
>>> have a programmer write custom set for your needs. Keep in mind, I'm
>referring to virtual web hosting, not dedicated.
>>>
>>
>>Attempting to parse all those different log files and consolidate the
>>info is certainly not elegant, nor a particularly great use of CPU, and
>>again, it does not tell you the actual bandwidth usage, merely the
>>application-level data.  It gets worse, when you consider that each of
>>our shared hosting customers has their own, separate web server, ftp
>>server, etc. running.  Even in shared hosting, each of our customers has
>>their own distinct server processes.  This very quickly becomes a
>>logistical nightmare, as well as a larger problem to parse.  Finally,
>>we're talking about more than double the hits you are describing.  It is
>>distinctly possible that the tool problems we're having are still
>>related to sheer volume.
>>
>>Something I didn't mention before: we also have to measure streaming
>>media bandwidth consumption.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm not aware
>>of a way to do that from log files, for any existing streaming server.
>>--
>>
>>				     -- Bill Van Emburg
>>				     	Quadrix Solutions, Inc.
>>Phone: 732-235-2335, x206		(mailto:bve at quadrix.com)
>>Fax:   732-235-2336			(http://quadrix.com)
>>		The eBusiness Solutions Company
>>
>
>
>
>





From hershey at easystreet.com  Wed Jan 10 20:22:49 2001
From: hershey at easystreet.com (Chris Hershey)
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 17:22:49 -0800
Subject: ARIN Justified...
In-Reply-To: <200101110107.RAA02890@exoserv.exodus.net>
Message-ID: <NCBBIBIGAKPDLBGFNOHEGEPCJFAA.hershey@easystreet.com>


How about about this advantage... If a customer does something via cgi, or
some other thing that crashes the pool, or a pool can otherwise not restart,
then customers outside that pool are unaffected.  When creating multiple
pools, and keeping the number of sites per pool to a limited number (say 50
to 100), you then limit the scope of such an outage.  For us, this has
prevented limited outages from becoming system-wide or machine-wide outages
on more occations than I'd care to count.  This has been a huge advantage in
our experience.  I'm sure there are numerous other advantages, some
administrative, some technical, of which I'm just not aware.
--

-Chris Hershey
hershey at easystreet.com


> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of Clayton
> Lambert
> Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2001 5:07 PM
> To: 'Simon'; 'Virtual IP List'
> Subject: RE: ARIN Justified...
>
>
> There isn't a huge advangate to running multiple daemons on the same
> box...there is only X amount of proc available regardless of the amount of
> daemons you run...Additionally, there is a per-daemon overhead
> hit (in proc)
> that you don't have to deal with when you run single daemons per server.
>
> -Clay
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of Simon
> Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2001 4:59 PM
> To: Virtual IP List
> Subject: Re: ARIN Justified...
>
>
> FYI, you can't run two separate apache daemons on the same port
> without two
> unique IPs.
>
> -Simon
>
> On Wed, 10 Jan 2001 18:02:05 -0500, Bill Van Emburg wrote:
>
> >Simon wrote:
> >>
> >> We have servers with over 5-10 million hits and parse logs daily at
> night. It takes about 2 hours to parse the logs per
> >> machine. Mostly due to resolving IPs. To get just the bandwidth, 10
> million hits log file can be parsed in matter of
> >> minutes. So, you just need better tools ;-) As for other
> traffic such as
> FTP, there is a log file which can be parsed, too.
> >> We actually do this for anonymous FTP. I don't know who charges for
> POP/SMTP traffic, but same method can be
> >> implied here to calculate the bandwidth, too. It's matter of
> having right
> tools for the job. They are out there or you can
> >> have a programmer write custom set for your needs. Keep in mind, I'm
> referring to virtual web hosting, not dedicated.
> >>
> >
> >Attempting to parse all those different log files and consolidate the
> >info is certainly not elegant, nor a particularly great use of CPU, and
> >again, it does not tell you the actual bandwidth usage, merely the
> >application-level data.  It gets worse, when you consider that each of
> >our shared hosting customers has their own, separate web server, ftp
> >server, etc. running.  Even in shared hosting, each of our customers has
> >their own distinct server processes.  This very quickly becomes a
> >logistical nightmare, as well as a larger problem to parse.  Finally,
> >we're talking about more than double the hits you are describing.  It is
> >distinctly possible that the tool problems we're having are still
> >related to sheer volume.
> >
> >Something I didn't mention before: we also have to measure streaming
> >media bandwidth consumption.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm not aware
> >of a way to do that from log files, for any existing streaming server.
> >--
> >
> >				     -- Bill Van Emburg
> >				     	Quadrix Solutions, Inc.
> >Phone: 732-235-2335, x206		(mailto:bve at quadrix.com)
> >Fax:   732-235-2336			(http://quadrix.com)
> >		The eBusiness Solutions Company
> >
>
>
>



From Clay at exodus.net  Wed Jan 10 20:39:11 2001
From: Clay at exodus.net (Clayton Lambert)
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 17:39:11 -0800
Subject: ARIN Justified...
In-Reply-To: <NCBBIBIGAKPDLBGFNOHEGEPCJFAA.hershey@easystreet.com>
Message-ID: <200101110139.RAA08610@exoserv.exodus.net>

There are advantages in either direction...

-Clay

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of Chris
Hershey
Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2001 5:23 PM
To: Virtual IP List
Subject: RE: ARIN Justified...



How about about this advantage... If a customer does something via cgi, or
some other thing that crashes the pool, or a pool can otherwise not restart,
then customers outside that pool are unaffected.  When creating multiple
pools, and keeping the number of sites per pool to a limited number (say 50
to 100), you then limit the scope of such an outage.  For us, this has
prevented limited outages from becoming system-wide or machine-wide outages
on more occations than I'd care to count.  This has been a huge advantage in
our experience.  I'm sure there are numerous other advantages, some
administrative, some technical, of which I'm just not aware.
--

-Chris Hershey
hershey at easystreet.com


> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of Clayton
> Lambert
> Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2001 5:07 PM
> To: 'Simon'; 'Virtual IP List'
> Subject: RE: ARIN Justified...
>
>
> There isn't a huge advangate to running multiple daemons on the same
> box...there is only X amount of proc available regardless of the amount of
> daemons you run...Additionally, there is a per-daemon overhead
> hit (in proc)
> that you don't have to deal with when you run single daemons per server.
>
> -Clay
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of Simon
> Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2001 4:59 PM
> To: Virtual IP List
> Subject: Re: ARIN Justified...
>
>
> FYI, you can't run two separate apache daemons on the same port
> without two
> unique IPs.
>
> -Simon
>
> On Wed, 10 Jan 2001 18:02:05 -0500, Bill Van Emburg wrote:
>
> >Simon wrote:
> >>
> >> We have servers with over 5-10 million hits and parse logs daily at
> night. It takes about 2 hours to parse the logs per
> >> machine. Mostly due to resolving IPs. To get just the bandwidth, 10
> million hits log file can be parsed in matter of
> >> minutes. So, you just need better tools ;-) As for other
> traffic such as
> FTP, there is a log file which can be parsed, too.
> >> We actually do this for anonymous FTP. I don't know who charges for
> POP/SMTP traffic, but same method can be
> >> implied here to calculate the bandwidth, too. It's matter of
> having right
> tools for the job. They are out there or you can
> >> have a programmer write custom set for your needs. Keep in mind, I'm
> referring to virtual web hosting, not dedicated.
> >>
> >
> >Attempting to parse all those different log files and consolidate the
> >info is certainly not elegant, nor a particularly great use of CPU, and
> >again, it does not tell you the actual bandwidth usage, merely the
> >application-level data.  It gets worse, when you consider that each of
> >our shared hosting customers has their own, separate web server, ftp
> >server, etc. running.  Even in shared hosting, each of our customers has
> >their own distinct server processes.  This very quickly becomes a
> >logistical nightmare, as well as a larger problem to parse.  Finally,
> >we're talking about more than double the hits you are describing.  It is
> >distinctly possible that the tool problems we're having are still
> >related to sheer volume.
> >
> >Something I didn't mention before: we also have to measure streaming
> >media bandwidth consumption.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm not aware
> >of a way to do that from log files, for any existing streaming server.
> >--
> >
> >				     -- Bill Van Emburg
> >				     	Quadrix Solutions, Inc.
> >Phone: 732-235-2335, x206		(mailto:bve at quadrix.com)
> >Fax:   732-235-2336			(http://quadrix.com)
> >		The eBusiness Solutions Company
> >
>
>
>




From Clay at exodus.net  Wed Jan 10 20:38:11 2001
From: Clay at exodus.net (Clayton Lambert)
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 17:38:11 -0800
Subject: ARIN Justified...
In-Reply-To: <200101110112.UAA29135@rs1.arin.net>
Message-ID: <200101110138.RAA08494@exoserv.exodus.net>

You just acknowledged my point.  I am aware of what happens when you add RAM
and CPU.  But that doesn't affect the "all things being equal" scenario.

One again, this is slightly off topic.  The policy requirements are not the
same as the particular methodologies of server configuration...If the policy
gets updated, then the technical items you are discussing are applicable.

-Clay

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of Simon
Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2001 5:17 PM
To: Virtual IP List
Subject: RE: ARIN Justified...


Are you a system admin? how well do you understand how things work on unix
system? anyways, the more RAM you
have the bigger your process table can have. The more CPUs you have, the
more processes you can run at the same
time. The advantage of running separate daemons per customer is 1) security
and 2) freedom. I don't know where you
got the extra overhead from. Current apache is not threaded and does
preforking. In either case, you will have overhead
unless you have enough preforked processes.

-Simon

On Wed, 10 Jan 2001 17:06:30 -0800, Clayton Lambert wrote:

>There isn't a huge advangate to running multiple daemons on the same
>box...there is only X amount of proc available regardless of the amount of
>daemons you run...Additionally, there is a per-daemon overhead hit (in
proc)
>that you don't have to deal with when you run single daemons per server.
>
>-Clay
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of Simon
>Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2001 4:59 PM
>To: Virtual IP List
>Subject: Re: ARIN Justified...
>
>
>FYI, you can't run two separate apache daemons on the same port without two
>unique IPs.
>
>-Simon
>
>On Wed, 10 Jan 2001 18:02:05 -0500, Bill Van Emburg wrote:
>
>>Simon wrote:
>>>
>>> We have servers with over 5-10 million hits and parse logs daily at
>night. It takes about 2 hours to parse the logs per
>>> machine. Mostly due to resolving IPs. To get just the bandwidth, 10
>million hits log file can be parsed in matter of
>>> minutes. So, you just need better tools ;-) As for other traffic such as
>FTP, there is a log file which can be parsed, too.
>>> We actually do this for anonymous FTP. I don't know who charges for
>POP/SMTP traffic, but same method can be
>>> implied here to calculate the bandwidth, too. It's matter of having
right
>tools for the job. They are out there or you can
>>> have a programmer write custom set for your needs. Keep in mind, I'm
>referring to virtual web hosting, not dedicated.
>>>
>>
>>Attempting to parse all those different log files and consolidate the
>>info is certainly not elegant, nor a particularly great use of CPU, and
>>again, it does not tell you the actual bandwidth usage, merely the
>>application-level data.  It gets worse, when you consider that each of
>>our shared hosting customers has their own, separate web server, ftp
>>server, etc. running.  Even in shared hosting, each of our customers has
>>their own distinct server processes.  This very quickly becomes a
>>logistical nightmare, as well as a larger problem to parse.  Finally,
>>we're talking about more than double the hits you are describing.  It is
>>distinctly possible that the tool problems we're having are still
>>related to sheer volume.
>>
>>Something I didn't mention before: we also have to measure streaming
>>media bandwidth consumption.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm not aware
>>of a way to do that from log files, for any existing streaming server.
>>--
>>
>>				     -- Bill Van Emburg
>>				     	Quadrix Solutions, Inc.
>>Phone: 732-235-2335, x206		(mailto:bve at quadrix.com)
>>Fax:   732-235-2336			(http://quadrix.com)
>>		The eBusiness Solutions Company
>>
>
>
>
>





From cscott at gaslightmedia.com  Wed Jan 10 21:47:15 2001
From: cscott at gaslightmedia.com (Charles Scott)
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 21:47:15 -0500 (EST)
Subject: ARIN Justified..
In-Reply-To: <200101102018.MAA12657@exoserv.exodus.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.04.10101102112050.30434-100000@harbor.gaslightmedia.com>


Clayton:
  So you're saying that nobody is going to be asked to change existing
operations from IP to name based hosting in order to justify additional
address space? If you agree, then what about hosting that's in progress
but not yet deployed. Continuing from there, how much time should be
permitted for a company to move to a model that's compatible with name
based hosting, a couple months, a couple years? One thing is for sure,
changing the way you do business isn't easy and it takes time. Clearly
that should be justification for some period of time and clearly the
current momentum of a business model needs to be a component of 
justification. 
  Also, policy and business model must have some bearing on justification
because it is one's policies and models that makes a business successful.
If in order to impliment a competative business model there is a need for
IP based hosting (such as bandwidth profiling) then isn't that as valid as
something like technical justification for giving dial-up/DSL/cable
customers globally routable addresses space. I personally think that
forcing a business to change their model in order to obtain future
allocations is perhaps more intrusive than forcing the holder of a largely
unused allocation to renumber to free up space, and perhaps may be as
likely to trigger legal challenges.
  I just can't see these as separate issues, since both the reclamation of
unused address space and reasonable efficiency in consumption relate
directly to minimizing future impact of a limited resource. Targeting one
without targeting the other is clearly not a balanced and reasonable
approach.

Chuck


On Wed, 10 Jan 2001, Clayton Lambert wrote:

> requiring past allocations to adhere to a new policy is not what was
> discussed. Recovering vast amounts of previously allocated (and UNUSED) IP
> address space is an entirely DIFFERENT subject.
> 
> I would not suggest applying new policies to existing USAGE.  Remember,
> recovering unused IP space from /8s that are floating around out there is
> not the same as establishing a clearly defined, efficiency focused IP
> address usage policy that allows for exceptions but does require technical
> reasons (in the form of documentation) for not adhering to that policy.  It
> should be clear in stating that policy and business model are NOT
> justification (as they are not technical reasons).  On the same line, I
> think a technical justification exceptions should be protocol-based, not
> vendor based.
> 
> On Wed, 10 Jan 2001 bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
> 
> > 	"grandfathered" delegations have been done so for a reason.
> > 	changing the rules after the fact and forcing renumbering
> > 	will bring legal challanges.
> 
>   This is a good point, but the same can be said of existing allocations
> when trying to justify additional address space. In otherwords, if a
> hosting service has currently deployed IP based hosting, which was
> necessary/reasonable/acceptable in the past, it would seem to be unfair to
> refuse additional address space until those conform to a new policy
> (which may require significant time and expense).
> 
> Chuck Scott
> Gaslight Media



From decosta at bayconnect.com  Wed Jan 10 22:32:33 2001
From: decosta at bayconnect.com (Joe DeCosta)
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 19:32:33 -0800
Subject: ARIN Justified...
References: <200101110138.RAA08494@exoserv.exodus.net>
Message-ID: <000b01c07b7f$22dac6c0$cd00000a@andrade.net>

apache does support name based vhosts, check the archives for what needs to
be in the conf file for apache....i posted it......aren't man pages awesome?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Clayton Lambert" <Clay at exodus.net>
To: "'Simon'" <simon at optinet.com>; "'Virtual IP List'" <vwp at arin.net>
Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2001 5:38 PM
Subject: RE: ARIN Justified...


> You just acknowledged my point.  I am aware of what happens when you add
RAM
> and CPU.  But that doesn't affect the "all things being equal" scenario.
>
> One again, this is slightly off topic.  The policy requirements are not
the
> same as the particular methodologies of server configuration...If the
policy
> gets updated, then the technical items you are discussing are applicable.
>
> -Clay
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of Simon
> Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2001 5:17 PM
> To: Virtual IP List
> Subject: RE: ARIN Justified...
>
>
> Are you a system admin? how well do you understand how things work on unix
> system? anyways, the more RAM you
> have the bigger your process table can have. The more CPUs you have, the
> more processes you can run at the same
> time. The advantage of running separate daemons per customer is 1)
security
> and 2) freedom. I don't know where you
> got the extra overhead from. Current apache is not threaded and does
> preforking. In either case, you will have overhead
> unless you have enough preforked processes.
>
> -Simon
>
> On Wed, 10 Jan 2001 17:06:30 -0800, Clayton Lambert wrote:
>
> >There isn't a huge advangate to running multiple daemons on the same
> >box...there is only X amount of proc available regardless of the amount
of
> >daemons you run...Additionally, there is a per-daemon overhead hit (in
> proc)
> >that you don't have to deal with when you run single daemons per server.
> >
> >-Clay
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of Simon
> >Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2001 4:59 PM
> >To: Virtual IP List
> >Subject: Re: ARIN Justified...
> >
> >
> >FYI, you can't run two separate apache daemons on the same port without
two
> >unique IPs.
> >
> >-Simon
> >
> >On Wed, 10 Jan 2001 18:02:05 -0500, Bill Van Emburg wrote:
> >
> >>Simon wrote:
> >>>
> >>> We have servers with over 5-10 million hits and parse logs daily at
> >night. It takes about 2 hours to parse the logs per
> >>> machine. Mostly due to resolving IPs. To get just the bandwidth, 10
> >million hits log file can be parsed in matter of
> >>> minutes. So, you just need better tools ;-) As for other traffic such
as
> >FTP, there is a log file which can be parsed, too.
> >>> We actually do this for anonymous FTP. I don't know who charges for
> >POP/SMTP traffic, but same method can be
> >>> implied here to calculate the bandwidth, too. It's matter of having
> right
> >tools for the job. They are out there or you can
> >>> have a programmer write custom set for your needs. Keep in mind, I'm
> >referring to virtual web hosting, not dedicated.
> >>>
> >>
> >>Attempting to parse all those different log files and consolidate the
> >>info is certainly not elegant, nor a particularly great use of CPU, and
> >>again, it does not tell you the actual bandwidth usage, merely the
> >>application-level data.  It gets worse, when you consider that each of
> >>our shared hosting customers has their own, separate web server, ftp
> >>server, etc. running.  Even in shared hosting, each of our customers has
> >>their own distinct server processes.  This very quickly becomes a
> >>logistical nightmare, as well as a larger problem to parse.  Finally,
> >>we're talking about more than double the hits you are describing.  It is
> >>distinctly possible that the tool problems we're having are still
> >>related to sheer volume.
> >>
> >>Something I didn't mention before: we also have to measure streaming
> >>media bandwidth consumption.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm not aware
> >>of a way to do that from log files, for any existing streaming server.
> >>--
> >>
> >>      -- Bill Van Emburg
> >>      Quadrix Solutions, Inc.
> >>Phone: 732-235-2335, x206 (mailto:bve at quadrix.com)
> >>Fax:   732-235-2336 (http://quadrix.com)
> >> The eBusiness Solutions Company
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>



From stephen at hnt.com  Thu Jan 11 13:47:16 2001
From: stephen at hnt.com (Stephen Elliott)
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 13:47:16 -0500
Subject: ARIN Justified..
References: <200101102018.MAA12657@exoserv.exodus.net>
Message-ID: <3A5DFFB4.47BB6FE8@hnt.com>

	I fully agree with Clayton, past allocations are not the true focus of
this group.  Sure, we could solve all of our problems by going back to
some of the Universities and corporations with /8s, but that will not
fix the problem forever, and it will cause quite a few headaches for a
lot of people in the short term.  What we need is a policy on name based
hosting that makes sense and takes into account the reality of today's
Internet.  We all have to face the reality that IPv4 is not going to be
around forever and we all have to live with the limitations that it
places on everyone until it is eventuall replaced.  I believe that
whatever we come up with should be phased in SLOWLY so that projects
that companies are already working on are not affected, and future
projects can be planned with the limitations in place.  It is also going
to take education for a lot of people, everyone from the search engine
companies to the webhosting companies.
-Stephen

Clayton Lambert wrote:
> 
> requiring past allocations to adhere to a new policy is not what was
> discussed. Recovering vast amounts of previously allocated (and UNUSED) IP
> address space is an entirely DIFFERENT subject.
> 
> I would not suggest applying new policies to existing USAGE.  Remember,
> recovering unused IP space from /8s that are floating around out there is
> not the same as establishing a clearly defined, efficiency focused IP
> address usage policy that allows for exceptions but does require technical
> reasons (in the form of documentation) for not adhering to that policy.  It
> should be clear in stating that policy and business model are NOT
> justification (as they are not technical reasons).  On the same line, I
> think a technical justification exceptions should be protocol-based, not
> vendor based.
> 
> -Clay
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of Charles
> Scott
> Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2001 11:48 AM
> To: bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com
> Cc: Gilbert Martin @ Learning Solutions; 'Joe DeCosta'; 'Chris Miller';
> 'Jim Macknik'; 'vwp at arin.net'
> Subject: Re: ARIN Justified..
> 
> On Wed, 10 Jan 2001 bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
> 
> >       "grandfathered" delegations have been done so for a reason.
> >       changing the rules after the fact and forcing renumbering
> >       will bring legal challanges.
> 
>   This is a good point, but the same can be said of existing allocations
> when trying to justify additional address space. In otherwords, if a
> hosting service has currently deployed IP based hosting, which was
> necessary/reasonable/acceptable in the past, it would seem to be unfair to
> refuse additional address space until those conform to a new policy
> (which may require significant time and expense).
>   Still, I belive that everyone has an interest in extending the life of
> IPv4 address space, particularly in many cases companies with historic
> large allocations, and should therefore be compliant with efforts to
> reclaim any large unused address space. But the question of what is more
> reasonable, to reclaim "unused" address space or force improved efficency
> of address space currently providing valuable service, seems to be a
> no-brainer.x
> 
> Chuck Scott
> Gaslight Media

-- 
Stephen Elliott                 Harrison & Troxell
Systems & Networking Manager    2 Faneuil Hall Marketplace
Systems & Networking Group      Boston, Ma 02109
(617)227-0494 Phone             (617)720-3918 Fax


From Clay at exodus.net  Thu Jan 11 14:26:59 2001
From: Clay at exodus.net (Clayton Lambert)
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 11:26:59 -0800
Subject: ARIN Justified..
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.04.10101102112050.30434-100000@harbor.gaslightmedia.com>
Message-ID: <200101111927.LAA20262@exoserv.exodus.net>

Answers/comments are inline:

-----Original Message-----
From: Charles Scott [mailto:cscott at gaslightmedia.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2001 6:47 PM
To: Clayton Lambert
Cc: bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com; 'Gilbert Martin @ Learning
Solutions'; 'Joe DeCosta'; 'Chris Miller'; 'Jim Macknik'; vwp at arin.net
Subject: RE: ARIN Justified..



Clayton:
  So you're saying that nobody is going to be asked to change existing
operations from IP to name based hosting in order to justify additional
address space?

++ I am not saying that people wouldn't try that, but the escalation to ARIN
would allow for nonsense to get straightened out pretty simply.  There
should be a supporting statement to the policy that clearly defines what is
acceptable with regards to previous allocations...And that points out the
fundamental: The planned growth would have been accounted for in the LAST
assignment request...Right?  And, that would eliminate 99.5% of this
particular element.

 If you agree, then what about hosting that's in progress
but not yet deployed.

++ Again, in progress should already be accounted for in the previous
assignment.  If it wasn't, the maintainer should have the discretion to
handle the case, or they could escalate it to ARIN (with supporting
documentation).

Continuing from there, how much time should be
permitted for a company to move to a model that's compatible with name
based hosting, a couple months, a couple years?

++ This would fall under the technical justification.  Nothings easy.
Companies that have had it easy will have to buckle down and comply with the
policy.  Case by case basis can be addressed at the maintainer level and
escalations can be passed to ARIN.

+++ The policy should be implemented immediately and should have a grace
period of 6 months.  The grace period should be as I described above, such
that the Maintainer would have discretion (during the 6 month period)
similar to the "Technical Justification" discretion on the policy...This
would provide the added benefit of allowing the Maintainers and ARIN to
'shake down' the escalation process.  After the 6 months, the policy would
be in full effect and the "previous assignment" methodology would be in
force.


 One thing is for sure,
changing the way you do business isn't easy and it takes time.

++ Agreed, but we have all (in the Internet arena) gotten pretty good at
being fast on our feet...This ability could be applied towards getting in
line with IP conservation as well as we handle the 'growth' in our industry.

 Clearly
that should be justification for some period of time and clearly the
current momentum of a business model needs to be a component of
justification.

++  this would fall into the 6 month grace period.  As webhosting is
"service providing" it should be on a 90 day cycle anyway, not a 50%@12month
model...This would indicate two full cycles of assignment/allocation for the
requesters to make accurate projections and document their usage (and any
technical justification) before the grace period would end.

  Also, policy and business model must have some bearing on justification
because it is one's policies and models that makes a business successful.
If in order to impliment a competative business model there is a need for
IP based hosting (such as bandwidth profiling) then isn't that as valid as
something like technical justification for giving dial-up/DSL/cable
customers globally routable addresses space.

++  Agreed, on the policy and bizz model stuff...But, if a company tracks
anything via the IP address and that method of tracking isn't limited due to
something protocol specific, the justification isn't there.  Again, vendor
specific limitations should NOT be considered a technical justification.

I personally think that
forcing a business to change their model in order to obtain future
allocations is perhaps more intrusive than forcing the holder of a largely
unused allocation to renumber to free up space, and perhaps may be as
likely to trigger legal challenges.

++  I don't think it would trigger any more legal challenges than those that
already occur due to current IP allocation/assignment limitations, rules,
and policies.

++ In fact, a well defined policy is more difficult to litigate against...As
opposed to the current ambiguous, nebulous, gray-area based policy that is
in place.


  I just can't see these as separate issues, since both the reclamation of
unused address space and reasonable efficiency in consumption relate
directly to minimizing future impact of a limited resource. Targeting one
without targeting the other is clearly not a balanced and reasonable
approach.

++ Boy, I definitely agree with you on this one :-)  However, I think the
policy for Efficient IP usage.  I think it is a HUGE MISTAKE to call this
the "web-hosting" or "virtual hosting" policy! Referring to this policy as
anything specific as those, would unfairly single out the webhosting
community.  This policy should be squarely aimed at efficiency of use.  As
such, it should define "Service Providing" as a high level description.
There are multiple types of "Service Providing" such as ISP, ASP, MSP, as
well as webhosting (WSP or HSP?).

Clayton Lambert
Compliance Services Director,
Exodus Communications











Chuck


On Wed, 10 Jan 2001, Clayton Lambert wrote:

> requiring past allocations to adhere to a new policy is not what was
> discussed. Recovering vast amounts of previously allocated (and UNUSED) IP
> address space is an entirely DIFFERENT subject.
>
> I would not suggest applying new policies to existing USAGE.  Remember,
> recovering unused IP space from /8s that are floating around out there is
> not the same as establishing a clearly defined, efficiency focused IP
> address usage policy that allows for exceptions but does require technical
> reasons (in the form of documentation) for not adhering to that policy.
It
> should be clear in stating that policy and business model are NOT
> justification (as they are not technical reasons).  On the same line, I
> think a technical justification exceptions should be protocol-based, not
> vendor based.
>
> On Wed, 10 Jan 2001 bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
>
> > 	"grandfathered" delegations have been done so for a reason.
> > 	changing the rules after the fact and forcing renumbering
> > 	will bring legal challanges.
>
>   This is a good point, but the same can be said of existing allocations
> when trying to justify additional address space. In otherwords, if a
> hosting service has currently deployed IP based hosting, which was
> necessary/reasonable/acceptable in the past, it would seem to be unfair to
> refuse additional address space until those conform to a new policy
> (which may require significant time and expense).
>
> Chuck Scott
> Gaslight Media




From cscott at gaslightmedia.com  Thu Jan 11 16:30:12 2001
From: cscott at gaslightmedia.com (Charles Scott)
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 16:30:12 -0500 (EST)
Subject: ARIN Justified..
In-Reply-To: <200101111927.LAA20262@exoserv.exodus.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.04.10101111431400.14647-100000@harbor.gaslightmedia.com>




On Thu, 11 Jan 2001, Clayton Lambert wrote:

 
>   Also, policy and business model must have some bearing on justification
> because it is one's policies and models that makes a business successful.
> If in order to impliment a competative business model there is a need for
> IP based hosting (such as bandwidth profiling) then isn't that as valid as
> something like technical justification for giving dial-up/DSL/cable
> customers globally routable addresses space.
> 
> ++  Agreed, on the policy and bizz model stuff...But, if a company tracks
> anything via the IP address and that method of tracking isn't limited due to
> something protocol specific, the justification isn't there.  Again, vendor
> specific limitations should NOT be considered a technical justification.

Clayton:
  The example I was referring to was bandwidth limitation (as opposed to
tracking). As far as I can tell, there's no good technical way to limit
bandwidth to a particular virtual server other than providing it with a
separate IP address. So, considering that deciding to sell use of virtual
servers based on bandwidth available to each is a policy/business model
decision, would you consider that not to be justification even though
there's no good technical solution for doing this with name based hosting.
I'm sure there are other similar cases as well. In other words, how does
one decide which business policy/model decisions are adequate
justification for ip based hosting?
  A peripheral concern of this is with regards to downstream IP requests.
I just wonder how much hassle ARIN is willing to deal with when more and
more downstream requests for address space are rejected and require appeal
to ARIN. If the policy implies, or stipulates, that business policy/model
is not justification, then I suspect those appeals will in fact 
increase significantly. I also think it would be unfortunate if the policy
for justification resulted in a narrowing of what types and styles of
services can be offered.

Chuck Scott





From Clay at exodus.net  Thu Jan 11 18:07:54 2001
From: Clay at exodus.net (Clayton Lambert)
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 15:07:54 -0800
Subject: ARIN Justified..
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.04.10101111431400.14647-100000@harbor.gaslightmedia.com>
Message-ID: <200101112307.PAA03524@exoserv.exodus.net>

Comments inline :-)

-----Original Message-----
From: Charles Scott [mailto:cscott at gaslightmedia.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2001 1:30 PM
Subject: RE: ARIN Justified..

On Thu, 11 Jan 2001, Clayton Lambert wrote:

>   Also, policy and business model must have some bearing on justification
> because it is one's policies and models that makes a business successful.
> If in order to impliment a competative business model there is a need for
> IP based hosting (such as bandwidth profiling) then isn't that as valid as
> something like technical justification for giving dial-up/DSL/cable
> customers globally routable addresses space.
>
> ++  Agreed, on the policy and bizz model stuff...But, if a company tracks
> anything via the IP address and that method of tracking isn't limited due
to
> something protocol specific, the justification isn't there.  Again, vendor
> specific limitations should NOT be considered a technical justification.

Clayton:
  The example I was referring to was bandwidth limitation (as opposed to
tracking). As far as I can tell, there's no good technical way to limit
bandwidth to a particular virtual server other than providing it with a
separate IP address.

++ I would have to research this to see if there are specific limitations.
As I haven't studied it, I would be reaching if I tried to make policy
decisions on it.

So, considering that deciding to sell use of virtual
servers based on bandwidth available to each is a policy/business model
decision, would you consider that not to be justification even though
there's no good technical solution for doing this with name based hosting.
I'm sure there are other similar cases as well.

++ Again, without researching this... I will look into it though, as if it
is not a protocol limitation then I think there would be some method for
hostheader tracking.

In other words, how does
one decide which business policy/model decisions are adequate
justification for ip based hosting?

++ I think a part of the goal is to shift the current attitude that "IP's
are easy and readily available so lets do it that way" to a more
conservative attitude.  This could foster a new concept: Conservation

  A peripheral concern of this is with regards to downstream IP requests.
I just wonder how much hassle ARIN is willing to deal with when more and
more downstream requests for address space are rejected and require appeal
to ARIN.

++ ARIN has the opportunity to set precedence with the Maintainer discretion
concept.  The Maintainer should be required to ensure all the documentation
is in order so that ARIN doesn't have to do much more than make a ruling or
uphold a Maintainer ruling.

If the policy implies, or stipulates, that business policy/model
is not justification, then I suspect those appeals will in fact
increase significantly. I also think it would be unfortunate if the policy
for justification resulted in a narrowing of what types and styles of
services can be offered.

++  It would encourage developers to expand the available services...not
limit them.
Look at the types of services that are available now, that weren't around a
year or two ago...Look at the level and complexity of loadbalancing that is
available now that wasn't just a little while back.  The security
requirements that are commonplace nowadays are there because of malicious
hackers, not policy...Policy can foster growth and can direct (if done
properly and with the proper goals) current vendors and users to expand
their capabilities.


-Clay




From Gilbert.Martin at za.didata.com  Sun Jan 14 09:10:35 2001
From: Gilbert.Martin at za.didata.com (Gilbert Martin @ Learning Solutions)
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 16:10:35 +0200
Subject: ARIN Justified..
Message-ID: <DC7ABD0A8338D311B2010008C79122EE03A52451@zajnbddsexc1.didata.co.za>

Daniel you added yourself to the mailing list, go and find out how to remove
yourself from vwp at arin.net!
No need to be rude but you did add yourself because I added myself!

-----Original Message-----
From: daniel levesque [mailto:admin at dialup-qc.i-p.com]
Sent: Saturday, January 13, 2001 11:44 PM
To: Gilbert Martin @ Learning Solutions; 'Joe DeCosta'
Cc: 'Chris Miller'; Jim Macknik; vwp at arin.net
Subject: Re: ARIN Justified..


GET LOST WHIT THAT SHIT
REMOVE MY EMAIL FROM YOUR LIST
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gilbert Martin @ Learning Solutions" <Gilbert.Martin at za.didata.com>
To: "'Joe DeCosta'" <decosta at bayconnect.com>; "Gilbert Martin @ Learning
Solutions" <Gilbert.Martin at za.didata.com>
Cc: "'Chris Miller'" <ctodd at netgate.net>; "Jim Macknik"
<jmacknik at inflow.com>; <vwp at arin.net>
Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2001 8:08 AM
Subject: RE: ARIN Justified..


> Yes, simply because of the fact that there will be x amount of addresses
> given to machines and y amount available for huge web space useres, and
even
> inside of a corporate network secretaries do use the Internet address
space
> more, tentavively as soon as they discover Internet explorer they go
> ballistic!!!
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joe DeCosta [mailto:decosta at bayconnect.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2001 9:41 AM
> To: Gilbert Martin @ Learning Solutions
> Cc: 'Chris Miller'; Jim Macknik; vwp at arin.net
> Subject: Re: ARIN Justified..
>
>
> Could you clairfy why computers on INTERNAL networks would need a fully
> routeable STATIC ip address? I don't see why a private computer inside a
> corporate network at some secrataries desk needs a fully routeable
> static ip. etc etc...
>
>
>
> "Gilbert Martin @ Learning Solutions" wrote:
> >
> > Exactly what I said yesterday, wouldn't it be more simple for people not
> > accessing external networks via the INternet to rather be given a static
> > address and then if the need arises let them also be able to request a
> newer
> > address, the end result will be that only those using ISP's will be
using
> up
> > address space?
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Chris Miller [mailto:ctodd at netgate.net]
> > Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2001 3:09 AM
> > To: Jim Macknik
> > Cc: vwp at arin.net
> > Subject: RE: ARIN Justified..
> >
> > Sun Microsystems (and others companies I'm sure) has many addresses that
> > never see the internet, they use most of these strictly for their
internal
> > networks. Surely they could use reserved addresses for many of these
> > purposes.....
> >
> > Sun Microsystems, Inc. (NETBLK-SUN4)
> >    2550 Garcia Avenue
> >    Mountain View, CA 94043
> >
> >    Netname: SUN4
> >    Netblock: 129.144.0.0 - 129.159.255.255
> >
> > Chris
> >
> > On Tue, 9 Jan 2001, Jim Macknik wrote:
> >
> > > This brings up a good point, as well. How will ARIN enforce its
> policies?
> > > There are large companies out there that have several Class B or Class
A
> > > ranges all to themselves that they "reserved" years ago. I doubt many
of
> > > these organizations could properly justify this space at this time.
> > >
> > > Will ARIN require them to justify their use and take away the extras,
> > > requiring huge organizations or ISPs to completely re-allocate their
> > > addressing? If they don't, how will they be able to justify revoking
> > denying
> > > space to others looking to increase their allocation?
> > >
> > > This isn't an easy one, but it certainly has to be addressed if ARIN
is
> > > concerned about political ramifications of a policy that will affect
> > whether
> > > businesses can even *do* business.
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Joe DeCosta [mailto:decosta at bayconnect.com]
> > > Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2001 4:00 PM
> > > To: Clayton Lambert; 'Douglas Cohn'; vwp at arin.net
> > > Subject: Re: ARIN Justified...
> > >
> > >
> > > Well, what do you think that the best approach to this would be, I
think
> a
> > > BIG part of the entire IP space problem is the HUGE market of ISP's
like
> > > earthlink, Genuity(aka BBN), and the free services that just give any
> > schmoe
> > > an IP address, I don't think that this is soemthing that  is viable,
we
> > even
> > > to a small Extent use NAT/Name based Virtual Hosting for  some of the
> > > domains runing on the secondary T1 in our office.  This all works
fine,
> > and
> > > uses 1 ip for many things.  Perhaps this is a viable options, but i do
> > think
> > > that ARIN should enforce some sort of NAT with providers (aol,
> earthlink,
> > > freebie ISPs et al.) who allow just anybody to have an IP when its not
> > > needed.  from an admin point of view this can be a bit hellish but
well
> > > worth the IP space that is being wasted on people that dont *NEED*
> random
> > > inbound traffic.
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Clayton Lambert" <Clay at exodus.net>
> > > To: "'Joe DeCosta'" <decosta at bayconnect.com>; "'Douglas Cohn'"
> > > <Douglas.Cohn at Virtualscape.com>; <vwp at arin.net>
> > > Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2001 2:17 PM
> > > Subject: RE: ARIN Justified...
> > >
> > >
> > > > No argument at all on those points either Joe,
> > > >
> > > > In fact, it seems there is a lot of common ground on this topic,
maybe
> > we
> > > > should try to identify the specific agreed-upon points and
> > > disagreements...?
> > > >
> > > > It might be something to work from.
> > > >
> > > > -Clay
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of Joe
> > > > DeCosta
> > > > Sent: Monday, January 08, 2001 6:44 PM
> > > > To: Clayton Lambert; 'Douglas Cohn'; vwp at arin.net
> > > > Subject: Re: ARIN Justified...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > agreed, but with all of the home users, shouldn't some of the major
> > ISP's
> > > be
> > > > considering NAT for DSL/ISDN and Dialup users? i mean, it's an idea,
i
> > > don't
> > > > know how well it would be accepted, i also think that AOL should be
> > forced
> > > > to use NAT.........its rediclous to see how many IP blocks they own,
> but
> > > > dialup/isdn/dsl NAT i think could be a suggestion to ISP's no??
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: "Clayton Lambert" <Clay at exodus.net>
> > > > To: "'Douglas Cohn'" <Douglas.Cohn at Virtualscape.com>; <vwp at arin.net>
> > > > Sent: Monday, January 08, 2001 4:59 PM
> > > > Subject: RE: ARIN Justified...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > IPv6 is not the panacea you seem to think it is...
> > > > >
> > > > > With a mentality like that, we'd burn thru IPv6 in 10 years or
> less...
> > > > >
> > > > > -Clay
> > > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of
> > Douglas
> > > > > Cohn
> > > > > Sent: Friday, January 05, 2001 6:59 AM
> > > > > To: vwp at arin.net
> > > > > Subject: FW: ARIN Justified...
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I forwarded your email to the list for you
> > > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: Allen Ahoffman [mailto:ahoffman at announce.com]
> > > > > Sent: Friday, July 10, 2893 6:44 PM
> > > > > To: Douglas Cohn
> > > > > Subject: Re: ARIN Justified...
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > OK let me interject a question into this discussion:
> > > > >
> > > > > Why are we requiring a /19 or in some cases /20 of space before
> being
> > > > > allowed to get our own allocation?
> > > > > I realize management is an issue, but a $2500/year it encourages
> small
> > > > > users to build up to that point.
> > > > >
> > > > > We get users who don't want us to have iI space from other
vendors,
> so
> > > > > we
> > > > > get pressure for more iP usage and pressure for less.
> > > > >
> > > > > For example, in converting from one provider to another I have had
> > > > > difficult time getting replacment iP space in less than 8 months
> now,
> > > > > but
> > > > > was making efforts to not purchase the /19.  I thik we might bge
by
> > > > > without it but the minimum size creates pressure to fill IP(s).
> > > > > I do agree that users seem to want IP(s) without reason, seems
like
> > IPV6
> > > > > might look more appealing every day?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > [Charset
> > > > > iso-8859-1 unsupported,
> > > > > filtering to ASCII...] > I must get my two cents in here as well.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I feel Clayton has the right track.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I manage IP allocation as well for dedicated and colocated
> clients.
> > > > > Our
> > > > > > policy used to state each server was issued 16 IPs.  We
provision
> > with
> > > > > 1
> > > > > > IP only.  If a client asks for the rest I also require the need
> for
> > > > > the
> > > > > > IPs.
> > > > > > Too often they want them for testing or only because they saw
that
> > > > > they
> > > > > > get 16 IPs with a server.  They must supply the domain names and
> > > > > reasons
> > > > > > why they cannot use IPless hosting.  While I will not force
IPless
> > > > > > hosting on clients I push it and train it's use for free.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > We now state that you get a single IP with each dedicated server
> and
> > > > > > additional IPs are billed on a monthly basis.  This helps a lot
to
> > > > > > defray usage.  While it is a revenue stream that is not it's
> purpose
> > > > > > whatsoever.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In Shared hosting though the issues are clearly Search engines
and
> > SSL
> > > > > > as far as I know.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Most people understand why we watch our address space and
> appreciate
> > > > > it.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Douglas Cohn
> > > > > > Manager NY Engineering
> > > > > > Hostcentric, Inc.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of
> > > > > Stephen
> > > > > > Elliott
> > > > > > Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 4:47 PM
> > > > > > To: Clayton Lambert; Virtual IP List
> > > > > > Subject: Re: ARIN Justified...
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > :-)  The reason I mentioned Exodus is because we are a customer
of
> > > > > > Exodus, and in my opinion, the policy is too restrictive.  And
the
> > > > > > statement was directed at the fact that Exodus hosts many
> companies
> > > > > that
> > > > > > are in the business of hosting websites, not Exodus as a
company.
> > As
> > > > > I
> > > > > > have stated in earlier postings, simply clamping down and
> > restricting
> > > > > > virtual web hosting is not the answer.  Any list of
> justifications,
> > no
> > > > > > matter how much thought went into it, will not cover every
> possible
> > > > > > reason for needing the IP's.  Documentation is a great thing,
just
> > the
> > > > > > fact that someone has to sit down and write out a list of
machines
> > > > > that
> > > > > > need IP's will deter most people from requesting extra IP's.
> > > > > > -Stephen
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Clayton Lambert wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Do you have ANY idea of what you are saying?  Sorry for
> appearing
> > > > > > brash,
> > > > > > > but...I run the IP maintenance organization at Exodus, and I
> would
> > > > > > easily
> > > > > > > stack our allocation policy up against anybody's.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > You have no idea what you are talking about in regard to
larger
> > > > > > companies.
> > > > > > > Exodus consumes a very modest amount of address space given
our
> > size
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > presence on the Internet.  There are much smaller competitors
of
> > > > > ours
> > > > > > that
> > > > > > > consume larger amounts of IP space.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Exodus is already pioneering the efficiency of use ideology
that
> I
> > > > > > would
> > > > > > > like to see ARIN adopt (a strong HTTP1.1 stance on ARIN's part
> is
> > a
> > > > > > good
> > > > > > > start).  We currently require extensive supporting
documentation
> > for
> > > > > > IP
> > > > > > > requests from all our Customers.  A Customer has to show a
> > > > > documented
> > > > > > need
> > > > > > > for their usage request and we file all these requests and
refer
> > to
> > > > > > past
> > > > > > > requests and detail as additional requests for address space
> > occur.
> > > > > > This
> > > > > > > method gives us a very clear and honest indication of IP
address
> > > > > usage
> > > > > > > growth. This allows us to support our Customers' IP addressing
> > needs
> > > > > > in a
> > > > > > > very accurate and efficient way.  The end result is less
> > consumption
> > > > > > of IPv4
> > > > > > > space across the board.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Clayton Lambert
> > > > > > > Exodus Communications
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf
Of
> > > > > > Stephen
> > > > > > > Elliott
> > > > > > > Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 12:20 PM
> > > > > > > To: Virtual IP List
> > > > > > > Subject: RE: ARIN Justified...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >         The big guys that you refer to are generally not in
the
> > web
> > > > > > hosting
> > > > > > > business and therefore are outside of the scope of this
> > > > > conversation.
> > > > > > > The real concern is the big guys like Exodus and UUNet.  Since
> > IPv6
> > > > > is
> > > > > > > not a viable option for general consumption yet, we need to
> > > > > > concentrate
> > > > > > > on conserving the existing IPv4 space.  As far as search
engines
> > go,
> > > > > > if
> > > > > > > enough sites start using HTTP1.1 software virtual servers,
they
> > will
> > > > > > be
> > > > > > > forced to upgrade their spiders to support it.  I would
suggest
> > that
> > > > > > one
> > > > > > > of the main issues at hand is billing.  Billing for web
hosting
> > > > > > > companies that is.  Most companies bundle bandwidth with their
> > > > > hosting
> > > > > > > packages, and current billing packages utilize destination IP
> > > > > address
> > > > > > > information to gather this information.  If there is not a way
> to
> > > > > get
> > > > > > > this information without drastic changes to both billing
> software
> > > > > and
> > > > > > in
> > > > > > > some cases hardware, there will be very strong opposition to
any
> > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > in the way IP addresses are given out.
> > > > > > > -Stephen
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > Stephen Elliott                 Harrison & Troxell
> > > > > > > Systems & Networking Manager    2 Faneuil Hall Marketplace
> > > > > > > Systems & Networking Group      Boston, Ma 02109
> > > > > > > (617)227-0494 Phone             (617)720-3918 Fax
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Stephen Elliott                 Harrison & Troxell
> > > > > > Systems & Networking Manager    2 Faneuil Hall Marketplace
> > > > > > Systems & Networking Group      Boston, Ma 02109
> > > > > > (617)227-0494 Phone             (617)720-3918 Fax
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> > **********************************************************************
> >
> > The information in this e-mail is confidential and is legally
privileged.
> > It is intended solely for the addressee.  If this email is not intended
> for
> > you, you cannot copy, distribute, or disclose the included information
> > to any-one
> >
> > If you are not the intended recipient please delete the mail. Whilst
> > all reasonable steps have been taken to ensure the accuracy and
> > integrity of all data transmitted electronically, no liability is
accepted
> > if the data, for whatever reason, is corrupt or does not reach it's
> > intended destination.
> > All business is undertaken, subject to our standard trading conditions
> > which are available on request.
> >
> > *******************************************************************
>
>
> **********************************************************************
>
> The information in this e-mail is confidential and is legally privileged.
> It is intended solely for the addressee.  If this email is not intended
for
> you, you cannot copy, distribute, or disclose the included information
> to any-one
>
> If you are not the intended recipient please delete the mail. Whilst
> all reasonable steps have been taken to ensure the accuracy and
> integrity of all data transmitted electronically, no liability is accepted
> if the data, for whatever reason, is corrupt or does not reach it's
> intended destination.
> All business is undertaken, subject to our standard trading conditions
> which are available on request.
>
> *******************************************************************


*******************************************************************
The information in this e-mail is confidential and is legally privileged.
It is intended solely for the addressee.  If this email is not intended for
you, you cannot copy, distribute, or disclose the included information
to any-one

If you are not the intended recipient please delete the mail. Whilst
all reasonable steps have been taken to ensure the accuracy and
integrity of all data transmitted electronically, no liability is accepted
if the data, for whatever reason, is corrupt or does not reach it's
intended destination.
All business is undertaken, subject to our standard trading conditions
which are available on request.

*******************************************************************


From decosta at bayconnect.com  Sun Jan 14 23:05:10 2001
From: decosta at bayconnect.com (Joe DeCosta)
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 20:05:10 -0800 (PST)
Subject: ARIN Justified..
In-Reply-To: <DC7ABD0A8338D311B2010008C79122EE03A52451@zajnbddsexc1.didata.co.za>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0101142004290.16426-100000@lanai.bayconnect.com>

OKay, why do they give the e-mail admin@ to someone like that, and *I* had
to reply to it to become subscribed. eesh.


On Sun, 14 Jan 2001, Gilbert Martin @ Learning Solutions wrote:

> Daniel you added yourself to the mailing list, go and find out how to remove
> yourself from vwp at arin.net!
> No need to be rude but you did add yourself because I added myself!
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: daniel levesque [mailto:admin at dialup-qc.i-p.com]
> Sent: Saturday, January 13, 2001 11:44 PM
> To: Gilbert Martin @ Learning Solutions; 'Joe DeCosta'
> Cc: 'Chris Miller'; Jim Macknik; vwp at arin.net
> Subject: Re: ARIN Justified..
> 
> 
> GET LOST WHIT THAT SHIT
> REMOVE MY EMAIL FROM YOUR LIST
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Gilbert Martin @ Learning Solutions" <Gilbert.Martin at za.didata.com>
> To: "'Joe DeCosta'" <decosta at bayconnect.com>; "Gilbert Martin @ Learning
> Solutions" <Gilbert.Martin at za.didata.com>
> Cc: "'Chris Miller'" <ctodd at netgate.net>; "Jim Macknik"
> <jmacknik at inflow.com>; <vwp at arin.net>
> Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2001 8:08 AM
> Subject: RE: ARIN Justified..
> 
> 
> > Yes, simply because of the fact that there will be x amount of addresses
> > given to machines and y amount available for huge web space useres, and
> even
> > inside of a corporate network secretaries do use the Internet address
> space
> > more, tentavively as soon as they discover Internet explorer they go
> > ballistic!!!
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Joe DeCosta [mailto:decosta at bayconnect.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2001 9:41 AM
> > To: Gilbert Martin @ Learning Solutions
> > Cc: 'Chris Miller'; Jim Macknik; vwp at arin.net
> > Subject: Re: ARIN Justified..
> >
> >
> > Could you clairfy why computers on INTERNAL networks would need a fully
> > routeable STATIC ip address? I don't see why a private computer inside a
> > corporate network at some secrataries desk needs a fully routeable
> > static ip. etc etc...
> >
> >
> >
> > "Gilbert Martin @ Learning Solutions" wrote:
> > >
> > > Exactly what I said yesterday, wouldn't it be more simple for people not
> > > accessing external networks via the INternet to rather be given a static
> > > address and then if the need arises let them also be able to request a
> > newer
> > > address, the end result will be that only those using ISP's will be
> using
> > up
> > > address space?
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Chris Miller [mailto:ctodd at netgate.net]
> > > Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2001 3:09 AM
> > > To: Jim Macknik
> > > Cc: vwp at arin.net
> > > Subject: RE: ARIN Justified..
> > >
> > > Sun Microsystems (and others companies I'm sure) has many addresses that
> > > never see the internet, they use most of these strictly for their
> internal
> > > networks. Surely they could use reserved addresses for many of these
> > > purposes.....
> > >
> > > Sun Microsystems, Inc. (NETBLK-SUN4)
> > >    2550 Garcia Avenue
> > >    Mountain View, CA 94043
> > >
> > >    Netname: SUN4
> > >    Netblock: 129.144.0.0 - 129.159.255.255
> > >
> > > Chris
> > >
> > > On Tue, 9 Jan 2001, Jim Macknik wrote:
> > >
> > > > This brings up a good point, as well. How will ARIN enforce its
> > policies?
> > > > There are large companies out there that have several Class B or Class
> A
> > > > ranges all to themselves that they "reserved" years ago. I doubt many
> of
> > > > these organizations could properly justify this space at this time.
> > > >
> > > > Will ARIN require them to justify their use and take away the extras,
> > > > requiring huge organizations or ISPs to completely re-allocate their
> > > > addressing? If they don't, how will they be able to justify revoking
> > > denying
> > > > space to others looking to increase their allocation?
> > > >
> > > > This isn't an easy one, but it certainly has to be addressed if ARIN
> is
> > > > concerned about political ramifications of a policy that will affect
> > > whether
> > > > businesses can even *do* business.
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Joe DeCosta [mailto:decosta at bayconnect.com]
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2001 4:00 PM
> > > > To: Clayton Lambert; 'Douglas Cohn'; vwp at arin.net
> > > > Subject: Re: ARIN Justified...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Well, what do you think that the best approach to this would be, I
> think
> > a
> > > > BIG part of the entire IP space problem is the HUGE market of ISP's
> like
> > > > earthlink, Genuity(aka BBN), and the free services that just give any
> > > schmoe
> > > > an IP address, I don't think that this is soemthing that  is viable,
> we
> > > even
> > > > to a small Extent use NAT/Name based Virtual Hosting for  some of the
> > > > domains runing on the secondary T1 in our office.  This all works
> fine,
> > > and
> > > > uses 1 ip for many things.  Perhaps this is a viable options, but i do
> > > think
> > > > that ARIN should enforce some sort of NAT with providers (aol,
> > earthlink,
> > > > freebie ISPs et al.) who allow just anybody to have an IP when its not
> > > > needed.  from an admin point of view this can be a bit hellish but
> well
> > > > worth the IP space that is being wasted on people that dont *NEED*
> > random
> > > > inbound traffic.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: "Clayton Lambert" <Clay at exodus.net>
> > > > To: "'Joe DeCosta'" <decosta at bayconnect.com>; "'Douglas Cohn'"
> > > > <Douglas.Cohn at Virtualscape.com>; <vwp at arin.net>
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2001 2:17 PM
> > > > Subject: RE: ARIN Justified...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > No argument at all on those points either Joe,
> > > > >
> > > > > In fact, it seems there is a lot of common ground on this topic,
> maybe
> > > we
> > > > > should try to identify the specific agreed-upon points and
> > > > disagreements...?
> > > > >
> > > > > It might be something to work from.
> > > > >
> > > > > -Clay
> > > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of Joe
> > > > > DeCosta
> > > > > Sent: Monday, January 08, 2001 6:44 PM
> > > > > To: Clayton Lambert; 'Douglas Cohn'; vwp at arin.net
> > > > > Subject: Re: ARIN Justified...
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > agreed, but with all of the home users, shouldn't some of the major
> > > ISP's
> > > > be
> > > > > considering NAT for DSL/ISDN and Dialup users? i mean, it's an idea,
> i
> > > > don't
> > > > > know how well it would be accepted, i also think that AOL should be
> > > forced
> > > > > to use NAT.........its rediclous to see how many IP blocks they own,
> > but
> > > > > dialup/isdn/dsl NAT i think could be a suggestion to ISP's no??
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > From: "Clayton Lambert" <Clay at exodus.net>
> > > > > To: "'Douglas Cohn'" <Douglas.Cohn at Virtualscape.com>; <vwp at arin.net>
> > > > > Sent: Monday, January 08, 2001 4:59 PM
> > > > > Subject: RE: ARIN Justified...
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > IPv6 is not the panacea you seem to think it is...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > With a mentality like that, we'd burn thru IPv6 in 10 years or
> > less...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -Clay
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of
> > > Douglas
> > > > > > Cohn
> > > > > > Sent: Friday, January 05, 2001 6:59 AM
> > > > > > To: vwp at arin.net
> > > > > > Subject: FW: ARIN Justified...
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I forwarded your email to the list for you
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > From: Allen Ahoffman [mailto:ahoffman at announce.com]
> > > > > > Sent: Friday, July 10, 2893 6:44 PM
> > > > > > To: Douglas Cohn
> > > > > > Subject: Re: ARIN Justified...
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > OK let me interject a question into this discussion:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Why are we requiring a /19 or in some cases /20 of space before
> > being
> > > > > > allowed to get our own allocation?
> > > > > > I realize management is an issue, but a $2500/year it encourages
> > small
> > > > > > users to build up to that point.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > We get users who don't want us to have iI space from other
> vendors,
> > so
> > > > > > we
> > > > > > get pressure for more iP usage and pressure for less.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > For example, in converting from one provider to another I have had
> > > > > > difficult time getting replacment iP space in less than 8 months
> > now,
> > > > > > but
> > > > > > was making efforts to not purchase the /19.  I thik we might bge
> by
> > > > > > without it but the minimum size creates pressure to fill IP(s).
> > > > > > I do agree that users seem to want IP(s) without reason, seems
> like
> > > IPV6
> > > > > > might look more appealing every day?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [Charset
> > > > > > iso-8859-1 unsupported,
> > > > > > filtering to ASCII...] > I must get my two cents in here as well.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I feel Clayton has the right track.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I manage IP allocation as well for dedicated and colocated
> > clients.
> > > > > > Our
> > > > > > > policy used to state each server was issued 16 IPs.  We
> provision
> > > with
> > > > > > 1
> > > > > > > IP only.  If a client asks for the rest I also require the need
> > for
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > IPs.
> > > > > > > Too often they want them for testing or only because they saw
> that
> > > > > > they
> > > > > > > get 16 IPs with a server.  They must supply the domain names and
> > > > > > reasons
> > > > > > > why they cannot use IPless hosting.  While I will not force
> IPless
> > > > > > > hosting on clients I push it and train it's use for free.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > We now state that you get a single IP with each dedicated server
> > and
> > > > > > > additional IPs are billed on a monthly basis.  This helps a lot
> to
> > > > > > > defray usage.  While it is a revenue stream that is not it's
> > purpose
> > > > > > > whatsoever.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > In Shared hosting though the issues are clearly Search engines
> and
> > > SSL
> > > > > > > as far as I know.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Most people understand why we watch our address space and
> > appreciate
> > > > > > it.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Douglas Cohn
> > > > > > > Manager NY Engineering
> > > > > > > Hostcentric, Inc.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of
> > > > > > Stephen
> > > > > > > Elliott
> > > > > > > Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 4:47 PM
> > > > > > > To: Clayton Lambert; Virtual IP List
> > > > > > > Subject: Re: ARIN Justified...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > :-)  The reason I mentioned Exodus is because we are a customer
> of
> > > > > > > Exodus, and in my opinion, the policy is too restrictive.  And
> the
> > > > > > > statement was directed at the fact that Exodus hosts many
> > companies
> > > > > > that
> > > > > > > are in the business of hosting websites, not Exodus as a
> company.
> > > As
> > > > > > I
> > > > > > > have stated in earlier postings, simply clamping down and
> > > restricting
> > > > > > > virtual web hosting is not the answer.  Any list of
> > justifications,
> > > no
> > > > > > > matter how much thought went into it, will not cover every
> > possible
> > > > > > > reason for needing the IP's.  Documentation is a great thing,
> just
> > > the
> > > > > > > fact that someone has to sit down and write out a list of
> machines
> > > > > > that
> > > > > > > need IP's will deter most people from requesting extra IP's.
> > > > > > > -Stephen
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Clayton Lambert wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Do you have ANY idea of what you are saying?  Sorry for
> > appearing
> > > > > > > brash,
> > > > > > > > but...I run the IP maintenance organization at Exodus, and I
> > would
> > > > > > > easily
> > > > > > > > stack our allocation policy up against anybody's.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > You have no idea what you are talking about in regard to
> larger
> > > > > > > companies.
> > > > > > > > Exodus consumes a very modest amount of address space given
> our
> > > size
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > presence on the Internet.  There are much smaller competitors
> of
> > > > > > ours
> > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > consume larger amounts of IP space.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Exodus is already pioneering the efficiency of use ideology
> that
> > I
> > > > > > > would
> > > > > > > > like to see ARIN adopt (a strong HTTP1.1 stance on ARIN's part
> > is
> > > a
> > > > > > > good
> > > > > > > > start).  We currently require extensive supporting
> documentation
> > > for
> > > > > > > IP
> > > > > > > > requests from all our Customers.  A Customer has to show a
> > > > > > documented
> > > > > > > need
> > > > > > > > for their usage request and we file all these requests and
> refer
> > > to
> > > > > > > past
> > > > > > > > requests and detail as additional requests for address space
> > > occur.
> > > > > > > This
> > > > > > > > method gives us a very clear and honest indication of IP
> address
> > > > > > usage
> > > > > > > > growth. This allows us to support our Customers' IP addressing
> > > needs
> > > > > > > in a
> > > > > > > > very accurate and efficient way.  The end result is less
> > > consumption
> > > > > > > of IPv4
> > > > > > > > space across the board.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Clayton Lambert
> > > > > > > > Exodus Communications
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > > From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf
> Of
> > > > > > > Stephen
> > > > > > > > Elliott
> > > > > > > > Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 12:20 PM
> > > > > > > > To: Virtual IP List
> > > > > > > > Subject: RE: ARIN Justified...
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >         The big guys that you refer to are generally not in
> the
> > > web
> > > > > > > hosting
> > > > > > > > business and therefore are outside of the scope of this
> > > > > > conversation.
> > > > > > > > The real concern is the big guys like Exodus and UUNet.  Since
> > > IPv6
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > not a viable option for general consumption yet, we need to
> > > > > > > concentrate
> > > > > > > > on conserving the existing IPv4 space.  As far as search
> engines
> > > go,
> > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > enough sites start using HTTP1.1 software virtual servers,
> they
> > > will
> > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > forced to upgrade their spiders to support it.  I would
> suggest
> > > that
> > > > > > > one
> > > > > > > > of the main issues at hand is billing.  Billing for web
> hosting
> > > > > > > > companies that is.  Most companies bundle bandwidth with their
> > > > > > hosting
> > > > > > > > packages, and current billing packages utilize destination IP
> > > > > > address
> > > > > > > > information to gather this information.  If there is not a way
> > to
> > > > > > get
> > > > > > > > this information without drastic changes to both billing
> > software
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > some cases hardware, there will be very strong opposition to
> any
> > > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > > in the way IP addresses are given out.
> > > > > > > > -Stephen
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > Stephen Elliott                 Harrison & Troxell
> > > > > > > > Systems & Networking Manager    2 Faneuil Hall Marketplace
> > > > > > > > Systems & Networking Group      Boston, Ma 02109
> > > > > > > > (617)227-0494 Phone             (617)720-3918 Fax
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > Stephen Elliott                 Harrison & Troxell
> > > > > > > Systems & Networking Manager    2 Faneuil Hall Marketplace
> > > > > > > Systems & Networking Group      Boston, Ma 02109
> > > > > > > (617)227-0494 Phone             (617)720-3918 Fax
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > **********************************************************************
> > >
> > > The information in this e-mail is confidential and is legally
> privileged.
> > > It is intended solely for the addressee.  If this email is not intended
> > for
> > > you, you cannot copy, distribute, or disclose the included information
> > > to any-one
> > >
> > > If you are not the intended recipient please delete the mail. Whilst
> > > all reasonable steps have been taken to ensure the accuracy and
> > > integrity of all data transmitted electronically, no liability is
> accepted
> > > if the data, for whatever reason, is corrupt or does not reach it's
> > > intended destination.
> > > All business is undertaken, subject to our standard trading conditions
> > > which are available on request.
> > >
> > > *******************************************************************
> >
> >
> > **********************************************************************
> >
> > The information in this e-mail is confidential and is legally privileged.
> > It is intended solely for the addressee.  If this email is not intended
> for
> > you, you cannot copy, distribute, or disclose the included information
> > to any-one
> >
> > If you are not the intended recipient please delete the mail. Whilst
> > all reasonable steps have been taken to ensure the accuracy and
> > integrity of all data transmitted electronically, no liability is accepted
> > if the data, for whatever reason, is corrupt or does not reach it's
> > intended destination.
> > All business is undertaken, subject to our standard trading conditions
> > which are available on request.
> >
> > *******************************************************************
> 
> 
> *******************************************************************
> The information in this e-mail is confidential and is legally privileged.
> It is intended solely for the addressee.  If this email is not intended for
> you, you cannot copy, distribute, or disclose the included information
> to any-one
> 
> If you are not the intended recipient please delete the mail. Whilst
> all reasonable steps have been taken to ensure the accuracy and
> integrity of all data transmitted electronically, no liability is accepted
> if the data, for whatever reason, is corrupt or does not reach it's
> intended destination.
> All business is undertaken, subject to our standard trading conditions
> which are available on request.
> 
> *******************************************************************
> 



From mharrigan at winfirst.com  Tue Jan 16 17:39:37 2001
From: mharrigan at winfirst.com (mharrigan at winfirst.com)
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 15:39:37 -0700
Subject: Idea
Message-ID: <26DF1A71B46FD411A55700508B6FD7F409B622@MTELBERT>


I guess i'm still missing the point. 
If the average ISP in question does not have the scruples
which you or I have, and they are not required to pay for v4
space today, then what possible reason would they have to 
switch to v6, which has a $5 price tag? IT's analagous to the
NIC situation, where netsol announced that .com/.net/.org would
be X dollars per reg, but not until said date. What did people
do? They went out and registered every possible domain they could.
The same concept will apply here, except that where people will be
driven is to submit ARIN regs for v4, and falsify their current
utilizations. All I can say is... bye bye Internet. So, my overall
point is that... I don't like paying taxes. The large majority of
the population of planet earth responds to positive
reinforcement, so a model that reflects it is what I think we ought
to be shooting for, and no, I haven't devised one....yet. :-)

Matt

Matthew G. Harrigan
Vice President, Internet Services
WinFirst
303-407-1661  
www.winfirst.com
 



-----Original Message-----
From: Jawaid.Bazyar at foreThought.net
[mailto:Jawaid.Bazyar at foreThought.net]
Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 9:54 AM
To: mharrigan at winfirst.com
Cc: stephen at hnt.com; vwp at arin.net
Subject: RE: Idea



The mere fact of charging more for it doesn't create it, but does create
pressures and incentives to solve the problem.

To wit, right now IPv6 is academic. If IPs cost $5/mo per, a lot more
people would be a lot more interested in IPv6.


On Thu, 4 Jan 2001 mharrigan at winfirst.com wrote:

> $.02 - 
> If there were a shortage of rice in China, I'm not sure
> that charging more for it would solve the fact that there
> isn't enough, regardless of what the RFC for rice is.
> 
> -Matt 
> 
> Matthew G. Harrigan
> Vice President, Internet Services
> WinFirst
> 303-407-1661  
> www.winfirst.com
  
--
 Jawaid Bazyar                 |   Affordable WWW & Internet Solutions
 foreThought.net               |   for Small Business
 jawaid.bazyar at foreThought.net |   910 16th Street, #1220  (303) 228-0070
 --The Future is Now!--        |   Denver, CO 80202        (303) 228-0077
fax
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/vwp/attachments/20010116/6c1c03fc/attachment.html>

From stephen at hnt.com  Wed Jan 17 06:26:56 2001
From: stephen at hnt.com (Stephen Elliott)
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 06:26:56 -0500
Subject: Idea
Message-ID: <89ae88f6.88f689ae@hnt.com>

I think you misread the message, IP's under IPv6 do not cost $5 apiece. 
 I was saying that if they did cost $5 each under IPv4 and cost nothing 
under IPv6, corporations would have a financial incentive to reduce the 
number of IPv4 IP's they use, and at the same time accelerate the switch 
to IPv6.
-Stephen

----- Original Message -----
From: mharrigan at winfirst.com
Date: Tuesday, January 16, 2001 5:39 pm
Subject: RE: Idea

> 
> I guess i'm still missing the point. 
> If the average ISP in question does not have the scruples
> which you or I have, and they are not required to pay for v4
> space today, then what possible reason would they have to 
> switch to v6, which has a $5 price tag? IT's analagous to the
> NIC situation, where netsol announced that .com/.net/.org would
> be X dollars per reg, but not until said date. What did people
> do? They went out and registered every possible domain they could.
> The same concept will apply here, except that where people will be
> driven is to submit ARIN regs for v4, and falsify their current
> utilizations. All I can say is... bye bye Internet. So, my overall
> point is that... I don't like paying taxes. The large majority of
> the population of planet earth responds to positive
> reinforcement, so a model that reflects it is what I think we ought
> to be shooting for, and no, I haven't devised one....yet. :-)
> 
> Matt
> 
> Matthew G. Harrigan
> Vice President, Internet Services
> WinFirst
> 303-407-1661  
> www.winfirst.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jawaid.Bazyar at foreThought.net
> [mailto:Jawaid.Bazyar at foreThought.net]
> Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 9:54 AM
> To: mharrigan at winfirst.com
> Cc: stephen at hnt.com; vwp at arin.net
> Subject: RE: Idea
> 
> 
> 
> The mere fact of charging more for it doesn't create it, but does 
> createpressures and incentives to solve the problem.
> 
> To wit, right now IPv6 is academic. If IPs cost $5/mo per, a lot more
> people would be a lot more interested in IPv6.
> 
> 
> On Thu, 4 Jan 2001 mharrigan at winfirst.com wrote:
> 
> > $.02 - 
> > If there were a shortage of rice in China, I'm not sure
> > that charging more for it would solve the fact that there
> > isn't enough, regardless of what the RFC for rice is.
> > 
> > -Matt 
> > 
> > Matthew G. Harrigan
> > Vice President, Internet Services
> > WinFirst
> > 303-407-1661  
> > www.winfirst.com
>  
> --
> Jawaid Bazyar                 |   Affordable WWW & Internet Solutions
> foreThought.net               |   for Small Business
> jawaid.bazyar at foreThought.net |   910 16th Street, #1220  (303) 
> 228-0070
> --The Future is Now!--        |   Denver, CO 80202        (303) 
> 228-0077
> fax
>