ARIN Justified...

Jeffrey L Price jeff at
Thu Jan 4 12:43:00 EST 2001

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.

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Scott Rogers 
  To: 'Bill Cartwright' ; Scott Rogers 
  Cc: Adam Douglass ; 'vwp at' 
  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.
  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]
    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' 
      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.

      * 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>   +1-410-558-2750   (Fax:
      Network/Systems/Security Engineer -- SkyNetWEB, Ltd.  An Affinity Company
      3500 Boston St. #231  --  Baltimore, Maryland 21224

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

      nesday, January 03, 2001 6:26 PM
      To: Jawaid.Bazyar at
      Cc: Clayton Lambert; 'Alec H. Peterson'; vwp at
      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>
      To: "Joe DeCosta" <decosta at>
      Cc: "Clayton Lambert" <Clay at>; "'Alec H. Peterson'"
      <ahp at>; <vwp at>
      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
      > > have to justify the usage of their netblock, why not just up the costs
      > > 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>
      > > To: "'Alec H. Peterson'" <ahp at>; <vwp at>
      > > 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
      > > > exception to the policy can easily step beyond the ability of a
      > > > hence the reason for maintainer discretion), only technical exceptions
      > > > should be allowed (as opposed to policy exceptions). The entity
      > > the
      > > > overall netblock should have discretion for determining the exceptions
      > > > the policy and should maintain the documentation for the exception,
      > > 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 [mailto:owner-vwp at]On Behalf Of Alec
      > > > Peterson
      > > > Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 12:54 PM
      > > > To: vwp at
      > > > 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
      > > > Staff Scientist
      > > > CenterGate Research Group -
      > > > "Technology so advanced, even _we_ don't understand it!"
      > > >
      > > >
      > >
      > >
      > --
      >  Jawaid Bazyar                 |   Affordable WWW & Internet Solutions
      >               |   for Small Business
      >  jawaid.bazyar at |   910 16th Street, #1220  (303) 228-0070
      >  --The Future is Now!--        |   Denver, CO 80202        (303) 228-0077
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the Vwp mailing list