ARIN Justified...

Leo Gilbert lgilbert at
Thu Jan 4 16:20:15 EST 2001

Excite and Infoseek I believe are ip based spiders

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

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

Yahoo, Lycos, GO, ...

-----Original Message-----
From: Jeffrey L Price [mailto:jeff at]
Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 12:43 PM
To: Scott Rogers; 'Bill Cartwright'
Cc: Adam Douglass; vwp at <mailto:vwp at> 
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

----- Original Message ----- 
From: Scott  <mailto:SRogers at> Rogers 
To: 'Bill  <mailto:bill at> Cartwright' ; Scott Rogers
<mailto:SRogers at>  
Cc: Adam  <mailto:ADouglass at> Douglass ; 'vwp at'
<mailto:'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
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
Bill Cartwright
----- Original Message ----- 

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

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

I have been trying to push customers to use "Name Based" virtual
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
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 <mailto:SRogers at> >
+1-410-558-2750   (Fax:
Network/Systems/Security Engineer -- SkyNetWEB, Ltd.  An Affinity
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 <mailto:Jawaid.Bazyar at>

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

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

----- Original Message -----
From: < Jawaid.Bazyar at
<mailto:Jawaid.Bazyar at> >
To: "Joe DeCosta" < decosta at
<mailto:decosta at> >
Cc: "Clayton Lambert" < Clay at <mailto:Clay at> >;
"'Alec H. Peterson'"
< ahp at <mailto:ahp at> >; < vwp at
<mailto: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
> if you're going to disassociate the pricing from the costs necessary
> administer ARIN, instead of raising the price to discourage waste, you
> should let people buy and sell blocks on an open market. Free markets
> 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
> system the best approach is to tell people to stop provisioning web
> 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
> > encourage them to use as few IP's as possible.  It would seem to be
> > effective.  Just my thoughts.
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Clayton Lambert" < Clay at <mailto:Clay at> >
> > To: "'Alec H. Peterson'" < ahp at
<mailto:ahp at> >; < vwp at <mailto: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
> > > clarity.  Service providing should be the catch word instead of
> > web-hosting.
> > >
> > > There should be clear reference to technical exceptions to the
> > (this
> > > should NOT be in the form of specific exceptions, as technical
> > > exception to the policy can easily step beyond the ability of a
> > > hence the reason for maintainer discretion), only technical
> > > should be allowed (as opposed to policy exceptions). The entity
> > the
> > > overall netblock should have discretion for determining the
> > > the policy and should maintain the documentation for the
> > 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>
[mailto:owner-vwp at]On Behalf Of Alec
> > > Peterson
> > > Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 12:54 PM
> > > To: vwp at <mailto:vwp at> 
> > > Subject: Been quiet in here...
> > >
> > >
> > > Are there any more thoughts on what we should do with the
> > virtual
> > > hosting policy?
> > >
> > > Alec
> > >
> > > --
> > > Alec H. Peterson - ahp at <mailto: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 <mailto:jawaid.bazyar at>
|   910 16th Street, #1220  (303) 228-0070
>  --The Future is Now!--        |   Denver, CO 80202        (303)

More information about the Vwp mailing list