ARIN Justified...

[Simon]

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?
>>
>> --
>