ARIN Justified...

[Simon]

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?
>>>
>>> --
>>
>
>
>