ARIN Justified...

[Susan Zeigler]

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