ARIN Justified...

[Clayton Lambert]

No argument at all on those points either Joe,

In fact, it seems there is a lot of common ground on this topic, maybe we
should try to identify the specific agreed-upon points and disagreements...?

It might be something to work from.

-Clay

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of Joe
DeCosta
Sent: Monday, January 08, 2001 6:44 PM
To: Clayton Lambert; 'Douglas Cohn'; vwp at arin.net
Subject: Re: ARIN Justified...


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
> >
>
>