ARIN Justified...
Justin W. Newton
justin at gid.net
Tue Jan 9 20:22:08 EST 2001
How does one tell, in advance to connection, which users need a
"real" IP address, and which users need NAT? At the bare minimum NAT
breaks P2P networks, which, in case you hadn't noticed, are becoming
more popular. I will point out that large dial ISP's do already use
DHCP, so a user only has an IP assigned for the period of time that
the user is logged on.
At 3:00 PM -0800 1/9/01, Joe DeCosta wrote:
>Well, what do you think that the best approach to this would be, I think a
>BIG part of the entire IP space problem is the HUGE market of ISP's like
>earthlink, Genuity(aka BBN), and the free services that just give any schmoe
>an IP address, I don't think that this is soemthing that is viable, we even
>to a small Extent use NAT/Name based Virtual Hosting for some of the
>domains runing on the secondary T1 in our office. This all works fine, and
>uses 1 ip for many things. Perhaps this is a viable options, but i do think
>that ARIN should enforce some sort of NAT with providers (aol, earthlink,
>freebie ISPs et al.) who allow just anybody to have an IP when its not
>needed. from an admin point of view this can be a bit hellish but well
>worth the IP space that is being wasted on people that dont *NEED* random
>inbound traffic.
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Clayton Lambert" <Clay at exodus.net>
>To: "'Joe DeCosta'" <decosta at bayconnect.com>; "'Douglas Cohn'"
><Douglas.Cohn at Virtualscape.com>; <vwp at arin.net>
>Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2001 2:17 PM
>Subject: RE: ARIN Justified...
>
>
>> 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
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
--
Justin W. Newton
Senior Director, Networking and Telecommunications
NetZero, Inc.
More information about the Vwp
mailing list