ARIN Justified...
David Whipple
dwhipple at microsoft.com
Tue Jan 9 20:40:58 EST 2001
Well, I don't really want to start a religious war, but NAT does break the
end to end model of IP. Don't get me wrong, NAT is great technology, I use
it at home to do my LAN, but I can't do things like IPsec at home because of
it. So we should be very careful to adequate things that break the
recommended IAB(IETF) architecture criteria.
Thanks.
David Whipple.
-----Original Message-----
From: Joe DeCosta [mailto:decosta at bayconnect.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2001 8:30 PM
To: Clayton Lambert; 'Douglas Cohn'; vwp at arin.net; Justin W. Newton
Subject: Re: ARIN Justified...
Well, they get a NAT address by defualt, and if they complain that they need
a real one, a real one is assigned. but who is going to run a server of
anykind of 56k analog dialup?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Justin W. Newton" <justin at gid.net>
To: "Joe DeCosta" <decosta at bayconnect.com>; "Clayton Lambert"
<Clay at exodus.net>; "'Douglas Cohn'" <Douglas.Cohn at Virtualscape.com>;
<vwp at arin.net>
Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2001 5:22 PM
Subject: Re: ARIN Justified...
> 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