ARIN Justified...
Clayton Lambert
Clay at exodus.net
Tue Jan 9 21:18:56 EST 2001
There are multiple solutions to the multitude of situations...NAT isn't for
everybody...DHCP isn't for everybody...RFC-1918 IP's aren't for
everybody...nailed up public IP's are for everybody either!
It boils down to the fact that the maintainer needs to have the jurisdiction
to review the IP allocation/assignment request and determine the need. ARIN
should own the escalation from there and the documentation requirement
should be enforced at the maintainer level, i.e.; an escalation should never
make it to ARIN without having first been documented and addressed at the
maintainer level... this should limit the amount of escalations to ARIN.
Additionally, the maintainer should handle the escalation to ARIN, NOT the
Customer requesting the escalation. This would ensure a smaller amount of
people are funneling the process to ARIN...This should keep them from
getting overloaded. Obviously, if a Customer feels they are getting the
run-around from the maintainer, they should contact ARIN.
-Clay
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of David
Whipple
Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2001 5:41 PM
To: 'Joe DeCosta'; Clayton Lambert; 'Douglas Cohn'; vwp at arin.net; Justin
W. Newton
Subject: RE: ARIN Justified...
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