ARIN Justified...
Clayton Lambert
Clay at exodus.net
Tue Jan 9 21:34:46 EST 2001
Good points, all...well, most.
As far as justifying IP usage, which is what this discussion is about (it
isn't about pitting ISPs against webhosters), a standard description of
"efficient use of space" is ONE IP per physical device. That means that if
a Customer of yours has 100 devices that JUSTIFY public IP address space,
they get a /25 or a /24 (pending their growth projection). But if you have
FOUR servers running a thousand websites, you would need to explain why you
need that /22 for FOUR physical devices.
If you have a valid TECHNICAL reason for utilizing more than one IP per
physical device then fine, you get the IP space...If you DON'T have a
technically valid justification for putting 1024 IP addresses on FOUR
servers, then you won't get them.
This makes sense to me. It seems simple actually...Nobody should be trying
to figure out how to conserve IP space in this forum. This forum is for
developing and discussing an effective IP allocation policy. One that will
be enforceable and that will allow maintainers to support ARIN in the goal
of providing IP addresses to the public, in a manner that is effective and
fair to all parties.
Clayton Lambert
Compliance Services Director,
Exodus Communications
-----Original Message-----
From: Chris Hershey [mailto:hershey at easystreet.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2001 6:12 PM
To: 'Joe DeCosta'; Clayton Lambert; 'Douglas Cohn'; vwp at arin.net; Justin
W. Newton
Subject: RE: ARIN Justified...
Look, I don't mean any disrespect, and I'm sure I've got a whole let less
technical experience than most of the people on this list, probably
including yourself, but have you ever worked at an ISP before? And have you
ever dealt with either the engineering of dial-up or DSL networks, or the
support of dial-up or DSL customers?
Because, from the point of view of somebody that deals with that sort of
thing every day, the notion of giving customers a NAT address and waiting
until they complain to give them a routable one, I have to tell you, is
something the other side of rediculous. From either an engineering, or a
support point of view alone, let alone the combined effects of both sides of
the equation it would be essentially an impossible proposition.
Also, the issue of NAT not working can have very little to do with whether
or not a server is running over the connection. But, even with that, yes,
there are a great many dial-up users who do run servers of various kinds,
and they do it over connections ranging from 28.8 (or slower) to high speed
DSL or cable connections. There are a great many enthusiasts out there who
just play with things and setup their own mail servers, or set up ftp
servers just so they can trade files with their friends.
And, doing anything just for dial-up users doesn't really make sense,
because all of the growth is in broadband. So the only solutions that would
have any impact, would have to encompass broadband services. And then
you're dealing with an even more sophisticated consumer, many of whom run
servers of any and all kinds you can imagine. Whether it be ftp, http, any
number of game servers, messaging, e-mail, and whatever else they can get
thier hands on.
Heck, even without servers there are an uncountable number of applications
and services that would be absolutely unusable in a NAT environment. At a
minimum very special configuration (over the head of most users) is required
in some applications as basic as ICQ. Not to mention the more sophisticated
applications such as VPN solutions and allowances that must be made for
persons gaining access to their company networks through firewalls based on
their static routable IP address.
The negative publicity alone for any ISP trying to implement such a plan
would drive away existing an potential customers, and ultimately force them
out of business. I'd be willing to bet you could lose as much as half your
client base within 30 to 60 days. You can't even predict all the
applications you might break trying to do such a thing. And there's no way
you could staff enough people to handle the support burdon.
I wholly encourage the use of NAT wherever possible. But possible almost
always means in highly controlled environments such as corporate LANs. It
is not nearly an appropriate solution for general access networks.
The ultimate issue I'd like to see dealt with in all this, is there seem to
be a whole of people commenting within this policy discussion, who really
don't understand how the policy will affect the ISPs that are the gateway to
the Internet. I don't know what the solution is, but it might help if
peoples signatures included a title or position, or some other description
of what their background is. I think that all comments are welcome, but the
people making the decisions need to understand how informed (or
ill-informed) those comments are.
I for one, am a junior system administrator and primary hostmaster for
EasyStreet Online Services, Inc. (www.easystreet.com).
--
-Chris Hershey
hershey at easystreet.com
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of Joe
> DeCosta
> Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2001 5:30 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