ARIN Justified...

[Clayton Lambert]

This is exactly the way that it is now.  Exodus goes to great lengths to
document and justify the IP address allocations that we consume.  It is an
EXTREMELY unbalanced environment to compete in, when others in our industry
have been assigned MULITPLE /8s and /16s in the past...enough such that
almost any amount of IP space can be assigned to their Customers (the same
ones we compete for)...Yet we adhere to strict standards in order to
continue our ability to supply our Customers with IP space.

Interesting angle.  Infact, it makes a strong argument for IP policy
controls that do indeed require justification and supporting documentation.

-Clay

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of Jim
Macknik
Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2001 5:06 AM
To: 'Joe DeCosta'; vwp at arin.net
Subject: RE: ARIN Justified...


I agree with the essence of what you're saying here. I just wanted to throw
the comments out there, because until now I have not seen any explicit
notice from ARIN stating that those organizations that currently have /8s
and /16s allocated to them will have to justify their use or they will be
revoked. I think this will be important in getting buy-in from the general
population that will be looking to get IPs. ARIN may be looking at nasty
political or legal ramifications if they don't. If there is any sense of
favoritism to companies like SUN (mentioned earlier as having a gastly
number of IPs) or Microsoft, IBM, or Apple for that matter, then other,
newer companies will call foul. They will argue that they are unable to
compete, because they cannot provide their customers with what they
need/want. And in many ways, they will be right.

Is there anything in the new RFC that states that current owners of large
blocks will have to justify their use?

=- Jim Macknik -=

-----Original Message-----
From: Joe DeCosta [mailto:decosta at bayconnect.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2001 6:18 PM
To: Jim Macknik; vwp at arin.net
Subject: Re: ARIN Justified...


ARIN can enforce any policy it wants, remember, they CONTROL the IP traffic
of all of north america etc.  and who gets them, if they make an
administrative decision, it is most likely going to be in the best intrest
of the internet in general.  I doubt that GE needs an entire Class A subnet
etc etc. There are too many IP's issued in such a lax fashion.  Whereas we
are constantly being hounded by our Uplink to justify our small /24 because
they can't get IP's from ARIN hardly at all anymore.  It's not a matter will
arin require them to do it, its will the big TCP/IP stack carriers start
producing IPv6 compatible transport software.. In which case, it alleviates
the problem for now.  An ISP can assign real fully routeable IP's to
customers, but not the average end user who is doing simple web browsing and
e-mail and instant messaging etc.  It's not restricting whether or not a
business can do business, it is restricting how the IP's are controlled, one
day, there is going to come a time where there will be no IP's left at all,
because microsoft has their fingers in their tookuses (as does apple), in
creating a stable IPv6 compatible TCP/IP stack, etc... We're kind running
around in a paradox here....
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Macknik" <jmacknik at inflow.com>
To: <vwp at arin.net>
Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2001 3:35 PM
Subject: RE: ARIN Justified...


> This brings up a good point, as well. How will ARIN enforce its policies?
> There are large companies out there that have several Class B or Class A
> ranges all to themselves that they "reserved" years ago. I doubt many of
> these organizations could properly justify this space at this time.
>
> Will ARIN require them to justify their use and take away the extras,
> requiring huge organizations or ISPs to completely re-allocate their
> addressing? If they don't, how will they be able to justify revoking
denying
> space to others looking to increase their allocation?
>
> This isn't an easy one, but it certainly has to be addressed if ARIN is
> concerned about political ramifications of a policy that will affect
whether
> businesses can even *do* business.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joe DeCosta [mailto:decosta at bayconnect.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2001 4:00 PM
> To: Clayton Lambert; 'Douglas Cohn'; vwp at arin.net
> Subject: Re: ARIN Justified...
>
>
> 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
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>