ARIN Justified..
Gilbert Martin @ Learning Solutions
Gilbert.Martin at za.didata.com
Wed Jan 10 14:01:22 EST 2001
I just want to know what form of privacy we are invading???
It cannot be company privacy because the company will be controlling that
privacy, or its ISP or whoever offers it its IP Addresses a 1940 VMS
Mainframe for all I care, What I am saying is that referential Data is safe
in any Internal Network, Any Network is safe it is the ninny network
"Techies" that disrupt company privacy and those going beyond the bounds of
exploration, ARIN should not be concerned with privacy that Devlopers of
OS's can solve you are seemingly sitting with a situation where you're
business in its entirety will be dissapearing within 10 years because people
will develop a newer way and faster to solve this number shortage?
It was just a suggestion and a good one nevertheless, maybe people should
stop looking beyond the point of privacy and start acting decently to save
the rest of us all a lot of trouble!
-----Original Message-----
From: Clayton Lambert [mailto:Clay at exodus.net]
Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2001 8:56 PM
To: 'Gilbert Martin @ Learning Solutions'; 'Joe DeCosta'
Cc: 'Chris Miller'; 'Jim Macknik'; vwp at arin.net
Subject: RE: ARIN Justified..
I don't think an "Identity Number 'Social Security Number'" is a good
idea...The threat to privacy is MUCH GREATER that the threat of illegal use
(and the commensurate desire to chase down the 'criminal'.
-Clay
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of Gilbert
Martin @ Learning Solutions
Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2001 5:15 AM
To: 'Joe DeCosta'
Cc: 'Chris Miller'; 'Jim Macknik'; 'vwp at arin.net'
Subject: RE: ARIN Justified..
What I am saying is the fact that every person with a machine should have
his own number like an Identity Number "Social Security Number" this will
also allow all ISPs, search engines, web hosters and so forth to locate
illegal activity and malicious attacks Give me a few hours and I will send
you a diagrma to explain in alittle more detail what I am saying here...
-----Original Message-----
From: Gilbert Martin @ Learning Solutions
Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2001 3:08 PM
To: 'Joe DeCosta'; Gilbert Martin @ Learning Solutions
Cc: 'Chris Miller'; Jim Macknik; vwp at arin.net
Subject: RE: ARIN Justified..
Yes, simply because of the fact that there will be x amount of addresses
given to machines and y amount available for huge web space useres, and even
inside of a corporate network secretaries do use the Internet address space
more, tentavively as soon as they discover Internet explorer they go
ballistic!!!
-----Original Message-----
From: Joe DeCosta [mailto:decosta at bayconnect.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2001 9:41 AM
To: Gilbert Martin @ Learning Solutions
Cc: 'Chris Miller'; Jim Macknik; vwp at arin.net
Subject: Re: ARIN Justified..
Could you clairfy why computers on INTERNAL networks would need a fully
routeable STATIC ip address? I don't see why a private computer inside a
corporate network at some secrataries desk needs a fully routeable
static ip. etc etc...
"Gilbert Martin @ Learning Solutions" wrote:
>
> Exactly what I said yesterday, wouldn't it be more simple for people not
> accessing external networks via the INternet to rather be given a static
> address and then if the need arises let them also be able to request a
newer
> address, the end result will be that only those using ISP's will be using
up
> address space?
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chris Miller [mailto:ctodd at netgate.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2001 3:09 AM
> To: Jim Macknik
> Cc: vwp at arin.net
> Subject: RE: ARIN Justified..
>
> Sun Microsystems (and others companies I'm sure) has many addresses that
> never see the internet, they use most of these strictly for their internal
> networks. Surely they could use reserved addresses for many of these
> purposes.....
>
> Sun Microsystems, Inc. (NETBLK-SUN4)
> 2550 Garcia Avenue
> Mountain View, CA 94043
>
> Netname: SUN4
> Netblock: 129.144.0.0 - 129.159.255.255
>
> Chris
>
> On Tue, 9 Jan 2001, Jim Macknik wrote:
>
> > 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
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
> **********************************************************************
>
> The information in this e-mail is confidential and is legally privileged.
> It is intended solely for the addressee. If this email is not intended
for
> you, you cannot copy, distribute, or disclose the included information
> to any-one
>
> If you are not the intended recipient please delete the mail. Whilst
> all reasonable steps have been taken to ensure the accuracy and
> integrity of all data transmitted electronically, no liability is accepted
> if the data, for whatever reason, is corrupt or does not reach it's
> intended destination.
> All business is undertaken, subject to our standard trading conditions
> which are available on request.
>
> *******************************************************************
**********************************************************************
The information in this e-mail is confidential and is legally privileged.
It is intended solely for the addressee. If this email is not intended for
you, you cannot copy, distribute, or disclose the included information
to any-one
If you are not the intended recipient please delete the mail. Whilst
all reasonable steps have been taken to ensure the accuracy and
integrity of all data transmitted electronically, no liability is accepted
if the data, for whatever reason, is corrupt or does not reach it's
intended destination.
All business is undertaken, subject to our standard trading conditions
which are available on request.
*******************************************************************
More information about the Vwp
mailing list