cscott at gaslightmedia.com
Wed Jan 10 21:47:15 EST 2001
So you're saying that nobody is going to be asked to change existing
operations from IP to name based hosting in order to justify additional
address space? If you agree, then what about hosting that's in progress
but not yet deployed. Continuing from there, how much time should be
permitted for a company to move to a model that's compatible with name
based hosting, a couple months, a couple years? One thing is for sure,
changing the way you do business isn't easy and it takes time. Clearly
that should be justification for some period of time and clearly the
current momentum of a business model needs to be a component of
Also, policy and business model must have some bearing on justification
because it is one's policies and models that makes a business successful.
If in order to impliment a competative business model there is a need for
IP based hosting (such as bandwidth profiling) then isn't that as valid as
something like technical justification for giving dial-up/DSL/cable
customers globally routable addresses space. I personally think that
forcing a business to change their model in order to obtain future
allocations is perhaps more intrusive than forcing the holder of a largely
unused allocation to renumber to free up space, and perhaps may be as
likely to trigger legal challenges.
I just can't see these as separate issues, since both the reclamation of
unused address space and reasonable efficiency in consumption relate
directly to minimizing future impact of a limited resource. Targeting one
without targeting the other is clearly not a balanced and reasonable
On Wed, 10 Jan 2001, Clayton Lambert wrote:
> requiring past allocations to adhere to a new policy is not what was
> discussed. Recovering vast amounts of previously allocated (and UNUSED) IP
> address space is an entirely DIFFERENT subject.
> I would not suggest applying new policies to existing USAGE. Remember,
> recovering unused IP space from /8s that are floating around out there is
> not the same as establishing a clearly defined, efficiency focused IP
> address usage policy that allows for exceptions but does require technical
> reasons (in the form of documentation) for not adhering to that policy. It
> should be clear in stating that policy and business model are NOT
> justification (as they are not technical reasons). On the same line, I
> think a technical justification exceptions should be protocol-based, not
> vendor based.
> On Wed, 10 Jan 2001 bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
> > "grandfathered" delegations have been done so for a reason.
> > changing the rules after the fact and forcing renumbering
> > will bring legal challanges.
> This is a good point, but the same can be said of existing allocations
> when trying to justify additional address space. In otherwords, if a
> hosting service has currently deployed IP based hosting, which was
> necessary/reasonable/acceptable in the past, it would seem to be unfair to
> refuse additional address space until those conform to a new policy
> (which may require significant time and expense).
> Chuck Scott
> Gaslight Media
More information about the Vwp