stephen at hnt.com
Thu Jan 11 13:47:16 EST 2001
I fully agree with Clayton, past allocations are not the true focus of
this group. Sure, we could solve all of our problems by going back to
some of the Universities and corporations with /8s, but that will not
fix the problem forever, and it will cause quite a few headaches for a
lot of people in the short term. What we need is a policy on name based
hosting that makes sense and takes into account the reality of today's
Internet. We all have to face the reality that IPv4 is not going to be
around forever and we all have to live with the limitations that it
places on everyone until it is eventuall replaced. I believe that
whatever we come up with should be phased in SLOWLY so that projects
that companies are already working on are not affected, and future
projects can be planned with the limitations in place. It is also going
to take education for a lot of people, everyone from the search engine
companies to the webhosting companies.
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.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of Charles
> Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2001 11:48 AM
> To: bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com
> Cc: Gilbert Martin @ Learning Solutions; 'Joe DeCosta'; 'Chris Miller';
> 'Jim Macknik'; 'vwp at arin.net'
> Subject: Re: ARIN Justified..
> 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).
> Still, I belive that everyone has an interest in extending the life of
> IPv4 address space, particularly in many cases companies with historic
> large allocations, and should therefore be compliant with efforts to
> reclaim any large unused address space. But the question of what is more
> reasonable, to reclaim "unused" address space or force improved efficency
> of address space currently providing valuable service, seems to be a
> Chuck Scott
> Gaslight Media
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
More information about the Vwp