ARIN Justified..

Clayton Lambert Clay at
Thu Jan 11 18:07:54 EST 2001

Comments inline :-)

-----Original Message-----
From: Charles Scott [mailto:cscott at]
Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2001 1:30 PM
Subject: RE: ARIN Justified..

On Thu, 11 Jan 2001, Clayton Lambert wrote:

>   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.
> ++  Agreed, on the policy and bizz model stuff...But, if a company tracks
> anything via the IP address and that method of tracking isn't limited due
> something protocol specific, the justification isn't there.  Again, vendor
> specific limitations should NOT be considered a technical justification.

  The example I was referring to was bandwidth limitation (as opposed to
tracking). As far as I can tell, there's no good technical way to limit
bandwidth to a particular virtual server other than providing it with a
separate IP address.

++ I would have to research this to see if there are specific limitations.
As I haven't studied it, I would be reaching if I tried to make policy
decisions on it.

So, considering that deciding to sell use of virtual
servers based on bandwidth available to each is a policy/business model
decision, would you consider that not to be justification even though
there's no good technical solution for doing this with name based hosting.
I'm sure there are other similar cases as well.

++ Again, without researching this... I will look into it though, as if it
is not a protocol limitation then I think there would be some method for
hostheader tracking.

In other words, how does
one decide which business policy/model decisions are adequate
justification for ip based hosting?

++ I think a part of the goal is to shift the current attitude that "IP's
are easy and readily available so lets do it that way" to a more
conservative attitude.  This could foster a new concept: Conservation

  A peripheral concern of this is with regards to downstream IP requests.
I just wonder how much hassle ARIN is willing to deal with when more and
more downstream requests for address space are rejected and require appeal
to ARIN.

++ ARIN has the opportunity to set precedence with the Maintainer discretion
concept.  The Maintainer should be required to ensure all the documentation
is in order so that ARIN doesn't have to do much more than make a ruling or
uphold a Maintainer ruling.

If the policy implies, or stipulates, that business policy/model
is not justification, then I suspect those appeals will in fact
increase significantly. I also think it would be unfortunate if the policy
for justification resulted in a narrowing of what types and styles of
services can be offered.

++  It would encourage developers to expand the available services...not
limit them.
Look at the types of services that are available now, that weren't around a
year or two ago...Look at the level and complexity of loadbalancing that is
available now that wasn't just a little while back.  The security
requirements that are commonplace nowadays are there because of malicious
hackers, not policy...Policy can foster growth and can direct (if done
properly and with the proper goals) current vendors and users to expand
their capabilities.


More information about the Vwp mailing list