IP-Hosting Policy Specifics

[steve]

geezz.. I don't condone this at all.. the *very reason* for a cert is to
identify the site. Let's please stay with rationality and assume NT SSL
requires an IP per host name.  :))

Steve Conzett
host-all.com

----- Original Message -----
From: "Susan Zeigler" <susan at arcana.manske.net>
To: <vwp at arin.net>
Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2001 4:32 PM
Subject: Re: IP-Hosting Policy Specifics


> The post I sent earlier today didn't seem to go through so I'm posting it
again,
> apologies if anyone receives this twice:
>
> Several months ago, I wrote and FAQ and posted information regarding SSL
and
> host-header based hosting. Following is an exerpt from that:
>
> In order for a certificate to work on more than one site, 2 of three
> things need to be different: domain, port, or IP.
>
> If you are maintaining multiple web sites on one certificate, it can
> easily be done using only one IP. There must always be one IP per
> certificate, however, so if you are running multiple certificates on the
> same server you will need more than one IP assigned to that server--one
> for each certificate.
>
> The certificate should be registered with a designated host-name under
> your primary domain. (example: secure.webhostersmaindomain.com)
> This will point to the root site of your server if you are running IIS 4
> or anywhere on IIS 5 and other web hosting applications.
>
> This is the directory you will set up SSL for and where all of the
> actual home directories of the sites that will be accessed via SSL. You
> then set up the virtual site and any time you want to access via SSL
> site, you set up a redirect to the the URL
> <secure.webhostersmaindomain.com/mydirectory> where
> <mydirectory> is the name of the home directory. In addition, creating
> the sites as an application under that root site can help to easily
> designate them.
>
> The only exposure this scheme has is with identity. If someone would
> click on the lock, it will list the secure.webhostersmaindomain.com as
> the owner, however this issue is the same for anyone who is running
> multiple sites off the same certificate, so it doesn't come into play
> with regards to the IP scheme. The only way to combat this argument is
> to then have multiple certificates, with each individual client owning
> their own. This is costly, however, so many web hosting companies don't
> do this.
>
> The web-hosting clients that I have don't get any complaints with this
> method. In fact, their clients love it because they don't have to buy
> their own certificate.
>
>
>
>
> Alberto Mujica wrote:
> >
> > Since technical reasons can be pretty specific I agree with the fact
that
> > there should be a list of technical reasons to justify IP address
> > allocations and an escalation procedure to suggest new ones.
> >
> > My main concern, would providing SSL to our customers be a sufficient
> > technical justification?
> > In theory, SSL can be provided with host names, but Windows 2000 and NT
for
> > example allow binding of a certificate to only one IP Address.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Alberto Mujica
> > Database Administrator
> > MCDBA, MCSE, MCP+I, A+
> > albertm at innerhost.com
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Jim Macknik [mailto:jmacknik at inflow.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2001 8:11 AM
> > To: 'vwp at arin.net'
> > Subject: IP-Hosting Policy Specifics
> >
> > I really think we need ARIN to really lay down what "technical
> > justifications" there are for requesting IP space for IP-based hosting.
This
> > request has appeared many times on this discussion list, but the only
answer
> > I have seen to date indicates that ARIN requires "technical
justification;"
> > this is a little too vague for businesses that depend on IP space, and
the
> > customers which they support.
> >
> > Is there a definitive list of justifiable reasoning behind IP-based
hosting.
> > If there is not, then there is no way that anyone offering any IP space
to
> > their customers could be sure they are requesting the right information
from
> > their customers. This could conceivably cause them to lose their ability
to
> > do business if ARIN indicates they don't believe that organization is
> > providing proper justification.
> >
> > Is there any way we can come up with a list of justifiable reasons to
use
> > IP-based hosting? If so, can we then also come up with an escalation
> > procedure for requesting additions to the list as technology and
standard
> > practices change? If we had these in place, then companies offering ISP
> > services could follow, to the letter, exactly what ARIN needs for them
to be
> > compliant. They would also have an opportunity to argue a case for
alternate
> > technical reasons for IP space.
> >
> > -= Mack =-
> >
> > James M. Macknik
> > Manager, Systems Engineering
> > 2401 15th St. Suite 200
> > Denver, CO  80202
> > 303/824.2506 (Office)
> > 720/840.5329 (Mobile)
> > jmacknik at inflow.com
>
> --
>
> --
> -Susan
> --
> Susan Zeigler            |      Technical Services
> szeigler at spindustry.com  |      Spindustry Systems
> 515.225.0920             |