Comments on Name Based Virtualk Hosting Policy Recommendation

Hyunseog Ryu HRyu at
Wed May 9 13:12:23 EDT 2001

I think the problem is how we can address the difference of viewpoint and
time when it applied.
Yes, this proposal is recommendation.
But from Policy, ISP should - "will"  supply technical justification to
ARIN for additional IP request.
What if there is the difference of viewpoint between ISP and ARIN?
ISP already assigned IP address to customer, and have to deal with ARIN for
additial IP address.
That means if there is some difference of viewpoint, they might be the
issue with additional IP address issuing size.
Is there any apeal procedure for this?
Or ISP just give up to convince ARIN IP request reviewer, and follow
his/her viewpoint because of length arguement with ARIN.
>From ISP standpoint, ISP need to think about this, and it might cause
aggresive attitude, which Mike did experience.

If this is real recommendation, there has to be some word, which ARIN
guarantees that there will be no prejudice for IP-based hosting.
ARIN should allow IP-based hosting and name-based hosting IP justfication
equally for ISP without any difference for IP justification result.
And then ISP volunteers to submit technical document to encourage
named-based hosting with several solutions.
According to ARIN's proposal, it gives some nuance that IP-based hosting
justification will make hard for ISP to justify their future allocations.
If that's ARIN's intention, I won't call it as recommendation.

At least, ARIN could leave the judgement to ISP, and should guarantee that
ARIN will not make unequal judgement for IP-base hosting.
At least, give one year's practice time to ISPs, and ask ISP to submit  the
their own proposal to ARIN based on their own practice.
And then propose final proposal to Internet community based on each ISP's
common practice result.
Yes, it will take one or two year to enforce name-based hosting to ISP by
But I think that's fair for ISPs and hosting providers.
At least, they will have some time to practice their own policy, and can
change their provisioning system.
Then they will join to name-based hosting movement to save IP addresses for
their business.


Hyunseog Ryu / CCDA, MCSE
Network Engineer/Applications Engineering
Norlight Telecommunications, Inc.
The Guardians of Data
275 North Corporate Drive
Brookfield, WI 53045-5818
Tel. +1.262.792.7965
Fax. +1.262.792.7733

                    sigma at                                                                          
                    m                    To:     salim at (A. M. Salim)                          
                    Sent by:             cc:     vwp at, (bcc: Hyunseog Ryu/Brookfield/Norlight)     
                    owner-vwp at ari        Fax to:                                                           
                          Subject:     Re: Comments on Name Based Virtualk Hosting Policy   
                    11:07 AM                                                                               

The policy was originally a *requirement* that name-based hosting be used,
which was a shock to most of the Web hosting industry, leading to outcry,
discussion, etc.  Now the policy is merely a recommendation which attempts
to collect information so that some day we can see some path towards
avoiding the one-IP-per-domain in some cases.

Your ISP is completely wrong to think that the policy means anyone will be
denied allocation.  One of the things raised at ARIN meetings was the
possibility that upstream ISPs would squeeze their downstreams on the fear
that ARIN would squeeze them, or on misinterpretation of the policy.
However, it's not ARIN's fault if an ISP makes that mistake, which they
could do for any policy imaginable, really.

Go back to your provider and help them understand the policy and what went
before it.  Have them ask their ARIN contact about it.  They should know
better, so help them know better.


> Hi,
> The POLICY simply states that the ISP will provide "technical
> justification", and that ARIN will review it in the light of "OPERATIONAL
> a) I feel these terms need elaboration, otherwise there is immense room
> for individual interpretation by the reviewer.
> b) Is the intent of this policy to coax small ISP's out of business?  If
> not, please be aware that this is what I am currently staring at in the
> face, a a direct result of this policy recommendation.  Here is a real
> life example:
> I am currently using 6-7 class C's (quite efficinelty by my reckoning but
> who knows how ARIN's reviewer will judge it on any given day).
> My current provider decided to give up their ISP business six months ago
> and asked a third party company to take over being the upstream ISP for
> all their existing customers, myself included (for reasons unrelated to
> me, for their own business reasons). The new ISP is steadfastly refusing
> to grant me more than 1.5 class C's not because I can't justify them and
> not because they have studied my justification and decided I don't need
> that many IP's, but because they are scared that ARIN's new policy will
> force them to return IP's they have been allocated etc. etc.
> They are specifically pointing to the "Last Call for Name-based Web
> Hosting Policy Recommendation" on  True, it can be
> argued that they should not be referring to that page, that they are
> unreasonably cautious etc. etc. but the hard facts remain that they are
> taking this position on the basis of this "Last Call for Name-based Web
> Hosting Policy Recommendation" and I am a victim of it.  I do not have
> luxury of debating their position with them.
> If I do not get my 6 class C's in the next 20 days, I am dead.
> ARIN's wordings needs to change asap!
> I recommend the following be phrased into the wording of the policy
> best practice:
> a) that the policy duly take into account existing allocations and not
> force existing allocations to be squeezed/returned when the ISP can show
> unreasonable business distress would result from this requirement to them
> or their client(s).
> b) when an ISP requests an allocation of two or more class C IP's to
> replace an allocation that is equal in size to an existing allocation
> they currently have been using from their existing provider (for say at
> least 6 months or 1 year or some suitable grandfather period) that
> should be granted regardless of size of requested allocation, and
> regardless of whether it is being efficiently used or not, provided they
> agree to return a portion of it to the pool within 18 months, the portion
> to be returned being decided by mutual discussion between ARIN and the
> ISP, and provided that this request is being made because the requesting
> ISP is changing their upstream provider and will no longer be using the
> allocation being replaced, and that the new and old providers are in
> agreement with the request.
> (Why 2 or more clas C's and not 16 and not 1?  If someone is using just 1
> class C, chances are they are not an ISP.  If they are using 2, chances
> are very high they are an ISP of one kind or another. By the same token
> there are many ISP's who do not yet use 16 C's but maybe 5 or 6 or 12,
> that is by no means a negligible "drop in the bucket" number.  If less
> than 16 Class C's is a negligible amount, then there would not be such a
> fuss about IP shortages in the first place!).
> best regards
> Mike.

More information about the Vwp mailing list