Comments on Name Based Virtualk Hosting Policy Recommendation

sigma at sigma at
Wed May 9 13:17:41 EDT 2001

Perhaps it would help if the statement had a sentence clearly indicating
what you've just explained.  It appears that some ISPs either don't
understand, or prefer not to understand, for their own reasons.

I didn't think this was necessary before, but apparently there is no limit
to the obtuseness of some providers (referring to no one in particular).


> Please do not be confused. ARIN is not going to review the request but
> rather the technical reasons being supplied so that wheels can be set in
> motion to either solve the technical reasons (not necessarily something that
> ARIN will do, but the Internet community as a whole) or accept the fact that
> it is an issue that cannot be resolved and allow that to stand in the future
> as an acceptable reason for using IP-based webhosting. No where is it
> inferred that ARIN will refuse address space based on the technical
> justification at this time.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Charles Scott [mailto:cscott at]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2001 12:53 PM
> To: A. M. Salim
> Cc: vwp at
> Subject: Re: Comments on Name Based Virtualk Hosting Policy
> Recommendation
> Mike:
>   I personally agree with you. This is exactly what I've been concerned
> about since the discussion of such a policy started and I don't think it's
> been clarified by the latest wording. If it's a data collection effort
> only, then it should say that. If there's some kind of requirement to
> provide some specifically acceptable technical justification, then it
> should say so and there should be some description of what that would be.
> Chuck
> On Wed, 9 May 2001, A. M. Salim wrote:
> > 
> > Hi,
> > 
> > The POLICY simply states that the ISP will provide "technical
> > justification", and that ARIN will review it in the light of "OPERATIONAL
> .
> .
> .
> > 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 being
> > 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 the
> > luxury of debating their position with them.
> .
> .
> .

More information about the Vwp mailing list