Comments on Name Based Virtualk Hosting Policy Recommendation
HRyu at norlight.com
Wed May 9 13:40:40 EDT 2001
>From ARIN's statement,
When an ISP submits a request for IP address space to be used
for IP-based web hosting, they will supply technical
justification for this practice. ARIN will collect this data for
review of the policy in light of operational experience.
What if ISP submit technical justification and ARIN doesn't agree with
Is that considered as inefficient use?
In that case, it will have some impact on IP address issuing size.
What if ISP doesn't submit technical justification because of the
customer's strong argument?
For an example, the customer pointed that ARIN's recommendation is just
recommendation, and they said that they need to use IP-based hosting
because of traditional management method. What can we say?
If we assign IP address to that customer, what kind of technical document
we can submit?
In that case, ISP is unable to submit technical document except URL listing
for each IP address.
How does ARIN treat this ?
I don't think ARIN will refuse IP address request.
But they is a possibility that ARIN can consider IP-based hosting as
inefficient use of IP address, and
just reduce IP address issuing size based on inefficient manner blah blah
Because new proposal doesn't state the situation when ISP allows IP-based
hosting for hosting customer.
That's the point you have to think about.
For big ISP, I don't think this can be issue. Because they already have
large block of IP address, they can avoid this from assigning available IP
address from existing IP address block to this kind of customer.
Who cares if they have A Class IP address and it's not fully utilized?
If this is just recommendation, there has to be no relationship between
technical document and IP address utilization reviewing process.
ARIN should mention that in recommendation proposal.
Hyunseog Ryu / CCDA, MCSE
Network Engineer/Applications Engineering
Norlight Telecommunications, Inc.
The Guardians of Data
275 North Corporate Drive
Brookfield, WI 53045-5818
<John.Sweeting at tele To: "'Charles Scott'" <cscott at gaslightmedia.com>, "A. M.
globe.com> Salim" <salim at localweb.com>
Sent by: cc: vwp at arin.net, (bcc: Hyunseog Ryu/Brookfield/Norlight)
owner-vwp at arin.net Fax to:
Subject: RE: Comments on Name Based Virtualk Hosting Policy
05/09/2001 12:14 PM
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
ARIN will do, but the Internet community as a whole) or accept the fact
it is an issue that cannot be resolved and allow that to stand in the
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.
From: Charles Scott [mailto:cscott at gaslightmedia.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2001 12:53 PM
To: A. M. Salim
Cc: vwp at arin.net
Subject: Re: Comments on Name Based Virtualk Hosting Policy
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.
On Wed, 9 May 2001, A. M. Salim wrote:
> 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 http://www.arin.net/. 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.
More information about the Vwp