Comments on Name Based Virtualk Hosting Policy Recommendation
HRyu at norlight.com
Wed May 9 13:55:53 EDT 2001
I understand the point of this recommendation.
I agree with the background of this idea.
But most thing that ISP interpret this as different meaning is following.
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.
>From above policy statement,
they "will" or they "should"?
"Will" means "willingness" or "wish".
So they might supply technical justification or they might not.
Some ISP interpret this as "should".
That's why a lot of small ISP is so aggresive to the customer based on
previous policy and this recommendation.
I don't want to argue with English grammar, because I'm not a
I'm sure that nobody want for hosting provider to close their business
because of this.
Therefore if ARIN interpret this "will" as volunteer thing, they should
specify that ISP can still allow IP-based hosting and/or named-based
without any disadvantages from ARIN's IP reviewing process.
If ARIN interpret this as must-do thing, it's better for us to change this
from recommendation to policy.
That's it for today. :-)
Hyunseog Ryu / CCDA, MCSE
Network Engineer/Applications Engineering
Norlight Telecommunications, Inc.
The Guardians of Data
275 North Corporate Drive
Brookfield, WI 53045-5818
sigma at pair.co
m To: vwp at arin.net
Sent by: cc: (bcc: Hyunseog Ryu/Brookfield/Norlight)
owner-vwp at ari Fax to:
n.net Subject: Re: Comments on Name Based Virtualk Hosting Policy
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
> 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.
> -----Original Message-----
> 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
> 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:
> > Hi,
> > The POLICY simply states that the ISP will provide "technical
> > justification", and that ARIN will review it in the light of
> > EXPERIENCE".
> > They are specifically pointing to the "Last Call for Name-based Web
> > Hosting Policy Recommendation" on http://www.arin.net/. True, it can
> > 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