Comments on Name Based Virtualk Hosting Policy Recommendation

Gilbert Martin @ Learning Solutions Gilbert.Martin at
Wed May 9 13:23:44 EDT 2001

I am extremely concerned and somewhat think I have missed the bus totally,
what is going to happen to current IP address space that has been issued to
ISP's?? Will the IP Address space be re-released or still kept as its
Maybe I am totally confused but I am under the impression that IP-based web
hosting is going to require that all previously released address space be

-----Original Message-----
From: sigma at [mailto:sigma at]
Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2001 7:18 PM
To: vwp at
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]
> 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
> .
> .
> .
> > 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.
> .
> .
> .

The information in this e-mail is confidential and is legally privileged.
It is intended solely for the addressee.  If this email is not intended for
you, you cannot copy, distribute, or disclose the included information
to any-one

If you are not the intended recipient please delete the mail. Whilst
all reasonable steps have been taken to ensure the accuracy and
integrity of all data transmitted electronically, no liability is accepted
if the data, for whatever reason, is corrupt or does not reach it's
intended destination.
All business is undertaken, subject to our standard trading conditions
which are available on request.


More information about the Vwp mailing list