August 2000 - Test - lists.nanog.org

ARIN Policy on IP-based Web Hosting
by sigma＠pair.com 02 Sep '00

02 Sep '00

Gentle readers who might happen to be using unique IP addresses for your Web hosting customers, or for other virtualized services such as FTP, POP3/IMAP, SSL, etc, you need to be aware of ARIN's recent policy change. Basically, they won't give you addresses anymore. They're accepting comments. A lively discussion has begun, as usual. Kevin >Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 14:46:37 -0400 (EDT) >From: Member Services <memsvcs(a)arin.net> >To: arin-announce(a)arin.net, ppml(a)arin.net >Subject: ARIN Web Hosting Policy >Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.4.05.10008291437410.19186-100000(a)ops.arin.net> >Sender: owner-arin-announce(a)arin.net > >ARIN's new web hosting policy has recently been under discussion on the >ARIN IP allocations policy mailing list. >See http://www.arin.net/members/mailing.htm. > >The policy is described at > > http://www.arin.net/announcements/policy_changes.html > >Some individuals have expressed their disagreement with this new policy. >Should the ARIN web hosting policy be changed? > >ARIN would like your feedback on this issue. Please post your comments >and suggestions to the public policy mailing list (ppml(a)arin.net) Your >feedback will be included in the discussions at the upcoming public >policy meeting. > >Information about the meeting can be found at >http://www.arin.net/announcements/memmeet.html

37 68

Re: ARIN Policy on IP-based Web Hosting
by Alec H. Peterson 02 Sep '00

02 Sep '00

"John A. Tamplin" wrote: > > Well, if the policy is that you have to use name-based hosting everywhere > feasible and do something different for those customers that need > something different, that can be quite a hardship on existing setups. > For example, re-engineering all the tools to create and maintain vdom > services, changing existing customer setups, etc. It is certainly easier > to treat all hosting customers alike, rather than have completely > separate setups and then have to change a customer from one to the other > when they add or delete services (including downtime). That was also brought up at the meeting, however it was generally agreed that the address savings were worth the work. > > Another issue nobody has mentioned is security between virtual servers. > Under name-based hosting, they all run as the same user-id and thus to get > the same security you have with separate IP-based servers you have to put > all the access conrol checks in all the tools that can be used. This can be > hard if not impossible to do when you allow full shell access to the files > used by the server. Not if you chroot() the user into their file space. That may not be ideal, but there are ways to deal with it. Alec -- Alec H. Peterson - ahp(a)hilander.com Staff Scientist CenterGate Research Group - http://www.centergate.com "Technology so advanced, even _we_ don't understand it!"

22 42

Re: ARIN Policy on IP-based Web Hosting
by Danny McPherson 01 Sep '00

01 Sep '00

I agree with Alec here. If you've got complaints or want to be involved, use the ppml list - whether or not you make it to the meetings. Though the meetings indeed have a significant impact on policies, I'm pretty certain that if valid points are made on the mailing list they'll be considered at the meetings, and if they're not - whine about it on the ppml list -- that's what it's for... -danny > Certainly. That's what ppml(a)arin.net is for.

3 2

Re: ARIN Policy on IP-based Web Hosting
by sigma＠pair.com 01 Sep '00

01 Sep '00

>It's been a long time since I've seen so many people get so upset over >what strikes me as an obvious step which others took a long time ago >and has a policy which makes room for worthy exceptions. Because some hosts are providing other virtualized services which are nowhere near being ready for use without per-IP allocations. I'll grant that it's not such a big issue for HTTP anymore, except of course for bandwidth shapers, network analysis tools, load-balancing switches, kernel-based virtualizations, etc etc etc. Kevin

3 2

Re: ARIN Policy on IP-based Web Hosting
by smd＠clock.org 01 Sep '00

01 Sep '00

Hm, this is vaguely about the tension in how network-friendly to make applications... Jim Mercer writes: | just think how crippled make(1) would be without extensions. Hm, let's see, in NetBSD's make(1) regime, the current sys.mk has the declarations below. What stops you from using a different suffix convention than <foo>".c" and friends? I see no reason why make(1) couldn't be extended to deal with arbitrary prefix/infix/suffix identifiers, or even something complicated like a set of regexps. COMPILE.c?= ${CC} ${CFLAGS} ${CPPFLAGS} -c LINK.c?= ${CC} ${CFLAGS} ${CPPFLAGS} ${LDFLAGS} CXX?= c++ CXXFLAGS?= ${CFLAGS} COMPILE.cc?= ${CXX} ${CXXFLAGS} ${CPPFLAGS} -c LINK.cc?= ${CXX} ${CXXFLAGS} ${CPPFLAGS} ${LDFLAGS} OBJC?= ${CC} OBJCFLAGS?= ${CFLAGS} COMPILE.m?= ${OBJC} ${OBJCFLAGS} ${CPPFLAGS} -c LINK.m?= ${OBJC} ${OBJCFLAGS} ${CPPFLAGS} ${LDFLAGS} ... # C .c: ${LINK.c} -o ${.TARGET} ${.IMPSRC} ${LDLIBS} .c.o: ${COMPILE.c} ${.IMPSRC} .c.a: ${COMPILE.c} ${.IMPSRC} ${AR} ${ARFLAGS} $@ $*.o rm -f $*.o .c.ln: ${LINT} ${LINTFLAGS} ${CPPFLAGS:M-[IDU]*} -i ${.IMPSRC} # C++ .cc .cpp .cxx .C: ${LINK.cc} -o ${.TARGET} ${.IMPSRC} ${LDLIBS} .cc.o .cpp.o .cxx.o .C.o: ${COMPILE.cc} ${.IMPSRC} etc. Finally, compared to the equivalents in, for example, the Common LISP universe, make(1) *IS* crippled, suffix-convention or not. The assumption many network people have that "everything is an X", for varous values of X (endianness, VAXishness, Microsoftishness, UNIXish) has always been a real problem, and has led to interesting problems (e.g., taking a file froma TENEX machine, changing directories on a VMS server). HTTP for its sins does abstract away some of the worst user-visible problems (e.g. do you need to care what platform the web server is running on?) The major problem I have with ftp, from the perspective of someone trying to build networks, is that most clients generally do not do passive-mode ftp by default, despite many years of harranguing going waaaaay back to Vadim Antonov's argument for that here. Another plug: NetBSD's ftp(1) man page says: epsv4 Toggle the use of the extended EPSV and EPRT commands on IPv4 connections; first try EPSV / EPRT, and then PASV / PORT. This is enabled by default. [with fallback to active on fail -smd] This is, in my opinion, Doing The Right Thing. Sean.

2 1

RE: ARIN Policy on IP-based Web Hosting (fwd)
by sigma＠pair.com 01 Sep '00

01 Sep '00

>There is only a small number of services that currently really require >dedicated IPs. HTTPS and Anonymous FTP. Although, the HTTPS is a concern - >not that many customers actually use the Anonymous FTP service. We ended up >offering Anonymous FTP as a premium service (I like to think that this cuts >down on warez and script kiddie distribution). Aha, I was waiting for someone to say that. So it's going to be OK to use per-host IP addresses if it's sold as a "premium" service? So that business model is OK, but not another? What if we say all of our services are "premium"? What if too many of your customers start paying you for that "premium" service? Where's the threshold? Are you more justified in your IP usage because you charge your customers more for it? By what justification does this poorly-thought-out policy interfere with business models or competitive advantages between hosts? >A few customers will whine, but 98% don't know >the difference, understand and accept the limititations, or are just so damn >happy it works that they don't mind. Great for your customers, then. >Although I do agree that ARIN does tend to be anal, I believe some system >architects would have shot us all in the foot by now if they hadn't put >their foot down. We just have to be cleverer than them and I think that >shouldn't be too hard, right? Are you proposing to circumvent the policy? Kevin

4 3

Root zone change -- Informational message
by Verd, Brad 01 Sep '00

01 Sep '00

Informational Message: The IP for m.gtld-servers.net will be changed in the authoritative list for .com, .net, and .org. Changes will be reflected in the zone with serial number 2000083001 -------------------------------------- Brad Verd gTLD Operations Manager Network Solutions Registry Email - bverd(a)netsol.com ---------------------------------------

4 4

ARIN Policy on IP-based Web Hosting
by Richard Jimmerson 01 Sep '00

01 Sep '00

Please keep in mind this policy is a result of discussions held at the ARIN public policy meeting in Calgary earlier this year. The policy does state ARIN will accept IP-based hosting as justification for an allocation if an exception is warranted. ARIN is looking to the community to define these exceptions and finds the discussions being held here to be very helpful. This information will be included in the policy discussion at the upcoming ARIN public policy meeting. These discussions may create changes to the current policy, perhaps by clearly defining a list of exceptions, or may even eliminate the new policy altogether. Your feedback on this mailing list and at the upcoming public policy meeting is important. Information about the upcoming public policy meeting can be found at: http://www.arin.net/announcements/memmeet.html Best Regards, American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)

6 8

Re: [Fwd: USWest]
by John Fraizer 31 Aug '00

31 Aug '00

On Thu, 31 Aug 2000 sysop(a)uswest.net wrote: > U S WEST ISOps is very concerned that its services and products > not be used to harass others, abuse the network or interfere > with other users' enjoyment of the Internet. We apologize > that this situation has occurred. Sure you are. > > Unfortunately, your message does not appear to include the full > message headers. Without the full message headers, especially the > "Received" lines, we can not investigate this issue. > Not a problem. Next time it happens, I'll see just how much hate your can swallow before it blows up. I'm willing to bet that we have more than enough capacity to get your attention. Perhaps THAN you will be able to "further investigate" the issue. Ya'll have fun with your little SPAM friendly network, ya hear? John Fraizer EnterZone, Inc

2 1

Re: What's a file extension?
by Mufti Ahmed 31 Aug '00

31 Aug '00

Do you know what a computer is? Jeff Wheat <jeff(a)cetlink.net> on 08/31/2000 02:55:16 PM To: nanog(a)merit.edu cc: (bcc: Mufti Ahmed/NYC/US/Reuters) Subject: Re: What's a file extension? It may also be a handle that is attached to the end of a metal file which allows the operator of said file to have more control and/or comfort while working. Many carpenters use such a file extention :) *grin* Jeff > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-nanog(a)merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu]On Behalf Of > Roeland M.J. Meyer > Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2000 2:19 PM > To: Alex Kamantauskas; Andrew Brown > Cc: Jeff Mcadams; nanog(a)merit.edu > Subject: RE: ARIN Policy on IP-based Web Hosting > > > > everything to the right side of the final dot. Such as in > "/etc/named.conf" the extension is "conf". A better example is > "/usr/local/src/whois.1.9.0/readme.txt" where the extension is "txt". > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Alex Kamantauskas [mailto:alexk@tugger.net] > > Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2000 7:19 AM > > To: Andrew Brown > > Cc: Jeff Mcadams; nanog(a)merit.edu > > Subject: Re: ARIN Policy on IP-based Web Hosting > > > > > > > > On Thu, 31 Aug 2000, Andrew Brown wrote: > > > > > > > > the mime type is made up, usually based on the file's > > extension, which > > > is, of course, passed along with the contents of the file when you > > > transfer it. it's no extra information in this context. > > > > > > > What's a file extension? > > > > -- > > Alex Kamantauskas > > alexk(a)tugger.net > > > > > ----------------------------------------------------------------- Visit our Internet site at http://www.reuters.com Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the sender specifically states them to be the views of Reuters Ltd.

2 1