On Thu, 31 Aug 2000, Daniel Senie wrote:
dan@netrail.net wrote:
In a democratic process, which ARIN is, refusal to participate in the voting process, when eligible, usually removes one's standing to complain.
Cough up your $500 as an individual and you can buy a vote. Sounds democratic...
The vast majority of the participants here work for ARIN member companies. They get a vote. It's democratic.
This is a non-issue. Very few hosting companies of any size are assigning individual IPs to individual sites. Most use some sort of HTTP file transfer as well.
Your authoritative statement is interesting. Could you provide the quantitative data that your statements represent? Using words like "few" and "most" tend to imply a knowledge of the numbers.
My only experience comes from having worked at a company that was the second largest commercial web hoster in the world. While I haven't done a complete study, I suspect no one has. Therefore, we must rely on anecdotal data.
This is not due to any benefit or deficiency in HTTP or FTP. It's done this way to reduce IP usage, and to make the end-user experience a smooth one. End-users of web services generally prefer the dreaded "klicky" interface over it's trickier cousin, command line FTP.
Must be an interesting study. Would like to read it. Please give citations. In my clearly unscientific polling of a few friends, they had no trouble with using FTP, from a command line, no less. It'll be interesting to see just how small a minority we are.
Unscientific is a good word for it. I can think of others. I doubt your friends (or the participants on this list) are in any way representative of end-user web hosters. Please be realistic here - most folks who own web sites want a clicky interface. I'm not talking about yahoo, and I'm not talking about a few techies. I'm refering to the mass market. - Dan Golding
On Thu, 31 Aug 2000, Patrick Greenwell wrote:
On Thu, 31 Aug 2000, Alec H. Peterson wrote:
"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.
Very thoughtful of the assemblage to make that determination for everyone else.
-- ----------------------------------------------------------------- Daniel Senie dts@senie.com Amaranth Networks Inc. http://www.amaranth.com