RE: ARIN Policy on IP-based Web Hosting (fwd)
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
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?
I have never seen ARIN give one hoot about business models, especially when it comes to using more IPs than they think is necessary. Deepak Jain AiNET
On Wed, Aug 30, 2000, Deepak Jain wrote:
By what justification does this poorly-thought-out policy interfere with business models or competitive advantages between hosts?
I have never seen ARIN give one hoot about business models, especially when it comes to using more IPs than they think is necessary.
On one side you have pure business drives, on the other you have pure 'internet-good' drives. So far I haven't seen anyone suggest a useful middle ground. Personally I don't like people in the way of getting my IPs, but I'm all for someone figuring out a solution to virtual hosting and QoS issues. Shifting goal-posts just makes our jobs more fun. :-) 2c, Adrian (disclaimer: I don't work for a layer-7 switch company and I don't have anything to sell.) -- Adrian Chadd "If a butterfly flaps its wings in China, <adrian@creative.net.au> will a women get naked in Amsterdam?" -- Ashley Penney on Chaos Theory
On Thu, 31 Aug 2000, Adrian Chadd wrote:
On one side you have pure business drives, on the other you have pure 'internet-good' drives. So far I haven't seen anyone suggest a useful middle ground.
The answer is quite easy, let the open market decide. Allow organizations or individuals to own address space by issuing titles to it. Organizations can then buy or sell address space according to their needs and the inherent value. All scarcity questions are answered easily, if you can't afford to buy more, then your business plan isn't working, possibly because you are using them inefficiently. Capitalism is a wonderful thing, it naturally distributes resources in a way that's much more equitable than any other artificial system. It solves the problem of organizations that are assigned much more address space than they need (GE would certainly sell off much of it's /8 if it knew it would get a bunch of money for it). New businesses could easily go out and buy exactly as much address space as they need and can afford. Worried about BGP table size because you're too cheap to buy more memory for your routers or are using old hardware? Fine, filter based on whatever metrics you want, some of us will make the investment to buy bigger and better routers and provide a more complete internet service than you and provide more value to our customers. As much as way too many people dislike it, the fact is that the Internet is a business now and has been for a while. There's just no reason that address space should be treated any differently than any other resource. Put it on the open market, let the market decide who deserves more space, let money, the only thing a business really understands, drive the technology to reduce consumption of address space. Someone who wants a static address, or non-NATed service should pay the costs associated with providing that service, the value of the address. Brandon Ross 404-522-5400 EVP Engineering, NetRail http://www.netrail.net AIM: BrandonNR ICQ: 2269442 Read RFC 2644!
participants (4)
-
Adrian Chadd -
Brandon Ross -
Deepak Jain -
sigmaï¼ pair.com