Re: ARIN Policy on IP-based Web Hosting
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
On Thu, 31 Aug 2000 sigma@pair.com wrote:
Because some hosts are providing other virtualized services which are nowhere near being ready for use without per-IP allocations.
As a quick reminder of what the release actually says... "While some organizations use IP-based webhosting to, in part, justify their requests for IP space, ARIN will no longer accept IP-based hosting as justification for an allocation unless an exception is warranted. The ARIN Instructions for Using Name-based Virtual Webhosting may be a useful tool in setting up, converting to, and using name-based hosting." Look, to put it simply, it says above that the argument that "I need more IP space cos I keep using one IP per web site and there's no other reason for me burning so many IPs" is no longer going to be accepted by ARIN. Nowhere above does it say "we're not going to give you any more IP space, period, particularly if you need it for something OTHER than IP-based virtual webhosting". What does "unless an exception is warranted" and the explicit reference to IP-based webhosting mean to you? I'm really stumped on this one!
I'll grant that it's not such a big issue for HTTP anymore,
Certainly if the people are burning IPs for HTTP without any other reason, which is precisely what this announcement seems to address...
except of course for bandwidth shapers, network analysis tools, load-balancing switches, kernel-based virtualizations, etc etc etc.
...which all seem to come across as falling into the "unless an exception is warranted" category, at least to some extent. Demand for the We Fear Change t-shirts seems to be growing. Any Luddites out there want to place an order? -- Patrick Evans - Sysadmin, bran addict and couch potato pre at pre dot org www.pre.org/pre
pre@pre.org wrote
Demand for the We Fear Change t-shirts seems to be growing. Any Luddites out there want to place an order?
Please leave the Luddites alone, okay? You may have every reason in the world to be political about IP consumption, but you have missed the whole freaking point of the Luddite movement and your use of the term is working my nerves. One, Luddites did not passively fear change or technology; they engaged in violent social action to get their point across. Two, their point had to do with ownership of technology, not technology itself. The Luddites engaged in textile frame-breaking not because they feared the frames, but because the class system of the time kept them from owning the technology used by the leisure class to make a profit from their labor. This was explicitly recognized at the time; Lord Byron's maiden speech in the House of Lords was an argument against the repressive measures proposed to handle the Luddites (including a provision making frame-breaking punishable by death) noting that the real problem was one of ownership. He also explicitly paralleled the work of the Luddites and the work of the American revolutionaries in a poem, not published until after his death: As the Liberty lads o'er the sea Bought their freedom, and cheaply, with blood, So we; boys, we Will die fighting, or live free, And down with all kings but King Ludd! _Captain_Swing_ by Hobsbawn and Rude, _Whigs_and_Hunters by E.P. Thompson, and _The_Making_of_the_English_Working_Class also by E.P. Thompson, are all excellent works on this period and I highly recommend them to any one willing to be depressed about the folly of humanity. In the mean time, please leave the Luddites out of this squabble, okay? The parallel is, to say the least, weak. If you're still reading at this point, please admit that I did warn you explicitly that this was off-topic before flaming me. best regards, Ted Hardie Disclaimer: I am *so* not speaking for my employer on this one.
participants (3)
-
hardie＠equinix.com -
Patrick Evans -
sigma＠pair.com