To: arin-discuss@arin.net Subject: Re: guideline for name-based web hosting justification In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 13 Sep 2000 11:41:24 EDT." <Pine.BSI.4.20.0009131139140.2436-100000@staff.dca.net> Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 09:39:55 -0700 From: Paul A Vixie <vixie@redpaul.mibh.net>

I have to agree with Mike Horwath. We are looking at what's required to move from IP- to name-based virtual hosts, and we find that name-based virtual hosts are really a different product than IP based virtual hosts -- and along with name-based vhosts comes a whole host of headaches for us (log processing/IP accounting) and our customers (incompatability with older browsers).

I hope that ARIN reconsiders this policy.

we (as a community -- the internet) knew that there was an address shortage some years ago. all of the allocation policies, and much technical innovation, over the period of years from "then" to "now" has been influenced by this. some of the people now complaining about the allocation policies have started their web hosting businesses in only the last five years, during which time the need to deploy address-scarcity technology like name-based virtual web hosts was common knowledge. absolutely common knowledge. there's no excuse, either for companies who were doing web hosting before 1995 (who have had time to change their strategies) or for companies who have only done it since 1995 (and who should never have deployed an ignorant strategy), to complain about the current allocation policies. this discussion is starting to remind me of the "freeway sound wall" argument. US101 has existed much longer than some of the residential neighborhoods which have sprouted up alongside it. why the residents of those neighborhoods are complaining about freeway noise and demanding sound walls, just eludes me.