[30856] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: ARIN Policy on IP-based Web Hosting
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Daniel Senie)
Thu Aug 31 19:51:41 2000
Message-ID: <39AEDC82.E8DB47F7@senie.com>
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2000 18:30:26 -0400
From: Daniel Senie <dts@senie.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: dan@netrail.net
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
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...
>
> 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.
> 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.
>
> 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
