[30864] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: ARIN Policy on IP-based Web Hosting
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Josh Richards)
Thu Aug 31 21:06:03 2000
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2000 15:51:38 -0700
From: Josh Richards <jrichard@cubicle.net>
To: nanog@merit.edu
Cc: Kim Hubbard <kimh@arin.net>
Message-ID: <20000831155137.B11186@datahaven.freedom.gen.ca.us>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-md5;
protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="SkvwRMAIpAhPCcCJ"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <002b01c01355$f2cf6580$ccfc95c0@arin.net>; from kimh@arin.net on Thu, Aug 31, 2000 at 10:15:40AM -0400
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
--SkvwRMAIpAhPCcCJ
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
* Kim Hubbard <kimh@arin.net> [20000831 06:33]:
>=20
> The proposal was posted to the ARIN discuss list prior to the last meeting
> but since then we have formalized the process a bit more to include a cou=
ple
> of weeks of discussion on the ppml mailing list of all proposed policy
> changes which attendees of the public policy meeting reached consensus o=
n.
> This will allow everyone who didn't make it to the meeting to voice their
> opinion on the proposal before the AC votes.
Sounds good.
> > Why would ARIN announce a new policy with completely vague rules? Nobo=
dy
> > knows what constitutes a valid exception. Apparently, even ARIN doesn't
> > know yet. If I were applying for an increased allocation today, who wo=
uld
> > decide if the thousands of IPs that we and our customers have used for =
IP
> > based virtual hosts are a valid or wasteful use of IPs?..the individual=
at
> > ARIN processing our request?
>=20
> We thought it best not to include specific exceptions because although we
> were aware of several possible exceptions, we didn't want people to feel
> restricted to just those listed. There could've been some we didn't know
> about and we wanted to wait until we heard from some of the requesting
> organizations so we could come up with a more comprehensive list of
> exceptions.
This sounds good as well. My only comment would be that while I see the lo=
gic
behind this, I'd add that even if ARIN does not want to include specific
exceptions in the rule, it might be best to discuss and perhaps *informally*
have a list of specific ones. This will help the IP community feel a bit
less jumpy with these sorts of things (at least it would have appeased me=
=20
somewhat). Of course, with what you state at the beginning of your e-mail=
=20
where the discussion period has been lengthened and more formalized, this m=
ight
have/will likely serve to do exactly as I just stated.
> No, our motivation, as stated above, was to try to give more organizations
> the benefit of the doubt. But I definitely see how you could have
> interpreted it differently. We should've been clearer with the policy so
> allow me to apoligize to all of you for this.
Thank you Kim, for the response.
-jr
----
Josh Richards [JTR38/JR539-ARIN]
<jrichard@cubicle.net/fix.net/freedom.gen.ca.us/geekresearch.com>
Geek Research LLC
IP Network Engineering and Consulting
--SkvwRMAIpAhPCcCJ
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.1 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
iEYEARECAAYFAjmu4XQACgkQ8VgqD3XNPNXANQCgvlqYxDcUp/FBfc1QowCDaDAQ
kAUAoK7bAfMzkAkap/Kxfmd/gTJhIJIV
=11z5
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--SkvwRMAIpAhPCcCJ--
