RE: ARIN Policy on IP-based Web Hosting (fwd)

[Deepak Jain <deepak () ai net>]

> > 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