nanog mailing list archives
Re: ARIN Policy on IP-based Web Hosting
From: Josh Richards <jrichard () cubicle net>
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2000 15:51:38 -0700
* Kim Hubbard <kimh () arin net> [20000831 06:33]:
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 couple of weeks of discussion on the ppml mailing list of all proposed policy changes which attendees of the public policy meeting reached consensus on. 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? Nobody knows what constitutes a valid exception. Apparently, even ARIN doesn't know yet. If I were applying for an increased allocation today, who would 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?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 logic 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 somewhat). Of course, with what you state at the beginning of your e-mail where the discussion period has been lengthened and more formalized, this might 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
Attachment:
_bin
Description:
Current thread:
- RE: ARIN Policy on IP-based Web Hosting, (continued)
- RE: ARIN Policy on IP-based Web Hosting J Bacher (Aug 30)
- Re: ARIN Policy on IP-based Web Hosting sigma (Aug 30)
- Re: ARIN Policy on IP-based Web Hosting Alec H. Peterson (Aug 31)
- RE: ARIN Policy on IP-based Web Hosting J Bacher (Aug 30)
- RE: ARIN Policy on IP-based Web Hosting Roeland M.J. Meyer (Aug 30)
- RE: ARIN Policy on IP-based Web Hosting Roeland M.J. Meyer (Aug 30)
- RE: ARIN Policy on IP-based Web Hosting Karyn Ulriksen (Aug 30)
- ARIN Policy on IP-based Web Hosting Richard Jimmerson (Aug 30)
- Re: ARIN Policy on IP-based Web Hosting jlewis (Aug 30)
- Re: ARIN Policy on IP-based Web Hosting Josh Richards (Aug 31)
- Re: ARIN Policy on IP-based Web Hosting Kim Hubbard (Aug 31)
- Re: ARIN Policy on IP-based Web Hosting Josh Richards (Aug 31)
- Re: ARIN Policy on IP-based Web Hosting jlewis (Aug 31)
- Re: ARIN Policy on IP-based Web Hosting Alec H. Peterson (Aug 31)
- Re: ARIN Policy on IP-based Web Hosting J. Scott Marcus (Aug 31)
- Re: ARIN Policy on IP-based Web Hosting jlewis (Aug 30)
- Re: ARIN Policy on IP-based Web Hosting Dana Hudes (Aug 31)
- Re: ARIN Policy on IP-based Web Hosting Patrick Evans (Aug 31)
- Re: ARIN Policy on IP-based Web Hosting Deepak Jain (Aug 31)
- Re: ARIN Policy on IP-based Web Hosting Edward S. Marshall (Aug 31)
- Re: ARIN Policy on IP-based Web Hosting Shawn McMahon (Aug 31)