|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical RE: ARIN Policy on IP-based Web Hosting
I second that. I believe that some are already doing it, but maybe more could... probably easier than some of the IP based virtual services could be modified. Karyn > -----Original Message----- > From: Deepak Jain [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2000 12:59 PM > To: Alec H. Peterson > Cc: John A. Tamplin; [email protected] > Subject: Re: ARIN Policy on IP-based Web Hosting > > > > > This is not meant at anyone personally, its just something I noticed. > > When we are deciding that IP savings, etc are worth it, why > not make all > Cable/DSL/Dialup providers use NAT to map access logins to a > small pool of > IPs too? The software to do that transparently is already > available for a > very high percentage of applications. Heck, even upstreams > could then NAT > their downstreams' pools of IPs. We could run the whole internet off a > single class C again. > > This would of course be an inconvenience to some networks > that use a lot > of applications that haven't been updated, but we're sure the > savings are > worth the pain too. > > --- > > I guess the point/concern I have is that the largest providers can now > pick up /13s because they use that many IPs in 3 months, but if you > subtract out the number of truly unique IPs even the largest > network would > absolutely need, applying all available technology, the > number might be as > low as a few hundred unique IPs. > > Deepak Jain > AiNET > > > 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. > > > > > > > > Another issue nobody has mentioned is security between > virtual servers. > > > Under name-based hosting, they all run as the same > user-id and thus to get > > > the same security you have with separate IP-based servers > you have to put > > > all the access conrol checks in all the tools that can be > used. This can be > > > hard if not impossible to do when you allow full shell > access to the files > > > used by the server. > > > > Not if you chroot() the user into their file space. That > may not be ideal, > > but there are ways to deal with it. > > > > Alec > > > > -- > > Alec H. Peterson - [email protected] > > Staff Scientist > > CenterGate Research Group - http://www.centergate.com > > "Technology so advanced, even _we_ don't understand it!" > > > > > >
|