|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: ARIN Policy on IP-based Web Hosting
On Thu, 31 Aug 2000, Daniel Senie wrote: > [email protected] 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... The vast majority of the participants here work for ARIN member companies. They get a vote. It's 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. > My only experience comes from having worked at a company that was the second largest commercial web hoster in the world. While I haven't done a complete study, I suspect no one has. Therefore, we must rely on anecdotal data. > > 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. Unscientific is a good word for it. I can think of others. I doubt your friends (or the participants on this list) are in any way representative of end-user web hosters. Please be realistic here - most folks who own web sites want a clicky interface. I'm not talking about yahoo, and I'm not talking about a few techies. I'm refering to the mass market. - Dan Golding > > > > > 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 [email protected] > Amaranth Networks Inc. http://www.amaranth.com >
|