North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: ARIN Policy on IP-based Web Hosting

  • From: Josh Richards
  • Date: Thu Aug 31 21:07:47 2000

* Kim Hubbard <[email protected]> [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.


Josh Richards [JTR38/JR539-ARIN]
<[email protected]/>
Geek Research LLC
IP Network Engineering and Consulting

Attachment: pgp00033.pgp
Description: PGP signature