|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical RE: IP adresss management verification
> -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On > Behalf Of David Hubbard > Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 11:42 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: RE: IP adresss management verification > > What I meant was we require a technical justification to > give a dedicated IP to a customer but many hosts do not, > or they use it as a revenue add by charging for having > a dedicated IP when there's no technical reason for it. > Previously, or maybe still, there was no mandate that web > hosts only assign dedicated IP's when it can be justified. > > David This was the topic of one of the most interesting policies ARIN ever adopted. In 2000, there was a proposal to require web hosting organizations to use virtual hosting (roughly defined as many FQDNs on one IP address), unless indidivual IP addresses were required for documented technical reasons. This proposal predates the online proposal archive, but you can track it on its progression through the Board meetings. http://www.arin.net/meetings/minutes/bot/bot2000_0612.html http://www.arin.net/meetings/minutes/bot/bot2000_1002.html There was community support for the proposal, but strong debate. The Advisory Council found consensus, the Board adopted the proposal, then a few months later suspended the policy. I think this is the only time the Board used its emergency power to set or suspend a policy. http://www.arin.net/meetings/minutes/ARIN_VI/ppm_minutes.html#webhosting On the mailing list, and at the next public policy meeting there was extensive discussion. The Advisory Council took input from the community, and decided that the best policy would be to make it a recommendation. The current policy now reads: When an ISP submits a request for IP address space to be used for IP-based web hosting, it will supply (for informational purposed only) its technical justification for this practice. ARIN will analyze this data continuously, evaluating the need for future policy changes. http://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html#four25 To my mind, this is a good example of the ARIN process working well: the community favored a proposal, so it was adopted, but there were significant problems. The Board suspended the policy so the AC could get community feedback, and the policy was changed based on experience. If you have an opinion on this policy, you should say so on the Public Policy Mailing List. http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml Lee
|