Re: ARIN Policy on IP-based Web Hosting

[<dan () netrail net>]

On Thu, 31 Aug 2000, Daniel Senie wrote:

> dan () netrail net 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                                        dts () senie com
> Amaranth Networks Inc.                    http://www.amaranth.com