IP adresss management verification

Howard, W. Lee Lee.Howard at stanleyassociates.com
Tue Nov 14 23:45:40 UTC 2006


> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-nanog at merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog at merit.edu] On 
> Behalf Of David Hubbard
> Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 11:42 AM
> To: nanog at merit.edu
> 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.

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.


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 

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.


More information about the NANOG mailing list