Many hosting and access providers like to give each paying customer their
own IPv4 address, since it simplifies DMCA compliance. Otherwise the
hosting provider needs to get into the middle of keeping logs for every
customer. Even though SNI allows more than one https site per IP, it does
not create a division for DMCA purposes. Often in actual fact, each
"Customer" has further divided his/her hosting space to host for multiple
websites, sometimes belonging to other people than the ones paying the
bill to the hosting provider. This includes each customer using SNI to
determine the identity of the many websites that each customer is hosting
themselves.
/22 in the proposal is a maximum. They would still have to show how they
intend to use the space in accordance with 4.2.2 if they want more than a
/24.
I say lets try the /22, and if needed reduce it. Remember 4.2.1.5 sets
the minimum at /24, so setting it at /24 is a one size fits all policy.
As for NAT and even web hosting, the 64k port limitation is also an issue
as pointed out by others. While hosting many sites on a single IPv4
address can be done, it may not be considered rational when considering
compliance with many laws that are required, including the DMCA. This is
one of the factors that speak against the use of CGNAT for internet access
customers, unless the customers are divided by port address ranges or like
means. Otherwise the ISP has to get into the logging business, which can
also turn into a big cost center.
Albert Erdmann
Network Administrator
Paradise On Line Inc.
On Sat, 2 Mar 2019, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
In message <[email protected]>,
[email protected] wrote:
Our choices with this Draft Policy:
1) Reject it because it does not completely eliminate the abuse, and allow
the current policy (with ALL its abuse) to continue.
or
2) Adopt the policy even though not perfect at eliminating ALL the abuse,
but does cut back much of it.
Please allow me to note that there is also a third option:
3) Adopt the policy, but select some different default allocation size,
other than /22.
Personally, I think that a /22 is the Wrong Way To Go and it would be better
to change that to a single /24.
I mean what do people even need lots of IPv4 for anymore anyway? A single
web server with a single IPv4 address can easily support tens of thousands
of distinct and unique web sites. A single mail server on a single IPv4
address can likewise support mail services for tens of thousands of
recipient and sender domain names. A single name server on a single IPv4
address can also provide DNS service for tens of thusands of domain names.
For anyone needing to support big batches of end-luser clients, there is
IPv6.
Regards,
rfg
_______________________________________________
ARIN-PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
_______________________________________________
ARIN-PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
