Re: IP assignment for virtual webhosting
- Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1999 17:04:19 +0100
- Organization: Registry Telia Net
Lars Marowsky-Bree wrote:
>
> On 1999-11-17T15:22:30,
> "Clive D.W. Feather" clive@localhost said:
>
> > But what is a "very good explanation" ? Is RIPE going to start judging what
> > are "good" and "bad" applications ?
>
> Now, that would be a totally new concept for the RIPE hostmasters to decide
> whether to approve an inetnum request or not... ;)
I see some issues:
* The scope to "The fair distribution of public Internet address space
according to the operational needs of the end users operating networks
using this address space. In order to maximize the lifetime of the
public Internet address space resource, addresses must be distributed
according to need, and stockpiling must be prevented. ( RIPE-185 2.2)
+ Keeping our customers happy so that they can get the service and
usability they actually pay for. But still do this within the
guidelines that exists today. We have to remember that these are
the people that actually make many of us exist.
+ "Force" those users that can - but still hasn't bother, to upgrade
to http 1.1. And who today uses big amount of address space because
of this.
+ Define and understand those who still can not follow the proposed
new guidelines. And add this into the proposal.
To find a good and balanced combination of this, is imho the goal.
But i fully support the idea that "close the door" on http 1.0 if
not exceptional reasons applies.
Regards
-- amar
Telia Net
