RE: ARIN Policy on IP-based Web Hosting (fwd)

[sigma () pair com]

> There is only a small number of services that currently really require
> dedicated IPs.  HTTPS and Anonymous FTP.  Although, the HTTPS is a concern -
> not that many customers actually use the Anonymous FTP service.  We ended up
> offering Anonymous FTP as a premium service (I like to think that this cuts
> down on warez and script kiddie distribution).

Aha, I was waiting for someone to say that.

So it's going to be OK to use per-host IP addresses if it's sold as a
"premium" service?  So that business model is OK, but not another?  What if
we say all of our services are "premium"?  What if too many of your
customers start paying you for that "premium" service?  Where's the
threshold?  Are you more justified in your IP usage because you charge your
customers more for it?

By what justification does this poorly-thought-out policy interfere with
business models or competitive advantages between hosts?

> A few customers will whine, but 98% don't know
> the difference, understand and accept the limititations, or are just so damn
> happy it works that they don't mind.

Great for your customers, then.

> Although I do agree that ARIN does tend to be anal, I believe some system
> architects would have shot us all in the foot by now if they hadn't put
> their foot down.  We just have to be cleverer than them and I think that
> shouldn't be too hard, right?

Are you proposing to circumvent the policy?

Kevin