IP assignment for virtual webhosting

Lars Marowsky-Bree wrote:
> 
> On 1999-11-17T15:22:30,
>    "Clive D.W. Feather" <clive at demon.net> 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