In case you didn't hear it already...

http://arin.net/announcements/webhosting.html

What does that exactly mean Chicken?

It means IP's should be easier to get again. They were trying to enable a rule that IP's can not be used as widely as they have been for hosting domain names since its possible to host domains virtually (many on one IP). They appear to have suspended this rule.

I wonder what made them change their mind.. hmm

Maybe because websites than serve hundreds, thousands, millions maybe billions are more important than a single computer user. I can't believe people have trouble get IPs for hosting, DNS serving, etc... when big companies can just come a long and take a few millions for WAP phone users (a pointless technology), make them share the IPs.

Originally posted by kunal
I wonder what made them change their mind.. hmm The answer to that is subtly included in the announcement: after a public policy meeting and in consideration of comments on ARIN's public mailing lists, the policy has been suspended "pending further review by a committee."

Public sentiment overwhelmingly disagreed with the policy as stated, and with the timing of it. To their credit, ARIN is reviewing the decision in the face of that opposition. That they've "suspended" the policy change doesn't mean that the issue is dead, but perhaps the fact that they stated the policy will provide the motivation for a move toward better technical solutions, and IP space conservation, that would make such a policy unnecessary.

I'm quite happy about this decision.

After working more indepth with the servers I did notice several things which an IP did require, say for instance with proftpd and virtual ftp and several other things.

I hope they just totally do away with the stupid policy change :).

You would think that all of these WAP devices could use a centralized system of their own and just a handful of IP's to get onto the web.

After all, its not like you can do a whole lot with them anyhow! heh.

Who needs an IP for just email and checking their stocks anyhow?

I think that the huge companies with 1000s of workstations should use NAT, instead of real ips, seeing as it does provide very good firewalling.

Originally posted by Ironlung
What does that exactly mean Chicken?

Sorry IronLung, I suppose it would have been helpful to explain it a bit. Thank you jaguar for picking up my slack :)

...and thanks for bringing this to our notice !!!!!!

If I remember correctly, Annette has earlier made a statement in this forum that Arin wasn't really enforcing this policy very stringently.

She had correctly predicted that this would be a stupid policy to enforce, because there were enough IPs to go around for another couple of years... even while keeping in mind the current exponential expansion of the Internet.

Learner

Add to the fact that IPv6 is about to be slowly implemented over the top of current network topologies and I still don't understand why ARIN did it in the first place.

(well, actually I do, but I just find it a total cop-out)

Will Alabanza by any chance reduce the prices as ARIN has withdrawn it's new policy on IP addresses? I'm afraid not, as Alabanza "tactfully" charges for the extra control panels and not for the extra IP addresses, if I remember correctly.
And if Alabanza charges for the extra CP and not IP, will they charge their hosters if they get an extra IP address without a CP?

Wing.

Originally posted by TheWingThing
Will Alabanza by any chance reduce the prices as ARIN has withdrawn it's new policy on IP addresses?
Not likely, since there was never any reason to think that their pricing policy change had anything to do with ARIN's earlier announcement, and that earlier announcement (the statement that virtual hosting wouldn't be considered to be justification for an IP) had no effect on Alabanza's -- or anyone else's -- expenses. Neither does this latest announcement.And if Alabanza charges for the extra CP and not IP, will they charge their hosters if they get an extra IP address without a CP?Again, what's the connection? Might they begin, someday, to charge for IPs? Sure, who can tell what they -- or anyone else -- might do for pricing in the future? But it makes some sense to take Alabanza's own justification for charging for Control Panels at face value: they say it's to pay for the cost of developing enhancements to the CP and Domain System Manager. It has nothing to do with IPs.