May 2000 - lir-wg - mailman.ripe.net

Re: IP assignment for virtual webhosting
by henning.brauer＠bsmail.de 11 May '00

11 May '00

it's not random. For simple static websites it's about 10-20%. What seems to be not counted is the data sent from the browser to the server, so if you have bigger interactive systems where lots of data ist entered or uploaded by our visitors, the difference is really high. I could do some checks to give you exact data; we did so long ago and decided that there is no good way to do an not-ip-based Accounting. We now have our own Database driven accounting & billing system which would be really complicated if i had to read out all the webserver logs. It would be very cool to have a traffic counter as part of apache (=>module) which stores the traffic on a by-named-host basis. Then Life would be much easier and we would need less IP-Space... (anyone here who has the time and knowledge to write such a module? =;-)))))) ------------------------------------------------ BS Web Services Roedingsmarkt 14 20459 Hamburg Germany info(a)bsmail.de www.bsws.de fon: +49 40 3750357-0 fax: +49 40 3750357-5 PLEASE USE EMAIL WHERE POSSIBLE Dave Wilson <dave.wilson@ To: lir-wg(a)ripe.net heanet.ie> cc: Sent by: Subject: Re: IP assignment for virtual webhosting owner-lir-wg@ ripe.net 11.05.00 12:51 Henning, > (the traffic counted via access logs is << real traffic ) Can you expand on this? Is the difference between counted and real traffic random, or a roughly equal (or proportional) overhead for each server? Is the difference so significant that one cannot take it into account as part of the charging structure? Regards, Dave -- dave.wilson(a)heanet.ie --------------------------------------- +353-1-662-3412 It is one thing to pray; it is another to pray to entities who might not only be listening, but who will search you out on the road and beat you across the head with sticks if you say something that offends them. -- Neil Gaiman ------------------ For crypto key send a blank message to davew+pgp(a)heanet.ie

1 0

RE: IP assignment for virtual webhosting
by Hallgren, Michael 11 May '00

11 May '00

>I have written about accounting, but no one replied! > In a previous life I became familiar with NFR (http://www.nfr.net/), and used it for some accounting tasks (based on other keys than IP addresses). I don't believe I was the only one, but can't remember where I found other people discussing it - if you're interested, I'll dig through my old mail. Then IPv6 :) mh >once again: Hi all, there is one big problem i see: If you charge your customers for traffic, you must count the traffic, and the easiest and most reliable way to do this is on the firewall/router. Thats the way we do and therefore we need one IP per customer. Most customers have more than one site and for that we are using HTTP 1.1 (NameVirtualHosts). As long as there is no Package for apache to count the traffic !reliable! (the traffic counted via access logs is << real traffic ) I do not see a way to put all customers to a couple of IPs. Greetings from Germany Henning Brauer Hostmaster BSWS ------------------------------------------------ BS Web Services Roedingsmarkt 14 20459 Hamburg Germany info(a)bsmail.de www.bsws.de fon: +49 40 3750357-0 fax: +49 40 3750357-5 PLEASE USE EMAIL WHERE POSSIBLE Daniel Roesen <noc@entire-sy To: "lir-wg(a)ripe.net" <lir-wg(a)ripe.net> stems.com> cc: Sent by: Subject: Re: IP assignment for virtual webhosting owner-lir-wg@r ipe.net 11.05.00 12:31 On Thu, May 11, 2000 at 11:41:58AM +0000, Javier Llopis wrote: > There is one issue I'd like to bring up that we constantly run into > and was never brought up in this debate, which somehow amazes me. And another one, not raised (enough): Accounting Best regards, Daniel -- Entire Systems Network Operations Center noc(a)entire-systems.com Entire Systems GmbH - Ferbachstrasse 12 - 56203 Hoehr-Grenzhausen, Germany InterNIC-Handle: ES1238-ORG RIPE-Handle: ESN10-RIPE Tel: +49 2624 9550-55 GnuPG/PGP Key-ID: 0xBF3C40C9 http://www.entire-systems.com/noc/noc-key.asc GnuPG/PGP Fingerprint: 1F3F B675 1A38 D87C EB3C 6090 C6B9 DF48 BF3C 40C9

1 0

WG: Notification: Inbound Mail Failure
by Erhard Werner, ERW 11 May '00

11 May '00

> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > Von: ExchangeAdmins > Gesendet am: Donnerstag, 11. Mai 2000 12:34 > An: ExchangeAdmins > Betreff: Notification: Inbound Mail Failure > > The following recipients did not receive the attached mail. A NDR was not > sent to the originator for the following recipients for one of the > following reasons: > > > * The Delivery Status Notification options did not request failure > notification, or requested no notification. > > * The message was of precedence bulk. > > > > NDR reasons are listed with each recipient, along with the notification > requested for that recipient, > or the precedence. > > <felix.fischer(a)cantrade.ch> felix.fischer(a)cantrade.ch > MSEXCH:IMS:CANTRADE:CAZH:CZEXCHANGE1 0 (000C05A6) Unknown Recipient > Precedence: bulk > > The message that caused this notification was: > > <<Re: IP assignment for virtual webhosting>>

1 0

Re: IP assignment for virtual webhosting
by Javier Llopis 11 May '00

11 May '00

On Thu, 11 May 2000 11:55:25 +0200 (CEST), Nils Jeppe wrote: >Use one big POP3 server for all of your customers, and either use >"standardized" pop-login names (ie, customercorp01, customercorp02, >othercorp 01, othercorp02, etc) and entries in the alias file to point to >them. It even makes sense to point mail.customerdomain.com as a cname to >your mail.provider.whatever so that if there's a change you don't have to >reconfigure all MUA's. Mmmm... A customer having two addresses in two different files/databases: That works but might be a nightmare to update. Javier Llopis BitMailer, S.L. javier(a)bitmailer.com Juan Bravo 51, Dup. 1-Izq Tel: +34 91 402 1551 28006 Madrid Fax: +34 91 402 4115 SPAIN

2 1

RE: We cannot really stop anyone from becoming a LIR... -- RIPE
by Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet 10 May '00

10 May '00

>Certainly the only place I ever see an LIR name used is in the 'X-NCC-RegID' >header, which I'm sure isn't seen by customers. How are similar LIR names >going to confuse the general public when they never see them? ...and even there, the individual tags are qualified by the ISO3166 country codes. I'd be *really* surprised if the NCC would have allocated the same name twice for the *same* country?! -WW _________________________________:_____________________________________ Wilfried Woeber : e-mail: Woeber(a)CC.UniVie.ac.at UniVie Computer Center - ACOnet : Tel: +43 1 4277 - 140 33 Universitaetsstrasse 7 : Fax: +43 1 4277 - 9 140 A-1010 Vienna, Austria, Europe : RIPE-DB: WW144, PGP keyID 0xF0ACB369 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

2 1

RE: IP assignment for virtual webhosting
by Matthew Robinson 10 May '00

10 May '00

But surely www.big-importantco.com would have their own machine and wouldn't share with www.my-little-home-page.org ? We try to apply the rule that you should only have unique addresses for ssl servers that can't do IP-less or some other server protocol that can't support it. Many of our customers grumble at first but soon realise that they can add their own IP-less virtuals without need to involve our admin department. All that's needed is a little DNS and the whole job can be completed in a day! My two pence Cheers Matthew -----Original Message----- From: Robert Kiessling [mailto:Robert.Kiessling@de.easynet.net] Sent: 08 May 2000 17:37 To: Nurani Nimpuno Cc: lir-wg(a)ripe.net Subject: IP assignment for virtual webhosting Nurani Nimpuno writes: > We would > therefore like to request the community to consider making it > mandatory for NEW installations to use domain based web-hosting, with > the exception of a set of agreed applications needing IP based > web-hosting (eg. SSL). So you would require servers like www.siemens.de to share an IP address with www.my-completely-unimportant-personal-site.de if there is no SSL or similar use? I would suggest to make exceptions for heavily used sites, too. Since the vast mayority of webservers does not fall into this category, this is no waste of address space. Robert

4 3

RE: IP assignment for virtual webhosting
by Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet 10 May '00

10 May '00

Dear Nurani! >Subj: IP assignment for virtual webhosting Before making up my mind I'd like to better understand what (in the following parapraph) >We do however wish to raise our concern regarding what we see as an >inefficient usage of addresses in our limited address pool. We would >therefore like to request the community to consider making it >mandatory for NEW installations to use domain based web-hosting, with >the exception of a set of agreed applications needing IP based >web-hosting (eg. SSL). "NEW installations" is in reality? I could come up with a couple of different interpretations, like: - an existing ISP or Web-Hotel can use the old technology, new sites are required to use the new technology, or - replacing or upgrading en existing web server (hardware only? software only? both?) requires the new technology to be deployed, or - .... But probably it's just because I don't know too much about web hosting in the first place... Wilfried. _________________________________:_____________________________________ Wilfried Woeber : e-mail: Woeber(a)CC.UniVie.ac.at UniVie Computer Center - ACOnet : Tel: +43 1 4277 - 140 33 Universitaetsstrasse 7 : Fax: +43 1 4277 - 9 140 A-1010 Vienna, Austria, Europe : RIPE-DB: WW144, PGP keyID 0xF0ACB369 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

3 2

RE: IP assignment for virtual webhosting
by Hallgren, Michael 10 May '00

10 May '00

Robert Kiessling wrote: > Nurani Nimpuno writes: > > We would > > therefore like to request the community to consider making it > > mandatory for NEW installations to use domain based web-hosting, with > > the exception of a set of agreed applications needing IP based > > web-hosting (eg. SSL). > > So you would require servers like www.siemens.de to share an IP > address with www.my-completely-unimportant-personal-site.de if there > is no SSL or similar use? Isn't it a bit unlikely that such a "power-site" would be sitting on a shared server (as avirtual Web) ? mh > > I would suggest to make exceptions for heavily used sites, too. Since > the vast mayority of webservers does not fall into this category, this > is no waste of address space. > > Robert I agree. bh

2 1

ripe-147 syntax checker
by Nurani Nimpuno 09 May '00

09 May '00

Dear all, The RIPE NCC is happy to announce a new web-based tool available to our members for AS number requests. This tool performs format- and syntax checking of AS Number requests as described in document ripe-147: "European Autonomous System Number Application Form and Supporting Notes": http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-147.html The tool can be found at the following URL: http://www.ripe.net/cgi-bin/web147cgi The purpose of AS number request syntax checker is to enable smoother and more accurate processing of AS number requests, minimising lack of information or incorrectly completed ripe-147 forms. Please note that this tool is only for preliminary format- and syntax checking of AS number requests. In order to obtain an AS number, a request needs to be sent to the the RIPE NCC hostmasters at <hostmaster(a)ripe.net>, where it will be processed. We hope our members find this tool useful and we welcome any feedback and comments on this tool. Kind regards, Nurani Nimpuno Registration Services Manager RIPE NCC

1 0

RIPE backlog
by Hank Nussbacher 09 May '00

09 May '00

I submitted an ASN request to hostmaster in April 27 and got back: >Please note that currently our working wait queue is long and you >might have to wait up to a week for an initial response from a hostmaster. >We are sorry for this delay and we are doing our best to bring the response >times back to normal as soon as possible. We are now well past one week. I think the RIPE NCC should at the very least be sending out notices to its customers in the hold queue that they are still backlogged. Are others waiting just as long? -Hank

5 5