From owner-freebsd-isp Sun Mar 8 00:16:10 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id AAA26809 for freebsd-isp-outgoing; Sun, 8 Mar 1998 00:16:10 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from esimene.cynet.net.au (root@esimene.cynet.net.au [203.24.16.1]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id AAA26804 for ; Sun, 8 Mar 1998 00:16:07 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from mikel@cynet.net.au) From: mikel@cynet.net.au Received: from WARPY (gateway.tns.com.au [203.24.16.48]) by esimene.cynet.net.au (8.8.8/8.6.12) with SMTP id TAA02881 for ; Sun, 8 Mar 1998 19:16:10 +1100 (EST) Message-Id: <199803080816.TAA02881@esimene.cynet.net.au> Date: Sun, 08 Mar 98 19:14:48 +1000 To: freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: To IP or not to IP WWW servers X-Mailer: MR/2 Internet Cruiser Edition for OS/2 v1.40 Sender: owner-freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org With IP space dwindling what are the lists thoughts on using individual IP addresses for each Virtual Web Service host as opposed to "overloading" the single IP address of the VWS server with multiple hostname/domain names? IRTT how has choosing individual IPs versus single IP/multiple VWS impacted on your customer base? Also, at what point do the practical limits start getting reached with aliasing IPs onto the VWS server card, or are they sufficiently high that other issues such as capacity/reliability come into play first? Regards, Mikel -- ----------------------------------------------------------- Mikel Lindsaar | "The dream is the foundation, mikel@cynet.net.au | of our society!" ----------------------------------------------------------- Cynet! The Business ISP! http://www.cynet.net.au/ ----------------------------------------------------------- To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-isp" in the body of the message