Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1999 16:13:08 +0100 From: Geoff Buckingham <geoffb@chuggalug.clues.com> To: Nick Hilliard <nick@iol.ie> Cc: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Class C hack instead of ifconfig aliases Message-ID: <19991020161308.A75038@chuggalug.clues.com> In-Reply-To: <199910201002.LAA12741@beckett.earlsfort.iol.ie>; from Nick Hilliard on Wed, Oct 20, 1999 at 11:02:08AM %2B0100 References: <199910201002.LAA12741@beckett.earlsfort.iol.ie>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Oct 20, 1999 at 11:02:08AM +0100, Nick Hilliard wrote: > > What do you mean by "bind a class C"? Make an interface so it will > > respond to incoming requests for 10.1.2.x? ewww, yuck! > > Is it any less elegant than having in_localaddr() trawling through each item > on the address list? Perhaps 1024 items if you've got a large vweb server? > That's also pretty inelegant. > The patch refered to elsewhere comes from Demon Internet where it was (at least in my time) used to two /18s and a /16 without problems, this would have been completely impractical through more conventional means. As I continue to work with large scale virtual hosting set ups I would quite like to see this enter the main source tree, allthough I guess people likely to make use of it are a very small minority. In an effort to avoid what may follow, I fully appreciate HTTP 1.1 vhosting is much more appropriate in many situations, this does not however remove the need for large scale conventional virtual hosting alltogether. -- GeoffB To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19991020161308.A75038>