From owner-freebsd-questions Fri Jun 2 12:54:43 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from federation.addy.com (federation.addy.com [208.11.142.20]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A10D37B584 for ; Fri, 2 Jun 2000 12:54:40 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jim@federation.addy.com) Received: from localhost (jim@localhost) by federation.addy.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA02807 for ; Fri, 2 Jun 2000 15:54:39 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from jim@federation.addy.com) Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2000 15:54:39 -0400 (EDT) From: Jim Sander Cc: questions@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: IP vs CNAME In-Reply-To: <20000602213519.H50166@draenor.org> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Asking your question on the ISP list might be a better plan, but... Pre 3.x browsers can't deal with name-based http hosts, and occasionally you may see someone using something that old. If you want to offer anon ftp access for customers, you will have a difficult time without a 1:1/site:ip mapping. (currently name-based FTP access does not really exist) Keeping track of bandwidth for seperate IPs is a cinch, while doing it for name-based hosts can be somewhat more difficult. The additional load of DNS in terms of CPU and bandwidth will be about nil in proportion to your other services. Basically, for low-level hosting services CNAMEs will work fine, but more features require more complexity- including running a "real" DNS record for each name you host. Hope this helps a little. -=Jim=- To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message