Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 16:01:17 -0800 (PST) From: Michael Dillon <michael@memra.com> To: Ron Bickers <rbickers@intercenter.net> Cc: freebsd-isp@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Apache Virtual Servers (single IP) Message-ID: <Pine.BSI.3.93.970218155238.9256B-100000@sidhe.memra.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.NEB.3.95.970218085341.1218G-100000@bigboy.intercenter.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 18 Feb 1997, Ron Bickers wrote: > On Mon, 17 Feb 1997, Michael Dillon wrote: > > > > Are many ISPs doing this? > > > > No. Only a few clueless ones. > > Just like the clueless ISPs that went to dynamic IP addresses for dialup > customers? There were a lot of complaints about that, but it's pretty > much the norm now. There's nothing clueless about using dynamic IP's for dialup. It makes sense to only use as many IP's as you have interfaces for, i.e. one per modem port. But virtual domains are servers and are a whole different ballgame. You need to have a globally unique IP address in order for the WWW server to be globally visible. Whether or not you run this website on a shared piece of equipment is a separate decision and should not be visible to the world, thus unique IP addresses for each domain. > > Besides, IP addresses are not scarce. You have to justify your usage of > > them and cannot waste them but the 3 NIC's all accept virtual webservers > > as a legitimate use of IP space. > > Tell the Internic they aren't scarce and see what they say. I have done so and they basically agree. In fact I posted my statements on a public mailing list where RIPE and APNIC people also read them and nobody disagreed with me. There is no shortage of IP addresses. There is certainly a limited number of IP addresses and we certainly do not want to waste them but virtual domains are a legitimate use for IP addresses. Waste would be assigning a /24 block for a point-to-point interface or not using IP subnet zero or giving customers a /24 when they only have 7 hosts. > I will be > surprised if the Internic doesn't soon consider that you don't need to > waste addresses to serve multiple domains. The Internic does not set these policies. They are set by the global Internet community and the same policies are administered by RIPE, APNIC and Internic (soon to be ARIN). RFC2050 is the current set of rules and discussions about those rules are happening on the PAGAN mailing list. Send a subscribe message to pagan-request@apnic.net to join or read the archives at ftp.apnic.net > The Internet is moving forward, so should it's users. It won't be long > before the vast majority of clients and servers use a single IP for > virtual domains. It also doesn't take much to support both. It requires all clients everywhere in the world to upgrade. That's a very tall order and IMHO will take three years before we can reasonably stop using unique IP addresses for virtual domains. There is no point breaking things before the world is ready to switch, especially when there is no pressing need to force everyone to switch. > Besides, if > you're still using an old browser, you're going to be missing a lot more > than just a Host: header. I'll let the user make that decision. There are lots of good reasons to be running Lynx or MacWeb or WinWeb. Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-250-546-3049 http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael@memra.com
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSI.3.93.970218155238.9256B-100000>