From owner-freebsd-isp Tue Feb 18 17:12:08 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id RAA17920 for isp-outgoing; Tue, 18 Feb 1997 17:12:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from horst.bfd.com (horst.bfd.com [204.160.242.10]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id RAA17872 for ; Tue, 18 Feb 1997 17:11:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from harlie (bastion.bfd.com [204.160.242.14]) by horst.bfd.com (8.8.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id RAA19454; Tue, 18 Feb 1997 17:11:12 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 17:11:12 -0800 (PST) From: "Eric J. Schwertfeger" X-Sender: ejs@harlie To: Michael Dillon cc: Ron Bickers , freebsd-isp@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Apache Virtual Servers (single IP) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-isp@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk On Tue, 18 Feb 1997, Michael Dillon wrote: > > 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. We offer two services that don't work at all with the HTTP 1.1 virtual hosts. 1: Virtual FTP 2: Virtual HTTPS The first is never told what server the client actually wanted to connect to, the second needs to know before the client has the chance to tell. I can see a need for the non-IP virtual domains, but there is also a need for the IP based ones, though I can see an ISP charging a little more for one.