From owner-freebsd-isp Tue Feb 18 19:24:06 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id TAA26546 for isp-outgoing; Tue, 18 Feb 1997 19:24:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.intercenter.net (mir.intercenter.net [207.211.128.20]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id TAA26503 for ; Tue, 18 Feb 1997 19:23:56 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 26285 invoked from network); 19 Feb 1997 03:23:53 -0000 Received: from ct1-10.intercenter.net (HELO oz.intercenter.net) (207.211.129.43) by mir.intercenter.net with SMTP; 19 Feb 1997 03:23:53 -0000 Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 22:23:21 -0500 (EST) From: Ron Bickers To: 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: > 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. Today that's pretty much true, but it's happening that "globally visible" through the HTTP protocol doesn't *necessitate* a unique IP address. I thought that was the whole point of the Host: header. Maybe there's another use, I don't know. > 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. Probably true. I don't really disagree with your points, however, *if* Internic (or whomever had the power) said you can't have anymore IP addrseses, the world would have no choice but to be ready. Maybe we'll never reach that point and all this Host: header for virtual domains is just a fallback solution. > 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. I guess if the user doesn't want to grow with the industry, that's their choice, yes. I was simply saying, even if they COULD get to these "IP-less" virtual domains, chances are it'd look like garbage. I use Lynx often myself and more often find I can't do what I need to because of other features used on a web site and not supported. That's a whole different issue though.