From owner-freebsd-isp Tue Feb 18 19:31:54 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id TAA27057 for isp-outgoing; Tue, 18 Feb 1997 19:31:54 -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 TAA27052 for ; Tue, 18 Feb 1997 19:31:49 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 26417 invoked from network); 19 Feb 1997 03:31:47 -0000 Received: from ct1-10.intercenter.net (HELO oz.intercenter.net) (207.211.129.43) by mir.intercenter.net with SMTP; 19 Feb 1997 03:31:47 -0000 Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 22:31:15 -0500 (EST) From: Ron Bickers Reply-To: 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 Wed, 19 Feb 1997, Michael Slater wrote: > > > > Just like the clueless ISPs that went to dynamic IP addresses for > What's clueless about ISP's that use dynamic IP's ? Are they > "clueless" because they dont do it the way you do it ? I can tell I need to leave my sarcasm for voice. The point was that when static IP addressing was the norm and ISPs started switching to dynamic, everyone cried bloody murder. I don't know if that's really a decent analogy because, like Michael said, dynamic IP addresses makes technical sense, this "IP-less" virtual hosting really doesn't. If we have to make a technical kludge because of address space, then so be it.