From owner-freebsd-isp Tue Feb 18 21:18:20 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id VAA03166 for isp-outgoing; Tue, 18 Feb 1997 21:18:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from pinky.junction.net (pinky.junction.net [199.166.227.12]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id VAA03159 for ; Tue, 18 Feb 1997 21:18:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from sidhe.memra.com (sidhe.memra.com [199.166.227.105]) by pinky.junction.net (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id VAA19167 for ; Tue, 18 Feb 1997 21:18:06 -0800 Received: from localhost (michael@localhost) by sidhe.memra.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id VAA13175 for ; Tue, 18 Feb 1997 21:12:54 -0800 Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 21:12:52 -0800 (PST) From: Michael Dillon To: freebsd-isp@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Apache Virtual Servers (single IP) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Organization: Memra Software Inc. - Internet consulting 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, Ron Bickers wrote: > 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. Right now the host header is only useful on an intranet. Eventually it will become useful on the global public Internet but it will take time for everybody to upgrade their browser. At least two years, maybe three. As an ISP who is being paid to deliver access to as close to 100% of the global Internet as possible, you cannot arbitrarily decide to cut off 25% or 10% or even 5% of your customer website's audience. > > 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. The Internic isn't saying this nor is RIPE nor APNIC. If anyone does encounter this from one of the NIC's, tell me about it and I will help you work out the problem which will probably be due to some NIC employee misunderstanding the current policies. Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-250-546-3049 http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael@memra.com