Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 10:30:57 -0500 (EST) From: Ron Bickers <rbickers@intercenter.net> To: freebsd-isp@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Apache Virtual Servers (single IP) Message-ID: <Pine.NEB.3.95.970219101425.2668C-100000@bigboy.intercenter.net> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSI.3.93.970218210835.10859N-100000@sidhe.memra.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 18 Feb 1997, Michael Dillon wrote: > 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. So why do so many sites use html and other web features that these 25%, 10% or 5% of customers can't view anyway? They may be better off not being able to view a site than viewing it and not know what it is they're looking at. I know, I know....that's not necessarily true, but you see what I'm saying. People are already needing to upgrade to make a large number of sites useful. > > 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. That was *if*. I suppose "*if* there were no more addresses" would have been a better phrase. Course, we'd have bigger problems than virtual websites if that ever happened.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.NEB.3.95.970219101425.2668C-100000>