From owner-freebsd-isp Wed Feb 19 07:47:33 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id HAA28490 for isp-outgoing; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 07:47:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from nero.in-design.com (root@nero.in-design.com [204.157.146.146]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id HAA28484 for ; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 07:47:29 -0800 (PST) Received: (from archive@localhost) by nero.in-design.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) id KAA21129; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 10:48:19 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 10:48:19 -0500 (EST) From: Archive Service 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: > On Tue, 18 Feb 1997, Ron Bickers wrote: > > > On Mon, 17 Feb 1997, Michael Dillon wrote: > > > > > > Are many ISPs doing this? > > > > > > No. Only a few clueless ones. > > > > 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. > > > > Besides, IP addresses are not scarce. You have to justify your usage of > > > them and cannot waste them but the 3 NIC's all accept virtual webservers > > > as a legitimate use of IP space. > > > > Tell the Internic they aren't scarce and see what they say. > > I have done so and they basically agree. In fact I posted my statements on > a public mailing list where RIPE and APNIC people also read them and > nobody disagreed with me. There is no shortage of IP addresses. There > is certainly a limited number of IP addresses and we certainly do not want > to waste them but virtual domains are a legitimate use for IP addresses. > Waste would be assigning a /24 block for a point-to-point interface or > not using IP subnet zero or giving customers a /24 when they only have > 7 hosts. > > > I will be > > surprised if the Internic doesn't soon consider that you don't need to > > waste addresses to serve multiple domains. > > The Internic does not set these policies. They are set by the global > Internet community and the same policies are administered by RIPE, APNIC > and Internic (soon to be ARIN). RFC2050 is the current set of rules and > discussions about those rules are happening on the PAGAN mailing list. > Send a subscribe message to pagan-request@apnic.net to join or read > the archives at ftp.apnic.net > > > The Internet is moving forward, so should it's users. It won't be long > > before the vast majority of clients and servers use a single IP for > > virtual domains. It also doesn't take much to support both. > > It requires all clients everywhere in the world to upgrade. That's a very > tall order and IMHO will take three years before we can reasonably stop > using unique IP addresses for virtual domains. 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. > > > 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. > Just have to agree, I have used Lynx and macweb in the last week :) Laters.