Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Tue, 18 Feb 1997 17:11:12 -0800 (PST)
From:      "Eric J. Schwertfeger" <ejs@bfd.com>
To:        Michael Dillon <michael@memra.com>
Cc:        Ron Bickers <rbickers@intercenter.net>, freebsd-isp@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: Apache Virtual Servers (single IP) 
Message-ID:  <Pine.BSF.3.95.970218170829.8975A-100000@harlie>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSI.3.93.970218155238.9256B-100000@sidhe.memra.com>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help


On Tue, 18 Feb 1997, Michael Dillon wrote:

> > 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.

We offer two services that don't work at all with the HTTP 1.1 virtual
hosts.

	1: Virtual FTP
	2: Virtual HTTPS

The first is never told what server the client actually wanted to connect
to, the second needs to know before the client has the chance to tell.

I can see a need for the non-IP virtual domains, but there is also a need
for the IP based ones, though I can see an ISP charging a little more for
one.




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.95.970218170829.8975A-100000>