Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 09:36:21 -0500 (EST) From: Ron Bickers <rbickers@intercenter.net> To: freebsd-isp@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Apache Virtual Servers (single IP) Message-ID: <Pine.NEB.3.95.970218090410.1218H-100000@bigboy.intercenter.net> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSI.3.93.970217204721.27674M-100000@sidhe.memra.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 17 Feb 1997, Michael Dillon wrote: > It's not silly. ISP's have been selling a specific bundle of services > under the name "virtual domain" for almost three years now. This requires > that each virtual domain have a globally unique IP address allocated to > it. Just like dialup use to "require" an IP address per customer. > Some people are suggesting that they can continue to use this name for a > different service in which they do not use a globally unique IP address. > But by doing so, they ensure that a significant percentage of WWW browsers > cannot reach the domain. Since the ISP has no way of knowing the intended > audience for a website they also have no way to predict what percentage of > WWW browsers cannot reach the site. In addition, the search engines that > use webcrawlers will not index these sites. I can only agree with this today, but again, we're moving forward. It sounds like some search engines need to do the same. > countries, it simply does not make any sense for an ISP to offer a virtual > domain without also allocating a globally unique IP address. It's increasingly not making sense to use multiple addresses. > HTTP 1.1 host header support is a neat bit of technology but it > has no place in the ISP business today. Just like audio on demand, video on demand, java, and a whole slew of other neat bits of technology, the use of a single IP for virtual hosting will soon spread like kudzu. Ron
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.NEB.3.95.970218090410.1218H-100000>