IP assignment for virtual webhosting
Wed Nov 17 11:26:54 CET 1999
Hi, I agree that every hosting provider should try to convert all it's websites to support namebased webhosting, however... SSL connections do require a seperate IP per website, and I think we will be seeing more and more of those in the near future with the emerging of e-commerce. Also for e.g. virtual FTP hosting (mostly combined with webhosting) you need a seperate IP /site. I'd rather see a very strict policy which basically denies the use of IP addresses for that purpose unless a *very* good explenation as to why is provided to the hostmaster. Just my few cents... On Wed, 17 Nov 1999, Nurani Nimpuno wrote: > OUR SUGGESTION > > The RIPE NCC has followed the deployment of HTTP 1.1 closely over the past > year. According to recent surveys, a vast majority of clients now support > HTTP 1.1 (namebased HTTP requests). It is our belief that the majority of > webserver applications support namebased webhosting as well. > > In recent years we have seen a boom in the registration of second-level > domains. This has led to a great demand for webhosting services. Using one > IP address per domain uses an enormous amount of IP addresses. With HTTP > 1.1 this is no longer necessary. We therefore suggest to promote namebased > webhosting and to change the current policy so that IP addresses can no > longer be assigned for IP-based webhosting. > > Please provide us with any feedback or comments you might have. > > Kind regards, > > Nurani Nimpuno (Registration Services Manager) and > Simon Skals (Hostmaster) > RIPE NCC > > > -- Eric Senior Network & Systems Engineer | http://www.online.be Online Internet nv | email: eric at noc.online.be . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | Tel : +32 (0)9 244.11.11 RIPE Handle: EL357-RIPE | Fax : +32 (0)9 222.64.80 "It is not true that life is one damn thing after another -- it's one damn thing over and over."
[ lir-wg Archive ]