policy change: static verification methods
Jan Czmok czmok at ipf.net
Tue Feb 23 23:39:37 CET 1999
Thus spoke Nicolas Jungers: > At 16:44 +0100 23/02/99, Paula Caslav wrote: > >Hello all, > > > >A few weeks ago I send the following proposal to the lir-wg mailing > >list for comments. Since no comments were received, we are assuming > >that nobody has objections to change the policy. We have therefore > >decided to implement it starting immediately. > > > >Kind regards, > > > >Paula Caslav > >RIPE NCC > > > > I agree mostly on the proposal. But please bear in mind that in most > european places, local connection are not free. So another use of > static IP is the setup of MX records on dialup connection that are > down most of the time. > > I understand also your concern to push http 1.1, but you _can't_ sell > the virtual web hosting without a fixed IP. The percentage of non > http 1.1 compliant browser is just too high for a business customer > to accept that is vanity name will not be seen by those. Also mostly customers would like to have the microsoft server as "virtual web hostings" and therefore (unfortunately) an ip address per customer is needed. To put the acceptance of http1.1 in the net is a good idea, but first you need to tell the global players to implement it correctly with all possibilities ( i am talking about microsoft ). I know that apache exists for windows nt and some good ftp servers; but most of the time customers would like to have a "Frontpage Web" like click-and-fun desktops and webs. It's the customer which is driven by microsoft. I dislike Windows NT and like Linux of its stability and flexability (just to tell) Jan > -- > don't send mail to this account! It's a not often checked mail account. > use support at linkline.be instead.
[ lir-wg Archives ]