Re: ARIN Policy on IP-based Web Hosting

[Patrick Evans <pre () pre org>]

On Thu, 31 Aug 2000, Steve Sobol wrote:

> It's irrelevant. I wouldn't mind using name-based hosting, but I
> have seen some issues with Apache where it doesn't always serve up
> the correct site.

Never seen that happen, with a bunch of servers each running up to
4000 NameVirtualHosts under Apache 1.3 on Linux.

> I haven't found a good way to do it at all with IIS, since you
> must identify an IIS-hosted site by IP address. (Please, someone
> let me know if there's a way to do name-based hosting with IIS -
> I'd like to do it!)
The only kind of hosting we do here is Host: header based
virtualhosting, and by doing that we manage to cram several thousand
web sites into a handful of IP addresses. I was under the impression
that IPv4 address space was a Good Thing (tm). RIPE have had this same
ruling for quite some time, unless I'm mistaken, and contrary to
popular belief they do still make allocations to people who ask for
them!

I've no idea personally what's required to get IIS to do Host: header
based vhosting, but I can probably get one our NT bods here to come up
with some info if prodded (Steve, drop a mail my way if you still need
to know...)

We also host SSL, and have to use one IP per site for that. A
perfectly reasonable exception. As for monitoring traffic used by web
sites we don't bother using IP-based methods there either - Apache
generates these cunning things called log files which have details of
traffic going via the HTTP daemon. Cunning, huh? ;)

It's been a long time since I've seen so many people get so upset over
what strikes me as an obvious step which others took a long time ago
and has a policy which makes room for worthy exceptions.

I'm producing a run of "We Fear Change" tshirts - if anyone wants one,
let me know off list.

-- 
Patrick Evans - Sysadmin, bran addict and couch potato
pre at pre dot org                     www.pre.org/pre