[113941] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Lionel Elie Mamane)
Fri Apr 24 07:02:27 2009
Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2009 13:02:19 +0200
From: Lionel Elie Mamane <lionel@mamane.lu>
To: nanog@nanog.org
Mail-Followup-To: Lionel Elie Mamane <lionel@mamane.lu>, nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <20090422005731.GE4558@hezmatt.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 10:57:31AM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 08:24:38PM -0400, Ricky Beam wrote:
>> On Tue, 21 Apr 2009 18:40:30 -0400, Chris Adams <cmadams@hiwaay.net> wrote:
>>> SSL and FTP are techincal justifications for an IP per site.
>> No they aren't. SSL will work just fine as a name-based virtual
>> host with any modern webserver / browser. (Server Name Indication
>> (SNI) [RFC3546, sec 3.1])
> "I encourage my competitors to do this." You only have to get one
> noisy curmudgeon who can't get to your customer's SSL website
> because IE 5.0 has worked fine for them for years to make it a
> completely losing strategy to try deploying this everywhere. Since
> you can't predict in advance which sites are going to be accessed by
> said noisy curmudgeon, you don't bother deploying it anywhere, to be
> on the safe side.
The switch to "HTTP requests include a hostname" had the same problem,
but still did occur; it may take a few years, but doable. Probably too
late to save IPv4 addresses; though. By then (I really, really, hope)
IPv6 will be mainstream.
--
Lionel
