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