On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 6:52 PM, John Mitchell <mitch@illuminati.org> wrote:
Question about what other service/network providers are doing in relation to allocation of addresses for websites.
With IPv6 starting to trickle its way in, what is considered the industry best practise now for IP(v6) addresses bonded to websites. In the past the standard practise was to have a single IPv4 address shared between multiple sites using a name based virtual host directive in Apache/IIS, unless of course the site was SSL in which case it normally needed a IP of its own (unless you had a client who was happy to only support SSL on IE7+ browsers with SNI).
Does the best practise switch to now using one IPv6 per site, or still the same one IPv6 for multi-sites?
Hi John, Given web browser issues with javascript and DNS changes (see DNS pinning) I'm not sure why you wouldn't want to pick a configuration strategy where the IP could follow the site name from server to server. I'm not in the multi-site web server business any more. The stuff I build these days needs a load balancer. If I was I suspect I'd start at routing a /64 to each web server. Then I'd take a long hard look at whether it was a better plan to put all the multiply-addressed servers on a single /64 and let neighbor discovery find the right one for each site, or to implement /64''s per server and put /128 overrides in the adjacent router for sites that move from the original server (because the customer upgraded of course). Then I'd consider whether to route a /112 to each server instead of a /64 and assign a single /64 for the set of web servers. I don't know of any specific problem with routing 2^64 addresses to a single host but I also can't imagine hosting more than 65,000 sites on a single server. So, not a BCP but perhaps some food for thought when choosing your approach. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin ................ herrin@dirtside.com bill@herrin.us 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/> Falls Church, VA 22042-3004