With all this talk of IP Allocation, does anybody know of a time frame for Prodigy/AOL/Compuserve to become HTML 1.1 compliant? We have been trying to conserve IP space wherever possible, but the inability for 6+ million people to see "software virtuals" based on HTML 1.1 has prevented us from transitioning from /32's for each site to one single /32 for thousands. On another note, with the recent release of Bind 4.9.5 which supports IPV6 on the DNS layer, how long are we looking at before it will begin to be implemented on the IP layer? It seems that the NIC is doing whatever they can for the time being, but the only real solution to this problem is to expand the size of the available IP pool. -Pete (sorry if this is off topic) ========================================================================= Peter Davis - Sr. Systems & Network Engineer <pete@tiac.net> The Internet Access Company PO Box 1098 Bedford MA 617-276-7200 Mail info@tiac.net for a list of access-points! =========================================================================
On Tue, 19 Nov 1996, Pete Davis wrote:
With all this talk of IP Allocation, does anybody know of a time frame for Prodigy/AOL/Compuserve to become HTML 1.1 compliant?
We have been trying to conserve IP space wherever possible, but the inability for 6+ million people to see "software virtuals" based on HTML 1.1 has prevented us from transitioning from /32's for each site to one single /32 for thousands.
Selling a virtual website without allocating a unique IP address is fraud and will continue to be fraud for the next few years. Michael Dillon - ISP & Internet Consulting Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-604-546-3049 http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael@memra.com
Selling a virtual website without allocating a unique IP address is fraud and will continue to be fraud for the next few years.
I suspect it is only fraud if you knowingly provide someone with a service that is not going to work the way you said in your sales pitch. The original poster asked what the situation is with those large pseudo-ISPs that either provide their own version of browser software or force people through their own proxies, and if anyone knew when they would be "upgrading" to support the Host: (or whatever) thingy in HTTP 1.1. The question still stands... Pushing these people (by public ridicule if necessary) to move forward and help the Internet as a whole is a very valid function of this list, IMHO. Regards, -- Peter Galbavy peter@wonderland.org @ Home phone://44/973/499465 in Wonderland http://www.wonderland.org/~peter/
Michael Dillon wrote : -> On Tue, 19 Nov 1996, Pete Davis wrote: -> -> > With all this talk of IP Allocation, does anybody know of a time frame -> > for Prodigy/AOL/Compuserve to become HTML 1.1 compliant? -> > -> > We have been trying to conserve IP space wherever possible, but the inab -> ility -> > for 6+ million people to see "software virtuals" based on HTML 1.1 has p -> revented -> > us from transitioning from /32's for each site to one single /32 for tho -> usands. -> -> Selling a virtual website without allocating a unique IP address is fraud -> and will continue to be fraud for the next few years. -> Surely that's only the case if you misrepresent the service you're selling when you market/sell it ? It would be nice to see some stats about the percentage of 1.1 compliant browsers that people are using, such as what percentage of web hits to a reasonable sample of sites are made from "antiquated" browsers ? I imagine that as soon as that figure fell below 1% then the product wouldn't be entirely unmarketable. -> -> Michael Dillon - ISP & Internet Consulting -> Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-604-546-3049 -> http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael@memra.com -> Cheers, Lyndon -- If you give up smoking, drinking and sex you may not actually live longer... ...It may just feel that way. Clement Freud
The use of address to differentiate between multiple web sites on one host was only a hack to get around a gap in the http protocol. This too shall pass. randy
On Wed, 20 Nov 1996, Randy Bush wrote:
The use of address to differentiate between multiple web sites on one host was only a hack to get around a gap in the http protocol. This too shall pass.
Indeed. Additionally, interested parties should also take a look at RFC2002, the SRV DNS RR type, which can help address the HTTP/1.0 virtual domain problem, and has other ramifications as well. -- Michael Handler <handler@netaxs.com>, Net Access, Network Operations out in the sunshine / sun is mine / sun is mine -- soundgarden
Lyndon Levesley wrote:
Michael Dillon wrote : -> On Tue, 19 Nov 1996, Pete Davis wrote: -> -> > With all this talk of IP Allocation, does anybody know of a time frame -> > for Prodigy/AOL/Compuserve to become HTML 1.1 compliant? -> > -> > We have been trying to conserve IP space wherever possible, but the inab -> ility -> > for 6+ million people to see "software virtuals" based on HTML 1.1 has p -> revented -> > us from transitioning from /32's for each site to one single /32 for tho -> usands. -> -> Selling a virtual website without allocating a unique IP address is fraud -> and will continue to be fraud for the next few years. ->
Surely that's only the case if you misrepresent the service you're selling when you market/sell it ?
It would be nice to see some stats about the percentage of 1.1 compliant browsers that people are using, such as what percentage of web hits to a reasonable sample of sites are made from "antiquated" browsers ? I imagine that as soon as that figure fell below 1% then the product wouldn't be entirely unmarketable.
[ ... ] Am I getting confused here myself, or are we talking about HTTP/1.1 rather than HTML 1.1 ? One good reason at the moment for not moving to only providing support for HTTP/1.1 is the lack of support for it in lynx, which many blind people use as a browser, and lack of support for which by ISPs would probably be fairly politically unpopular. I guess in terms of misrepresentation we're talking about the fairly established term "virtual web server" which I would say has been fairly well established in common parlance as being indistinguishable from a real web server, so an HTTP/1.1 only server at the moment could probably be said to not always meet that definition given the above. M -- Martin Cooper Work <mjc@xara.net> | Personal <mjc@cooper.org.uk>
Am I getting confused here myself, or are we talking about HTTP/1.1 rather than HTML 1.1 ?
We are in fact talking about HTTP/1.1. It was a quick brain typo.
One good reason at the moment for not moving to only providing support for HTTP/1.1 is the lack of support for it in lynx, which many blind people use as a browser, and lack of support for which by ISPs would probably be fairly politically unpopular.
Lynx 2.5 and 2.6 appear to be HTTP/1.1 compliant and support the host feature that we are talking about. (Atleast in the testing we have done). -Pete ========================================================================= Peter Davis - Sr. Systems & Network Engineer <pete@tiac.net> The Internet Access Company PO Box 1098 Bedford MA 617-276-7200 Mail info@tiac.net for a list of access-points! =========================================================================
For an example of HTTP/1.1, you can go to http://puck.nether.net/ and http://www.ttgcitn.com/ as examples. They are both on the same machine. There are many virtual hosts there that are done with http/1.1, and only one that is done with an extra IP. - Jared Pete Davis graced my mailbox with this long sought knowledge:
Am I getting confused here myself, or are we talking about HTTP/1.1 rather than HTML 1.1 ?
We are in fact talking about HTTP/1.1. It was a quick brain typo.
One good reason at the moment for not moving to only providing support for HTTP/1.1 is the lack of support for it in lynx, which many blind people use as a browser, and lack of support for which by ISPs would probably be fairly politically unpopular.
Lynx 2.5 and 2.6 appear to be HTTP/1.1 compliant and support the host feature that we are talking about. (Atleast in the testing we have done).
-Pete
========================================================================= Peter Davis - Sr. Systems & Network Engineer <pete@tiac.net> The Internet Access Company PO Box 1098 Bedford MA 617-276-7200 Mail info@tiac.net for a list of access-points! =========================================================================
participants (8)
-
Jared Mauch -
Lyndon.Levesley -
Martin Cooper -
Michael Dillon -
Michael Handler -
Pete Davis -
Peter Galbavy -
randy＠psg.com