From owner-freebsd-isp Sun Mar 8 01:02:06 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id BAA02024 for freebsd-isp-outgoing; Sun, 8 Mar 1998 01:02:06 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from luke.cpl.net (luke.cpl.net [209.150.92.68]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id BAA02018 for ; Sun, 8 Mar 1998 01:02:04 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from shawn@luke.cpl.net) Received: from localhost (shawn@localhost) by luke.cpl.net (8.8.8/8.6.12) with SMTP id BAA23985; Sun, 8 Mar 1998 01:01:09 -0800 (PST) Date: Sun, 8 Mar 1998 01:01:09 -0800 (PST) From: Shawn Ramsey To: mikel@cynet.net.au cc: freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: To IP or not to IP WWW servers In-Reply-To: <199803080816.TAA02881@esimene.cynet.net.au> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org > With IP space dwindling what are the lists thoughts on using individual IP > addresses for each Virtual Web Service host as opposed to "overloading" > the single IP address of the VWS server with multiple hostname/domain > names? IRTT how has choosing individual IPs versus single IP/multiple VWS > impacted on your customer base? > > Also, at what point do the practical limits start getting reached with > aliasing IPs onto the VWS server card, or are they sufficiently high that > other issues such as capacity/reliability come into play first? Well.. the only downside to not using one IP per domain, is certain browsers will not work. Now, if you have a web page(s) that can only be read by a certain browser, say you need Netscape 4 or IE4 it probably wouldnt matter much. But we use one IP per domain, even though probably 90% of the browsers are Netscape, with the rest mostly IE. This is the usage we are seeing, that was not a comment on Netscape market share! :) To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-isp" in the body of the message