pro/cons of virtual hosting services

Dear colleagues,

The following questions raises a current problem. Please take note.

  > luc at inbe.net (Luc Dierckx) writes:
  > 
  > 
  > Hello,
  > 
  > Does RIPE have any opinions about the use of multiple IP addresses for
  > virtual hosting services ? (So using  ifconfig ep0 alias, ifconfig ef0:1, 
  > ifconfig vif0 ... not using different physical machines on the same
  > network)
  > 
  > Technically, this is just a waste of IP addresses and pollution of the 
  > naming space just for the 'niceness' of the URL. (http://www.customer.com/
  > instead of http://www.provider.net/customer/ or aliased via 
  > http://www.customer.country/customer/ )
  > 
  > Commercially, it's just another sales argument: 'Yes, we can offer you
  > http://www.company.com/'.
  > 
  > Today INnet do not support the virtual hosting 
  > but commercial pressure is up.  I feel this needs immediate attention.
  > Unless there is really no problem with it.
  > If yes, it should be brought to every one's attention.


We strongly discourage use of IP address space for virtual hosting
services because this represents no technical reason to assign more than
one address to a host.  Therefore it is in conflict with address space
conservation. 

We recommend to use URLs of the form

	http://www.www-provider.com/customer1/
	http://www.www-provider.com/customer2/

or if customers desire www.customer.com:

	http://www.customer1.com/customer1/
	http://www.customer2.com/customer2/

with CNAME RRs for www.customer1.com and www.customer2.com pointing to
the real server. The latter variant provides mobility for the customer
without using extra address space.

If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Regards

Daniel Karrenberg
RIPE NCC Manager