policy change: static verification methods

On Tue, 23 Feb 1999, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:

> In message <v04104400b2f87a1a893d@[212.35.1.226]>, Nicolas Jungers writes:
> 
> >I understand also your concern to push http 1.1, but you _can't_ sell 
> >the virtual web hosting without a fixed IP. The percentage of non 
> >http 1.1 compliant browser is just too high for a business customer 
> >to accept that is vanity name will not be seen by those.
> 
> I disagree, this is just the same kind of "ancient uptodate
> information" which makes people insist they get a C class worth of
> addresses for their firewall.

Yep!

We are running a large number of webservers per ip-address and we have not
recieved any big complaints about this.. And if someone complains they
normally understand why we do it this way when we explain why.

Dont waste adress-space today that you might need tomorrow!

/Uffe