IP assignment for virtual webhosting

Hi,

I agree that every hosting provider should try to convert all it's
websites to support namebased webhosting, however... SSL connections do
require a seperate IP per website, and I think we will be seeing more and
more of those in the near future with the emerging of e-commerce. Also for
e.g. virtual FTP hosting (mostly combined with webhosting) you need a
seperate IP /site. I'd rather see a very strict policy which basically
denies the use of IP addresses for that purpose unless a *very* good
explenation as to why is provided to the hostmaster.

Just my few cents...


On Wed, 17 Nov 1999, Nurani Nimpuno wrote:


> OUR SUGGESTION
> 
> The RIPE NCC has followed the deployment of HTTP 1.1 closely over the past
> year. According to recent surveys, a vast majority of clients now support
> HTTP 1.1 (namebased HTTP requests). It is our belief that the majority of
> webserver applications support namebased webhosting as well.
> 
> In recent years we have seen a boom in the registration of second-level
> domains. This has led to a great demand for webhosting services. Using one
> IP address per domain uses an enormous amount of IP addresses. With HTTP
> 1.1 this is no longer necessary. We therefore suggest to promote namebased
> webhosting and to change the current policy so that IP addresses can no
> longer be assigned for IP-based webhosting.
> 
> Please provide us with any feedback or comments you might have.
> 
> Kind regards,
> 
> Nurani Nimpuno (Registration Services Manager) and 
> Simon Skals (Hostmaster)
> RIPE NCC
> 
> 
> 

-- Eric 
Senior Network & Systems Engineer             | http://www.online.be
Online Internet nv                            | email: eric at noc.online.be
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | Tel  : +32 (0)9 244.11.11
RIPE Handle: EL357-RIPE                       | Fax  : +32 (0)9 222.64.80

 "It is not true that life is one damn thing after another -- it's one
                    damn thing over and over."